PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC flips the fuck out over man with a gun at town hall



Pages : 1 [2]

Gloomrender
08-15-2009, 06:04
good for you buddy... its good to know you are ready for the revolution, and all those nasty criminals that are out to get you.

do you know how paranoid you sound?

Do you know how naive you sound, given the facts concerning criminality, and history in regards to tyrannical governments?

Gloomrender
08-15-2009, 06:05
What is the basis for your theory/opinion?

Different beliefs/temperaments/tolerances than other Muslim groups in other countries.

Gloomrender
08-15-2009, 06:10
No but i dont see how guns would stop them from being sneaky power grabbing bastards.

Besides a revolution is a war over hearts and minds since a government cant hold power without support from atleast some of the people. You dont need guns to revolt, you dont even need to fight.

Tell that to the 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust. Where the fuck was the magical non-violent revolution that ousted the Nazi's? Or the Soviets? Or the Chinese totalitarian communists who are still technically in power to this day?

ffs, I don't think there is even one historical example of a totally non-violent revolution working against an oppressive regime.

Incanam
08-15-2009, 07:35
Do you know how paranoid you sound, given the facts concerning criminality, and history in regards to tyrannical governments?

fix't

Gloomrender
08-15-2009, 09:10
fix't

So he's paranoid? English fail. /golf clap

+read thread/s, naive moron.

Incanam
08-15-2009, 09:35
So he's paranoid? English fail. /golf clap

+read thread/s, naive moron.

You know, I was thinking the same thing as I wrote that. I was hoping you'd be smart enough to realize it was directed at you, but I guess not.

I love crazy people.

PirateGlen
08-15-2009, 10:21
Wow, you are naive. This law is nothing but broad strokes leaving the regulating to the Secretary of State. Congress delegates it's authority and renders the regulations of the Sec. as legal. Checks and balances completely bypassed.
The law seemed pretty specific to me. At least in this portion, the secretary's options are fairly limited.



So what? The state is still deciding who you have to meet with for counseling.
No. It. Does. Not. This portion of the bill only gives guidelines to professionals you elect to have this meeting with.



And if you don't? Seems to me they are extremely interested in getting everyone into counseling. Why?
Because it's a controversial issue that people don't like to deal with and they should. Doesn't mean they should make is mandatory and they don't.



The terms are not mutually exclusive.
That's nice. Still doesn't mean there's any language that makes these compulsory or specifies who you must do it with.



No, not notarize; sign and make legally binding. Again, where is the patient sig requirement? Or family member? You've successfully evaded the issue here in that there is not proof of concurrence for the part of the patient.
You shouldn't need a family member's signature about what you want. Why would you need to sign an order that specifies your wishes? If the suggestion is that such physicians or other specified person will commit fraud, requiring your signature is but a small step if fraud is their goal.



All you pointed out is that the order signed by the bureaucrat is claimed to represent the patient's wishes.
It's required by law that the order represent's the person's wishes.



No, it's not. Learn2read and understand what is omitted in this bill.
What's omitted is any language that would construct it as mandatory. Something you repeatedly forget.



BTW - the Senate version of the bill has already deleted this part. :)

Because democrats are pussies. End of life counseling is something everyone ought to have early and often in their life. Most people don't like to think about it so they don't handle it. So when you're incapacitated know one knows what you want, and it's left to your family to guess at what you wanted or even worse do what they want regardless of what you may have told them you want.

Spineless_DoO
08-15-2009, 12:27
you are just a dopey fucker , ain't you?

did you watch the entire interview or just a partial clip?

why couldn't the gun guy answer one simple question...when asked why he openly wore a gun carrying the sign with the paraphrased quote he did, directly asked what political statement he was making with the protest...the fucking coward couldn't/didn't answer

rather than openly say he was sending the message that our elected leaders should fear the citizens, he wussed out and hemmed and hawed and said nothing coherent

as for Matthews freaking out, it was the third time he asked the same, simple question and the guy dodged it...simply asked why wear a loaded gun to a presidential function with the history of our presidents...and guns...

no one argued his legal right to wear/carry it, Matthews made a point of that , "you can chew gum in church too...it's legal", etc...

be outraged the gun advocate was inarticulate and i'm with you, but you can't say the guy was not given every chance to explain himself on national Tv with no bullshit, and blew the chance

OP should just have a shotgun lollipop and stfu, imo

You missed the entire point. The man did not and should not have to EVER explain why he is exercising his constitutional rights at any point and time for anyone especialy a shitbag on TV. We are born with these rights. There is no point and time they can be taken away unless we are made to be a slave to another.

Teth
08-15-2009, 12:32
Tell that to the 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust. Where the fuck was the magical non-violent revolution that ousted the Nazi's? Or the Soviets? Or the Chinese totalitarian communists who are still technically in power to this day?

ffs, I don't think there is even one historical example of a totally non-violent revolution working against an oppressive regime.
Actually, the fall of the USSR was an affair surprisingly light on the bloodshed, all things considered. The satellite nations mostly buckled under the pressure of popular appeal, and the centre no longer had the old Khrushchev-grade brutal will to beat them back into line. And I suppose your argument also depends on the definition of the British regime in India.

PirateGlen
08-15-2009, 12:44
You missed the entire point. The man did not and should not have to EVER explain why he is exercising his constitutional rights at any point and time for anyone especialy a shitbag on TV. We are born with these rights. There is no point and time they can be taken away unless we are made to be a slave to another.

I don't see why there's such an uproar about the msnbc people exercising their freedom of speech in questioning him.

Silverhandorder
08-15-2009, 13:33
Actually, the fall of the USSR was an affair surprisingly light on the bloodshed, all things considered. The satellite nations mostly buckled under the pressure of popular appeal, and the centre no longer had the old Khrushchev-grade brutal will to beat them back into line. And I suppose your argument also depends on the definition of the British regime in India.

Well the USSR had a top down revolution and their economic situation gave them no choice. Hardly a push by the people.


I don't see why there's such an uproar about the msnbc people exercising their freedom of speech in questioning him.
I don't see why there is such an uproar about us exercising our right to say that MSNBC are fuckheads.

Fro
08-15-2009, 13:39
Tell that to the 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust. Where the fuck was the magical non-violent revolution that ousted the Nazi's? Or the Soviets? Or the Chinese totalitarian communists who are still technically in power to this day?

ffs, I don't think there is even one historical example of a totally non-violent revolution working against an oppressive regime.

You're missing the point completely. An armed civillian population doesn't prevent totalitarian regemes nor is it necessary to have a violent revolution. Of course there will normaly be a few scuffles but theres not always a full on civil war either.

Paralda
08-15-2009, 13:46
It's legal. End of story. He doesn't have to explain jackshit doc.

Besides. He might wind up being considered an illegal combatant and his ass put in gitmo if he said stuff like that. It is afterall The united states of FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one "has" to do anything, really. But, in judging a man's character, if he wants to be heard, he should speak up.

If not, he's just a little man hiding behind his penis replacement.

PirateGlen
08-15-2009, 14:07
I don't see why there is such an uproar about us exercising our right to say that MSNBC are fuckheads.

Ehhh... That post was an uproar?

Silverhandorder
08-15-2009, 14:33
Ehhh... That post was an uproar?

Is this thread an uproar before liberals come in saying the man has to have a reason to bring a defensive tool with him?

BlysterEB
08-15-2009, 14:38
LOL, I totally missed the gem of a thread until today.

Chris Matthews got WTFPWNED by that guy so hardcore, I love it. Fucking douchebag liberal media. Just beyond stupid.

"The law just allows him to do this???" LOLOL

StainlessSteelRat
08-15-2009, 14:46
The law seemed pretty specific to me. At least in this portion, the secretary's options are fairly limited.

No. It. Does. Not. This portion of the bill only gives guidelines to professionals you elect to have this meeting with.

Because it's a controversial issue that people don't like to deal with and they should. Doesn't mean they should make is mandatory and they don't.

That's nice. Still doesn't mean there's any language that makes these compulsory or specifies who you must do it with.

You shouldn't need a family member's signature about what you want. Why would you need to sign an order that specifies your wishes? If the suggestion is that such physicians or other specified person will commit fraud, requiring your signature is but a small step if fraud is their goal.

It's required by law that the order represent's the person's wishes.

What's omitted is any language that would construct it as mandatory. Something you repeatedly forget.

Because democrats are pussies. End of life counseling is something everyone ought to have early and often in their life. Most people don't like to think about it so they don't handle it. So when you're incapacitated know one knows what you want, and it's left to your family to guess at what you wanted or even worse do what they want regardless of what you may have told them you want.

Condensing:

1- yes, the state decides who can give end of life counseling. re-read, you are flat out wrong here.

2 - again, failing to see the point that without a patient signature, those orders can be completely fake. It's not a question of what those orders end up being when they are the wishes of the patient; it's about ensuring they are the patient's wishes. Right now, nothing prevents fraud.

3 - it's not so controversial and people deal w/ it all the time talking to their families. Where such decisions should be made. Not with some gov't lackey.

StainlessSteelRat
08-15-2009, 16:30
For reference, Pirate:

]i](j) Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.[/i]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically forbid the use of quotas. Your esteemed gov't went ahead and used them anyway backed by the Supreme Court. Neither of those branches has the authority to legislate.

The point being, as soon as this bill is passed, the executive will take control and do what they want with it. This is how they operate. They succeeded when something was specifically forbidden; w/ everything left unsaid in this bill, it will be even easier to impose whatever regulations they wish and we, the people, will have no recourse.

So much is left vague in this bill that it is really nothing more than a delegation of power to legislate from the Congress to the Executive.

Sqarak
08-15-2009, 18:16
If you can't properly speak in a different language, then you shouldn't make an ass of yourself by trying.

Actually people should. The only way to learn a language properly is to actually use it.


LOL, I totally missed the gem of a thread until today.

Chris Matthews got WTFPWNED by that guy so hardcore, I love it. Fucking douchebag liberal media. Just beyond stupid.

"The law just allows him to do this???" LOLOL

Go back to GD peasant!

StainlessSteelRat
08-15-2009, 19:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMJw_afakZI&feature=rec-HM-r2

This is why you don't pass that bill. It leaves all the rule-setting in the hands of the people she is quoting.

Silverhandorder
08-15-2009, 22:03
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUAoeQ-6Q2o

First min and 30 seconds is very relevant to MSNBC apologists.

PirateGlen
08-15-2009, 23:21
Condensing:

1- yes, the state decides who can give end of life counseling. re-read, you are flat out wrong here.
You'll have to specify the part that contradicts my assertion that the people who can give end of life counseling are physicians and other persons specified by the secretary.



2 - again, failing to see the point that without a patient signature, those orders can be completely fake. It's not a question of what those orders end up being when they are the wishes of the patient; it's about ensuring they are the patient's wishes. Right now, nothing prevents fraud.
Right now the main deterrent of fraud in most circumstances is that it's a crime. It's really not too difficult to fake a signature even if it is required. Why would these physicians risk their livelyhood in order to falsify someone's end of life decisions? What's the major difference in them faking your signature and fraudulently placing their signature on an order they know is not of your wishes?



3 - it's not so controversial and people deal w/ it all the time talking to their families. Where such decisions should be made. Not with some gov't lackey.
It's not for you or anyone to decide for them with whom they have to make these decisions with. IF they elect to have this end of life counseling with a physician or other person, that's their choice and this bill simply sets requirements on the physicians of what such details this counseling would include. You cannot keep asserting it is mandatory without showing what part of the bill makes it mandatory.

PirateGlen
08-16-2009, 00:34
For reference, Pirate:

]i](j) Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee subject to this title to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex, or national origin employed by any employer, referred or classified for employment by any employment agency or labor organization, admitted to membership or classified by any labor organization, or admitted to, or employed in, any apprenticeship or other training program, in comparison with the total number or percentage of persons of such race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in any community, State, section, or other area, or in the available work force in any community, State, section, or other area.[/i]

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 specifically forbid the use of quotas. Your esteemed gov't went ahead and used them anyway backed by the Supreme Court. Neither of those branches has the authority to legislate.

The point being, as soon as this bill is passed, the executive will take control and do what they want with it. This is how they operate. They succeeded when something was specifically forbidden; w/ everything left unsaid in this bill, it will be even easier to impose whatever regulations they wish and we, the people, will have no recourse.

So much is left vague in this bill that it is really nothing more than a delegation of power to legislate from the Congress to the Executive.

Which court decision upheld quotas?

StainlessSteelRat
08-16-2009, 00:50
Fullilove v. Klutznick

United States v. Paradise

Gloomrender
08-16-2009, 01:41
Actually, the fall of the USSR was an affair surprisingly light on the bloodshed, all things considered. The satellite nations mostly buckled under the pressure of popular appeal, and the centre no longer had the old Khrushchev-grade brutal will to beat them back into line. And I suppose your argument also depends on the definition of the British regime in India.

Yes, but it wasn't due to a non-violent revolution, was my point. USSR went down for all kinds of other reasons not involving much if any "non-violent civilian revolution".


You're missing the point completely. An armed civillian population doesn't prevent totalitarian regemes

Wrong. At the least it makes it much, much harder, if not impossible, if civilians can and do fight back. The first thing most regimes try to do is disarm the civilian population. They do it for a reason.


nor is it necessary to have a violent revolution.

Oh yeah, I'm sure they're gonna do real well against the cops/gestapo squads/etc that have MG's, with their baseball bats and rocks.



Of course there will normaly be a few scuffles but theres not always a full on civil war either.

What history are you referring to? Because you never answered my fucking question. Your argument has no evidence in history. There has never been a successful non-violent revolution against a tyrannical/totalitarian regime, nor a violent revolution against such a regime which didn't involve arms. If anything the opposite has been true, a violent revolution requires arms and a non-violent revolution doesn't work.

Gloomrender
08-16-2009, 01:44
You know, I was thinking the same thing as I wrote that. I was hoping you'd be smart enough to realize it was directed at you, but I guess not.

You mean you were retarded enough to write it wrong and expect me to interpret it wrong.


I love crazy people.

You've got this backwards. You're the nutcase that fucked up and expected a different outcome. You're the definition of crazy.

PirateGlen
08-16-2009, 03:54
Fullilove v. Klutznick

United States v. Paradise

Neither of those cases are regarding any institution relevant to the section (j) you cited earlier. For refernce:

Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee

I should've been more specific. Which court case imposes quotas in a way that violates section J?

Incanam
08-16-2009, 06:49
You mean you were retarded enough to write it wrong and expect me to interpret it wrong.



You've got this backwards. You're the nutcase that fucked up and expected a different outcome. You're the definition of crazy.

Considering you did interpret it wrong (you did get what I was saying), so yeah. I'm retarded, and you're right there with me.

(Honestly though, it was more laziness than retardation...)


paranoid=crazy which you are.

Gloomrender
08-16-2009, 08:33
Considering you did interpret it wrong

No, I interpreted it right. You wrote it retarded and got caught. You're an idiot. You've failed and lost.

Incanam
08-16-2009, 08:56
No, I interpreted it right. You wrote it retarded and got caught. You're an idiot. You've failed and lost.

What is it about forumfall that makes people think saying something makes it true?


You obviously got that it was directed at you, because if you didn't, you wouldn't have posted correcting me on the fact that my post doesn't seem to be directed at you, even though it is (follow me smarty pants?). There, you interpreted it right (thereby interpreting it wrong), but because you're a douche, you felt like correcting me anyway, and here we are. So...now what?

PirateGlen
08-16-2009, 10:07
No, I interpreted it right. You wrote it retarded and got caught. You're an idiot. You've failed and lost.

How are you "catching" him at something he's not trying to hide? It's obvious he was trying to call you paranoid. Stop acting like you're Sherlock Holmes, declaring victory and superiority for cracking a "mystery".

Gloomrender
08-16-2009, 10:13
How are you "catching" him at something he's not trying to hide?

He is trying to hide the fact that he wrote a "fixt" post that doesn't make any fucking sense.


It's obvious he was trying to call you paranoid

Yeah, in a retarded, flawed, fashion that makes him look like an idiot. Stop being a 'me-too' to a moron that fucked up, cocksucker.


What is it about forumfall that makes people think saying something makes it true?

You're a damn good fucking example, you delusional twit, as you've fucked up for all to see, and think in your stupid little demented head that saying you didn't changes that somehow.



You obviously got that it was directed at you, you wouldn't have posted correcting me on the fact that my post doesn't seem to be directed at you


You were both quoting and responding to my post, you were talking to me and nobody else. Of course it was "directed at me". That doesn't change the fact that It's actual content was totally retarded. Your mock "fixing" of my post, which is a common method of mockery on the internet, was meant via mockery to imply that I was paranoid, while incorrectly written and understandable as readable text as impotently calling someone else paranoid. Thus the intended mockery didn't make any fucking sense, since all the "fix" said was that someone else was paranoid. The mockery is inconsistent with the meaning of the text used to display something meant to be mockable. Only someone that doesn't understand simple language usage and context, a moronic troglodyte teenager like you, would write such an obviously failed attempt at mockery.


There, you interpreted it right (thereby interpreting it wrong)

No, moron, I interpreted it exactly for what it meant, and then I noted that your whole intended "fixt" mockery, which mocks nothing mockable, didn't make any fucking sense the way It's written. You failed to write a mockery post, and got caught being stupid. You're a moron that doesn't know how to use language. You're not cut out for forumfall, so go fail in your high school English class tomorrow, eat more Cheetos, and smoke more pot, you un-clever, idiotic, dumbass loser.

Tibernicus
08-16-2009, 10:33
Well... MSNBC is basically the fox news for liberals.

PirateGlen
08-16-2009, 13:45
He is trying to hide the fact that he wrote a "fixt" post that doesn't make any fucking sense.

Yeah, in a retarded, flawed, fashion that makes him look like an idiot. Stop being a 'me-too' to a moron that fucked up, cocksucker.

If it didn't make "any fucking sense" you wouldn't have understood it. You're contradicting your own argument by having seen and understood what he did. It wasn't really that clever, but hardly the internet faux pas you're trying to make it out to be... like he mentioned some game people used to think would be good.

StainlessSteelRat
08-16-2009, 16:49
Neither of those cases are regarding any institution relevant to the section (j) you cited earlier. For refernce:

Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer, employment agency, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee

I should've been more specific. Which court case imposes quotas in a way that violates section J?

Is it your contention that gov't is not an employer?

Sharuk
08-16-2009, 19:38
Anyone who posts after this is gay

Incanam
08-16-2009, 19:41
Oi, I can't believe you're making such a big deal about this.


He is trying to hide the fact that he wrote a "fixt" post that doesn't make any fucking sense.

No, I pretty much stated already, that I stated it in the wrong manner. A much better way would have been to not include the quotes. But that's not really the issue.




Yeah, in a retarded, flawed, fashion that makes him look like an idiot. Stop being a 'me-too' to a moron that fucked up, cocksucker.
No U!



You're a damn good fucking example, you delusional twit, as you've fucked up for all to see, and think in your stupid little demented head that saying you didn't changes that somehow.

Considering you're hearing the opposite of what I'm saying (OH WAIT!!! IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY TALK AND HEAR ON THE INTERNET. I'M A DELUSIONAL TWIT WITH A DEMENTED HEAD BECAUSE I DIDN'T WRITE "Considering you're seeing the opposite of what I'm typing"-yeah, you're argument is basically that stupid), I should go on to call (type at) you a genius. Then you should not understand what I am saying.





You were both quoting and responding to my post, you were talking to me and nobody else. Of course it was "directed at me". That doesn't change the fact that It's actual content was totally retarded. Your mock "fixing" of my post, which is a common method of mockery on the internet, was meant via mockery to imply that I was paranoid, while incorrectly written and understandable as readable text as impotently calling someone else paranoid. Thus the intended mockery didn't make any fucking sense, since all the "fix" said was that someone else was paranoid. The mockery is inconsistent with the meaning of the text used to display something meant to be mockable. Only someone that doesn't understand simple language usage and context, a moronic troglodyte teenager like you, would write such an obviously failed attempt at mockery.
The thing is, you know the internet. So the whole BS if somebody read it out of context argument is idiotic, because it was in context, and you did get my meaning. All you're doing now is being a douche. A grammar-nazi if you will.

Then we continue to the ad hominem (yeah, this moronic troglodyte teenage understands words) which basically proves you don't know how to argue.




No, moron, I interpreted it exactly for what it meant, and then I noted that your whole intended "fixt" mockery, which mocks nothing mockable, didn't make any fucking sense the way It's written. You failed to write a mockery post, and got caught being stupid. You're a moron that doesn't know how to use language. You're not cut out for forumfall, so go fail in your high school English class tomorrow, eat more Cheetos, and smoke more pot, you un-clever, idiotic, dumbass loser.
If it didn't make sense, you wouldn't have interpreted it correctly. The object of language is to get meaning across. I did that successfully. i cud tlk lyke thiz n it wudnt mttr bcuz u wud undrstnd me.

This is the internet, not some formal essay class (which, tbh wouldn't have quotes so this whole issue wouldn't have come about). The best response on the internet to when you have no argument, is to criticize intelligence, based on the way one types, which is fallacious because no one proof reads or cares at all when typing on the internet (unless it is some important debate site...which forumfall sure as hell ain't). You have used that ploy quite succesfully, I must say. It still doesn't hide the fact that you are stupefied, bewildered, quivering slightly, and terrified behind your little computer screen.


Damn it Sharuk, now I'm gay.

PirateGlen
08-16-2009, 20:53
Is it your contention that gov't is not an employer?

No. It is my contention that neither government or any other employer were required to impose quotas based on that law. In the first example congress elected to impose a flexible percentage of funds in an effort to overcome prior discrimination.

The second example was a court order to overcome 40 years of systemic discrimination and to prevent ongoing discrimination in hiring and promoting practices.

StainlessSteelRat
08-16-2009, 23:55
No. It is my contention that neither government or any other employer were required to impose quotas based on that law. In the first example congress elected to impose a flexible percentage of funds in an effort to overcome prior discrimination.

The second example was a court order to overcome 40 years of systemic discrimination and to prevent ongoing discrimination in hiring and promoting practices.

They imposed quotas in spite of that law. Of course it wasn't 'based on' since that law specifically forbid quotas.

The court doesn't get to make laws.

Thanks for proving my point however.

PirateGlen
08-17-2009, 07:18
They imposed quotas in spite of that law. Of course it wasn't 'based on' since that law specifically forbid quotas.

The court doesn't get to make laws.

Thanks for proving my point however.

Which part of the law specifically forbids quotas? And the court doesn't get to make laws, they can make orders, though.

Vessol
08-17-2009, 21:32
Anyone who posts after this is gay

call me a faggot and slap a dick in my ass then

HiroProtagonist
08-18-2009, 00:16
call me a faggot and slap a dick in my ass then

Why do I have the sneaky suspicion that this quote may come back to haunt you in your forumfall endeavors?

Silverhandorder
08-18-2009, 00:39
Why do I have the sneaky suspicion that this quote may come back to haunt you in your forumfall endeavors?

Oh it will... It will.

Silverhandorder
08-18-2009, 01:43
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/local/demonstrators_carry_guns_at_obama_protes t_08_17_2009

StainlessSteelRat
08-18-2009, 17:52
Which part of the law specifically forbids quotas? And the court doesn't get to make laws, they can make orders, though.

First case upheld 15% quotas on gov't contracts.

Second case imposed quotas on police hiring/promotions.

The part I quoted specifically forbids quotas.

Fro
08-18-2009, 17:53
call me a faggot and slap a dick in my ass then

Only if you say please.

StainlessSteelRat
08-18-2009, 20:40
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

Doh!

enemy of Ra
08-18-2009, 21:11
its not like republican trash are smart.

i love guns and i'm progressive liberal, you can't expect some hillbilly to make a coherent argument on national tv, too many shiny objects ofc...

The Critic
08-18-2009, 21:16
Doc - Basically you're hating on the gun dude because he fails to articulate his case or sway you with rhetoric through a media medium?

After reading your posts in this thread, I can tell you the irony is staring you in the face. "HELLO HOW ARE YOU?"

Incanam
08-19-2009, 01:55
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

Doh!

Hey, remember the story that was run about how if Stephen Hawking was British, he'd be dead dude to National Healthcare?


Then, remember when Stephen Hawking said he WAS British, and without the NHS, he wouldn't be alive today?

Yeah, that was funny.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html

Yeah, I know liberal bias website...click two links and you'll see the original editorial.


My point...look at the overall picture. Stop looking at simple stories.

PirateGlen
08-19-2009, 02:58
First case upheld 15% quotas on gov't contracts.

Second case imposed quotas on police hiring/promotions.

The part I quoted specifically forbids quotas.

Where does it forbid quotas? What you showed me (section j) said the law does not impose quotas.

Silverhandorder
08-19-2009, 03:07
Hey, remember the story that was run about how if Stephen Hawking was British, he'd be dead dude to National Healthcare?


Then, remember when Stephen Hawking said he WAS British, and without the NHS, he wouldn't be alive today?

Yeah, that was funny.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html

Yeah, I know liberal bias website...click two links and you'll see the original editorial.


My point...look at the overall picture. Stop looking at simple stories.

LOL famous people are less likely to die on both systems. In a free market one they will have fans who would have to pay a lot less then they would not for the life saving treatment.

In your POS system they have connections to get the best treatment ever. And the high profile ones also get taken care of before there is a stink.

Still thousands will die in Vancouver because government does not care about people.

Gloomrender
08-19-2009, 03:32
If it didn't make "any fucking sense" you wouldn't have understood it.

The only way to understand it is to temporarily suspend your understanding of the English language. Just because by doing that you can find a message doesn't mean it "makes sense" the way It's written. Cocksucker.



Considering you're hearing the opposite of what I'm saying (OH WAIT!!! IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOU DON'T ACTUALLY TALK AND HEAR ON THE INTERNET.



This is the internet, not some formal essay class (which, tbh wouldn't have quotes so this whole issue wouldn't have come about).


The thing is, you know the internet. So the whole BS if somebody read it out of context argument is idiotic

This is perhaps the dumbest argument I've ever read on this forum. Just because were typing on the internet doesn't mean you're not retarded for making an idiotically written post; that you even now admit you fucked up on.




If it didn't make sense, you wouldn't have interpreted it correctly. The object of language is to get meaning across. I did that successfully.

There was no way to "interpret it correctly". The only way to derive your intended message was to ignore the meaning of the text, and interpret the words both out of context and misdirected. The "fix" made absolutely no sense. You could have done a better job just quoting the word "paranoid", but even then it wouldn't have made sense as a "fix". It was totally fucking stupid in every way.



The best response on the internet to when you have no argument,

You couldn't be much more of a hypocrite with this shit. You're the one who has no argument in this thread. All you could do was utterly fail at trying to imply that I was paranoid. You never counter-argued, or criticized my viewpoints. All you could do was make a garbled, worthless post, you dumbass. Fail more.

Incanam
08-19-2009, 04:39
LOL famous people are less likely to die on both systems. In a free market one they will have fans who would have to pay a lot less then they would not for the life saving treatment.

In your POS system they have connections to get the best treatment ever. And the high profile ones also get taken care of before there is a stink.

Still thousands will die in Vancouver because government does not care about people.

This was when he first got diagnosed with (polio is it?). Before he was a professor/genius/famous. And the government does care, hence them trying to correct the problem. You forget, the government is just a fancy name for (a group of people). Considering government is composed of the same group of people the problem affects, it does care.



And Gloomrender, as fun and important and useful arguing freakin' semantics is...I lost interest a while ago. You win. Congratulations. Wanna cookie?


I will mention one thing. You claim I never counter-argued etc. You forget I responded to you calling someone naieve. The best counter argument to a non-argument of name calling, is name calling. You said he was naieve, without any surpport, so the only thing I could really say (yes, I did say it, and yes you did understand it...the rest is irrelavent...much like what the stupid protestors are doing at the town hall meetings) was that you're paranoid. If anyone is a hypocrite, it is certainly you.


Edit: There are many typing/spelling errors in this post. I could correct them, but I think it'd be funnier to watch you criticize me for them. Proceed.

PirateGlen
08-19-2009, 06:30
The only way to understand it is to temporarily suspend your understanding of the English language. Just because by doing that you can find a message doesn't mean it "makes sense" the way It's written. Cocksucker.


So you're saying he's like a poet?

Sqarak
08-19-2009, 11:16
Wrong. At the least it makes it much, much harder, if not impossible, if civilians can and do fight back. The first thing most regimes try to do is disarm the civilian population. They do it for a reason.



I think that a regime nowadays would rather angle for the approval of the citizens and bombard them with unseen treats that the mighty government will protect them from.
Back in 1800 it was also more likely that the state had the same weapons as citizens, now the state can blow you up from a 100 miles. A gun will do little in that case.
The only way a modern revolution can succeed is when the revolutionaries get the support of the military, if they don't they'll get bombed shitless before they even can take a potshot.


Governments also have control in far more different ways than just "force". So while guns may make a government weary of using armed oppression, people who want to protect their freedom should also realise that a government does not only need to use weapons to keep us in control. There are far more benign but devious ways to achieve the same.
They can use economy, media, psychology and politics just the same.

So if you want your gun to be useful during a "revolution", then you better become weary of the bs they feed you on a daily basis. You should also train yourself in discovering when you are being manipulated to take a certain stance.

Tenebrion
08-19-2009, 11:22
Guns don't kill people. Beliefs do.

jonyak
08-19-2009, 12:40
Still thousands will die in Vancouver because government does not care about people.

wow, I'd like to see you back up this bullshit.

Silverhandorder
08-19-2009, 14:20
wow, I'd like to see you back up this bullshit.

It was linked right in this thread...

PirateGlen
08-19-2009, 16:02
It was linked right in this thread...

It was this.

http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=1878506&sponsor

Doh!

Of course nothing in the article states that thousands (if any) will die because of the cuts.

Silverhandorder
08-19-2009, 16:39
There is already people dying waiting in line. Thousands of life saving surgeries cut is going to aggravate it.

StainlessSteelRat
08-19-2009, 20:29
Where does it forbid quotas? What you showed me (section j) said the law does not impose quotas.

Quotas are discrimination. All discrimination is against the law. (Granted, this may not have been properly enforced but that is another issue.)

So, we pass the Civil Rights Act to make it abundantly clear and Congress stipulates that no quotas are authorized by this act.

Subsequently, discrimination is still against the law. Yet the Supreme Court upheld quotas in the two cases I cited.

So, the legislation was used to justify quotas in the name of affirmative action when quotas were specifically cited as NOT being authorized by this law. Neither the Executive nor the Judicial create law constitutionally yet both did using this law as justification.

Health care, which is quite vague on certain issues, will be no different is my point. We will lose the built in checks and balances in our system which obviously don't even work as intended when the SC decides they are going to ignore existing law and create fake social justice.

You keep looking for quotas being forbidden in the Act, possibly my wrong choice of words. "J" exists to make it 100% clear that the Act in no way authorizes or legalizes the use of quotas.

StainlessSteelRat
08-19-2009, 20:32
Hey, remember the story that was run about how if Stephen Hawking was British, he'd be dead dude to National Healthcare?

Then, remember when Stephen Hawking said he WAS British, and without the NHS, he wouldn't be alive today?

Yeah, that was funny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html

Yeah, I know liberal bias website...click two links and you'll see the original editorial.

My point...look at the overall picture. Stop looking at simple stories.

I don't understand your point. The information in the article I linked was confirmed by the source.

My point: read the article before jumping to conclusions based on some story about Hawking which has nothing to do w/ my link/post. ;)

Incanam
08-19-2009, 20:47
I don't understand your point. The information in the article I linked was confirmed by the source.

My point: read the article before jumping to conclusions based on some story about Hawking which has nothing to do w/ my link/post. ;)

I'm not saying your source lies...


I'm saying, it was stupid of you to link that. You brought in one random anecdote as a denouncement of public healthcare. To show you how ridiculous that is, I also brought in one random anecdote in favor of public healthcare.

My article doesn't support anything. And if you understood logic, that means yours doesn't either.


Bascially, all I've said is: we're arguing ideals. This is a hopeless argument. Logic is futile, and the only way for either side to win is to convince the brainless masses using pathos and ethos (which the republicans are doing quite well, not that I'm defending Democrats...but at least they are sputing some actual facts)


Pessimistic view? Yeah. Truth? Probably.

StainlessSteelRat
08-19-2009, 22:05
I'm not saying your source lies...

I'm saying, it was stupid of you to link that. You brought in one random anecdote as a denouncement of public healthcare. To show you how ridiculous that is, I also brought in one random anecdote in favor of public healthcare.

My article doesn't support anything. And if you understood logic, that means yours doesn't either.

Bascially, all I've said is: we're arguing ideals. This is a hopeless argument. Logic is futile, and the only way for either side to win is to convince the brainless masses using pathos and ethos (which the republicans are doing quite well, not that I'm defending Democrats...but at least they are sputing some actual facts)

Pessimistic view? Yeah. Truth? Probably.

I don't think a little insight into the workings of the public system in Canada is 'anecdotal' evidence. First, I didn't use it to actually support any opinion. Second, it does demonstrate when can occur, what some of US fear, and what the Dems claim to be impossible.

Facts? lol The Dem's 'facts' aren't any better than the Rep's.

I bet you think the one about Medicare admin costs, at 6% of payouts, being less than private insurance companies' is a 'fact'.

PirateGlen
08-20-2009, 01:23
There is already people dying waiting in line. Thousands of life saving surgeries cut is going to aggravate it.

Some people die while waiting in line in US emergency rooms. It may be true that people die while waiting in line for care in Canada, too. The issue is the article you're referencing for thousands dying does not support that. You're making an assumption that any of those people (those who will have their surgery delayed) will die.


Quotas are discrimination. All discrimination is against the law. (Granted, this may not have been properly enforced but that is another issue.)

So, we pass the Civil Rights Act to make it abundantly clear and Congress stipulates that no quotas are authorized by this act.
I think you need to re-read the act, and the case opinions you cited. The act does not specifically forbid quotas. It says the act will not be contrued to mean quotas are required.


Subsequently, discrimination is still against the law. Yet the Supreme Court upheld quotas in the two cases I cited.
Again, read the case opinions. The first case does not require strict quotas. The flexible quotas were in place to help minority businesses compete against other businesses that had received past preferential treatment in hiring.

The second case it was a reaction against decades of systemic discrimination.



So, the legislation was used to justify quotas in the name of affirmative action when quotas were specifically cited as NOT being authorized by this law. Neither the Executive nor the Judicial create law constitutionally yet both did using this law as justification.
The first case congress's spending power is cited as their support for the act. The second case it's the 14th amendment, not the civil rights act, for support of their court opinion.



Health care, which is quite vague on certain issues, will be no different is my point. We will lose the built in checks and balances in our system which obviously don't even work as intended when the SC decides they are going to ignore existing law and create fake social justice.

You keep looking for quotas being forbidden in the Act, possibly my wrong choice of words. "J" exists to make it 100% clear that the Act in no way authorizes or legalizes the use of quotas.

You really need to reread section J. You're wrong in your reading of it. Section J says, this law does not require quotas. It does not forbid them.

In either case your main point seems to be that we can't make laws because the system will not follow the law. If that's truly the case, what's the point? Making or failing to make any law becomes irrelevant if the system is so hopelessly useless.

StainlessSteelRat
08-20-2009, 01:40
I think you need to re-read the act, and the case opinions you cited. The act does not specifically forbid quotas. It says the act will not be contrued to mean quotas are required.

Re-read my post.


Again, read the case opinions. The first case does not require strict quotas. The flexible quotas were in place to help minority businesses compete against other businesses that had received past preferential treatment in hiring.

The second case it was a reaction against decades of systemic discrimination.

The first case congress's spending power is cited as their support for the act. The second case it's the 14th amendment, not the civil rights act, for support of their court opinion.

The opinions and justifications don't matter, the Judicial can not create law. Quotas were established and enforced in spite of the Civil Rights Act specifically forbidding them. "J" is only an added amendment to make it clear that (even though discrimination of any kind is strictly forbidden) some value can be had from AA but quotas are not the means of adding that value.


You really need to reread section J. You're wrong in your reading of it. Section J says, this law does not require quotas. It does not forbid them.

It says, "this law does not in any way shape or form enact quotas". If you need me to cite the parts of the Act where it prohibits hiring practices based on race...........


In either case your main point seems to be that we can't make laws because the system will not follow the law. If that's truly the case, what's the point? Making or failing to make any law becomes irrelevant if the system is so hopelessly useless.

No, my main point is Congress needs to pass legislation that is crystal clear to not leave room for the Judicial to play God and that does not delegate its authority to the Executive. Both of which bypass our system of checks and balances.

PirateGlen
08-20-2009, 02:13
The opinions and justifications don't matter, the Judicial can not create law. Quotas were established and enforced in spite of the Civil Rights Act specifically forbidding them. "J" is only an added amendment to make it clear that (even though discrimination of any kind is strictly forbidden) some value can be had from AA but quotas are not the means of adding that value.
In case 1, congress enacted law by passing a spending bill.

Actually the judiciary creates law all the time, and it is not outside the realm of their power to do so. Legistlators, however, may enact new laws if the judiciary has incorrectly applied the law.



It says, "this law does not in any way shape or form enact quotas". If you need me to cite the parts of the Act where it prohibits hiring practices based on race...........
Yes, that's nice but you'd shown me new laws (spending bill) and a court order as your examples.




No, my main point is Congress needs to pass legislation that is crystal clear to not leave room for the Judicial to play God and that does not delegate its authority to the Executive. Both of which bypass our system of checks and balances.

It's crystal clear to me. I don't think a bill should be changed each time someone makes up fictional possibilities in the bill, or interpret force in laws where there are no words that mean force.

StainlessSteelRat
08-20-2009, 03:43
In case 1, congress enacted law by passing a spending bill.

I thought it was an executive order so I'll mea culpa that. It's still illegal. Hiring contractors is hiring no matter if it's via a spending bill or other such garbage.


Actually the judiciary creates law all the time, and it is not outside the realm of their power to do so. Legistlators, however, may enact new laws if the judiciary has incorrectly applied the law.

No it doesn't. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/judicial_branch/

"the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied."

"Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases."


Yes, that's nice but you'd shown me new laws (spending bill) and a court order as your examples.

Effectively, telling a hiring body to hire based on race is creating law contrary to existing law. They are legally bound to obey. Legislation by Congress, Executive Order, Court Order... it's all legally binding directives: i.e. law as far as my use of the term goes.


It's crystal clear to me. I don't think a bill should be changed each time someone makes up fictional possibilities in the bill, or interpret force in laws where there are no words that mean force.

How are they fictional possibilities? The quota thing happened; that's the whole point. It's not fictional if they've done it. And nothing gives me any assurance they won't do it again. Social Security act is another example.

How do you think the gov't is going to cut spending on health care? Just b/c the bill doesn't mandate them outright doesn't mean the Secretary won't find a way to make them procedurally mandatory. "Oh, I'm sorry; if you had had your counseling 3 years ago we would have been able to do "x" but now, b/c you failed to inform yourself of the necessary options we will not do "y" at this point, it's way to expensive." Sorry, but I don't see that as something 'fictional' or 'off the wall'.

Look at the link I posted about Vancouver. Bureaucrats will do this kind of shit.

PirateGlen
08-20-2009, 04:30
I thought it was an executive order so I'll mea culpa that. It's still illegal. Hiring contractors is hiring no matter if it's via a spending bill or other such garbage.
A law cannot be illegal, it can only be unconstitutional. A law by definition is legal.



No it doesn't. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/our_government/judicial_branch/

"the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied."

"Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases."

We have a common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) judicial system. Case law is law "created" by the judiciary. The whitehouse website can say whatever it wants. The judiciary also makes law.



Effectively, telling a hiring body to hire based on race is creating law contrary to existing law. They are legally bound to obey. Legislation by Congress, Executive Order, Court Order... it's all legally binding directives: i.e. law as far as my use of the term goes.

For any law that contradicts a previous law, the latest law is the one that is binding except where there is a constitutional contradiction.


How are they fictional possibilities? The quota thing happened; that's the whole point. It's not fictional if they've done it. And nothing gives me any assurance they won't do it again. Social Security act is another example.

How do you think the gov't is going to cut spending on health care? Just b/c the bill doesn't mandate them outright doesn't mean the Secretary won't find a way to make them procedurally mandatory. "Oh, I'm sorry; if you had had your counseling 3 years ago we would have been able to do "x" but now, b/c you failed to inform yourself of the necessary options we will not do "y" at this point, it's way to expensive." Sorry, but I don't see that as something 'fictional' or 'off the wall'.
The quota thing was new law, or a reaction to breaking a law. When a law is being proposed to make end of life counseling mandatory, then you can complain about it. Untill then, the general complaint of "beuracracy" is the argument for those who have no real argument.

I read this a long time ago and it tends to be true. When proposed's legislation's only argument is "beuracracy" then there's likely no better argument. The problem here, is there are better arguments, like the issue of cost. But instead the arguments are about fictional mandatory death panels.



Look at the link I posted about Vancouver. Bureaucrats will do this kind of shit.
Canada's healthcare plan is not what's be proposed here.

Incanam
08-20-2009, 06:24
I don't think a little insight into the workings of the public system in Canada is 'anecdotal' evidence. First, I didn't use it to actually support any opinion. Second, it does demonstrate when can occur, what some of US fear, and what the Dems claim to be impossible.

Facts? lol The Dem's 'facts' aren't any better than the Rep's.

I bet you think the one about Medicare admin costs, at 6% of payouts, being less than private insurance companies' is a 'fact'.
By Facts...I meant about the bill. i.e. The Death Panels BS.

As for Canada...you certainly used it to add weight to your opinion. Just because it wasn't in that specific post doesn't mean you didn't use it to support your on viewpoint (which we can see throughout the rest of the thread).

Sure that can occur. But it is an instance of weakness. No system is perfect. My dad had a wrist drop a few months back. It took him 6 weeks to see a neurologist...We have lines in America, too. And that's after we overpay our insurance. I took half a year to find a dentist near me who was compatible with our insurance, and I had to wait with 2 cavities for that time.

Same thing, you can tell stories on both sides of the page. It doesn't mean anything. My family in Canada has not once complained about healthcare. My grandma from India goes there, not here in the US to get medical treatment because it's cheaper.

Yet for some reason, you think posting a story of one failure in the Canadian system makes it inherently flawed.


As I've just shown...both sides can use that tactic...and it doesn't matter one bit. /end pessimism

Incanam
08-20-2009, 06:26
Oh, and since this was originally about guns.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-18-2009/the-gun-show---barrel-fever

Some humor (and good satire).

Apex Vertigo
08-20-2009, 11:09
So I'd like to hear someone defend the need to carry a loaded automatic assault rifle into a crowded area, publicly. Why should this be legal? I see why we should be allowed to keep guns in our homes, protection and the 2nd amendment and all of that, but what is the point of having weapons for the sole purpose of murdering multiple people at a time in public? That isn't self defense and it could easily cause much more harm then good, even if that means just causing panic. I'm all for owning guns in your home in the case of a break-in or to protect yourself from your government if needed but it seems to me that this is a right given to us without knowing to what extent it would reach. The founding fathers did not know we would have fully automatic rifles with the power to kill hundreds in minutes and this isn't the old west.

If you feel you need it for protection out in public, perhaps I can see the reasoning behind a concealed hand-gun, but an exposed AR 15, fully loaded, is completely absurd and there is no reason other then paranoia to own and flex this right.

As for the guy who brought the loaded pistol with the "Water the tree of Liberty" sign, how is that not in-sighting violence? That message is fairly cut and dry and its meaning is quite obvious. Especially since the issue had not been about Gun control.

I also wonder, and this is just the paranoid side of myself talking, if these people were put in these rallies specifically to distract people from the issue of Health Care or to give one of the parties a way to talk about gun control and to bring it up to the table next. It certainly got me thinking, I personally haven't ever given much thought to the gun control issue before and have been for the last few days trying to form my own opinion on the subject.

Ziegler
08-20-2009, 13:23
So I'd like to hear someone defend the need to carry a loaded automatic assault rifle into a crowded area, publicly. Why should this be legal?

I'll stop you right there....for 99% of the population...IT IS FUCKING ILLEGAL DUMBASS. You cant own a fully automatic weapon without a class3 firearms license. Not since...oh..19 thirty fucking four.

I see why we should be allowed to keep guns in our homes, protection and the 2nd amendment and all of that, but what is the point of having weapons for the sole purpose of murdering multiple people at a time in public?
You obviously dont know a damned thing about why the 2nd amendment exists.
It's SOLE PURPOSE..is to provide the citizenry a way to arms themselves and kill the government. It has nothing to do with self protection, hunting, or gay sex.


That isn't self defense and it could easily cause much more harm then good, even if that means just causing panic. I'm all for owning guns in your home in the case of a break-in or to protect yourself from your government if needed but it seems to me that this is a right given to us without knowing to what extent it would reach. The founding fathers did not know we would have fully automatic rifles with the power to kill hundreds in minutes and this isn't the old west.
There were cannons...they didnt say...arms except for cannons....
They said arms..armnaments.
Their intention is that anything the government can own militarily, should be owned by the people as well. (remember that most of the arms from the revolution..were provided by the people and their money, not the government)...so..again..you're wrong.



If you feel you need it for protection out in public, perhaps I can see the reasoning behind a concealed hand-gun, but an exposed AR 15, fully loaded, is completely absurd and there is no reason other then paranoia to own and flex this right.
AR 15 is a semi-automatic...so is my 9mm Ruger, so is my .22 caliber pistol so are all of my guns, except the bolt action and black powder ones.
Learn about guns before you get so excited about them.



As for the guy who brought the loaded pistol with the "Water the tree of Liberty" sign, how is that not in-sighting violence? That message is fairly cut and dry and its meaning is quite obvious. Especially since the issue had not been about Gun control.

The 2nd amendment isnt about raising up against the government when they get around to taking your guns. there is plenty of reason to rise up prior to that...stay tuned.


I also wonder, and this is just the paranoid side of myself talking, if these people were put in these rallies specifically to distract people from the issue of Health Care or to give one of the parties a way to talk about gun control and to bring it up to the table next. It certainly got me thinking, I personally haven't ever given much thought to the gun control issue before and have been for the last few days trying to form my own opinion on the subject.

No...there wasnt a big ruckus raised about it. The Dems have complete control of the government, they can do anything they want and dont have to discuss it, as some congressmen are proving. Dont worry though, I am sure we'll see them try to outlaw scary looking guns again. But they'll still let me purchase my 30.06 with a 5oo yard scope.

StainlessSteelRat
08-20-2009, 14:49
A law cannot be illegal, it can only be unconstitutional. A law by definition is legal.

Sure, except when two laws contradict one another which is the case here.


We have a common law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) judicial system. Case law is law "created" by the judiciary. The whitehouse website can say whatever it wants. The judiciary also makes law.

They don't make law. Jurisprudence is previous interpretation of existing laws that is cited when making findings w/ regards to new cases.


For any law that contradicts a previous law, the latest law is the one that is binding except where there is a constitutional contradiction.

So quotas and discrimination are now legal? I'm glad a spending bill has superceded the Civil Rights Act of '64, be sure and let the ACLU know of your findings. ;)


The quota thing was new law, or a reaction to breaking a law. When a law is being proposed to make end of life counseling mandatory, then you can complain about it. Untill then, the general complaint of "beuracracy" is the argument for those who have no real argument.

I made several 'real' arguments backed by the language in the bill. You failed to answer them. And you have failed to address the fact that much of that bill leaves the specific regulations up to the Secretary. The door is open, someone will walk through. History proves this at every turn.


I read this a long time ago and it tends to be true. When proposed's legislation's only argument is "beuracracy" then there's likely no better argument. The problem here, is there are better arguments, like the issue of cost. But instead the arguments are about fictional mandatory death panels.

Well, if you choose to have blind faith in gov't, that's your choice. I choose to be skeptical and assume the worst of our gov't. They haven't let me down often over the years. Costs are being mentionned but people don't understand the numbers. Death panels trigger an emotional reaction so they are getting more press.

To people in the Medicare boat, meeting w/ a gov't appointed counselor is an abomination and invasion of privacy. You assume they won't be mandated b/c it isn't specifically mandated in the bill, but it's not specifically forbidden either. See quotas for gov't doing what it wants in spite of the intent of the legislation.


Canada's healthcare plan is not what's be proposed here.

No, its not. I'm not comparing plans. I'm comparing bureaucrats who, in my most humble opinion, are alike the world around.

PirateGlen
08-20-2009, 15:26
Sure, except when two laws contradict one another which is the case here.
There's no exception.


They don't make law. Jurisprudence is previous interpretation of existing laws that is cited when making findings w/ regards to new cases.

Yes, much like when they make the first interpretation of a law. They do make law.


So quotas and discrimination are now legal? I'm glad a spending bill has superceded the Civil Rights Act of '64, be sure and let the ACLU know of your findings. ;)
Any bill can supercede any other bill.



I made several 'real' arguments backed by the language in the bill. You failed to answer them. And you have failed to address the fact that much of that bill leaves the specific regulations up to the Secretary. The door is open, someone will walk through. History proves this at every turn.

The parts of the bill that empower the secretary to make decisions does not include making end of life counseling mandatory.


Well, if you choose to have blind faith in gov't, that's your choice. I choose to be skeptical and assume the worst of our gov't. They haven't let me down often over the years. Costs are being mentionned but people don't understand the numbers. Death panels trigger an emotional reaction so they are getting more press.
I don't have blind faith in government. I scrutinize what is there and what exists. There's plenty of government fuck ups with out having to make up fictional issues.


To people in the Medicare boat, meeting w/ a gov't appointed counselor is an abomination and invasion of privacy. You assume they won't be mandated b/c it isn't specifically mandated in the bill, but it's not specifically forbidden either. See quotas for gov't doing what it wants in spite of the intent of the legislation.

I've already shown that your quota examples are false. It's new laws and court orders. They would need a new law or a court order to make end of life counseling mandatory.

As I said before, if the assumption is that the government will simply break the law, what's the point of making them write the laws any which way? How would it matter if they're just going to break it?

StainlessSteelRat
08-20-2009, 16:52
The parts of the bill that empower the secretary to make decisions does not include making end of life counseling mandatory.

Uh, the parts of the bill that empower the Secretary make no limitations except where otherwise specified in the bill. Does the bill say that counseling is not mandatory?


I don't have blind faith in government. I scrutinize what is there and what exists. There's plenty of government fuck ups with out having to make up fictional issues.

I've already shown that your quota examples are false. It's new laws and court orders. They would need a new law or a court order to make end of life counseling mandatory.

As I said before, if the assumption is that the government will simply break the law, what's the point of making them write the laws any which way? How would it matter if they're just going to break it?

How are my examples of quotas false? They are quotas upheld by the courts. It's historical fact.

They would only need the Secretary to make a regulation, not new law or court order.

The assumption is that gov't will genearally fuck up any endeavour. The conclusion is keep gov't the fuck out of your personal life at all costs or they will fuck it up. So the main point is to not pass health care legislation as it stands. The secondary point is that any legislation they do enact needs to be precise, not open-ended.

Just look what Bush's lawyers and subsequently judges did whilst 'interpreting' law. I'm sure you will agree that their interpretations were total horseshit. I don't see how you can be so optimistic that other politicians/judges won't do the same thing to suit their ends. I don't see how you can't see that it's all they have done throughout our history. Just look at how Marshall used the courts to promote his personal ideology which he had been unable to find (enough) support for previously.

Apex Vertigo
08-20-2009, 21:13
I'll stop you right there....for 99% of the population...IT IS FUCKING ILLEGAL DUMBASS. You cant own a fully automatic weapon without a class3 firearms license. Not since...oh..19 thirty fucking four.


Try not to get your panties in a knot, your point will come through much better without caps lock buddy, if having a conversation about it is too much for your delicate emotions to handle I suggest you don't.

As for your point about the license, 1% is still a large number. And it is only that low because most people have no desire to own war-fare type weaponry. It's mainly just collectors and paranoid tinfoil hat types. I'm not sure what the laws are for every district in ever state, but for the most part if you have a clean record and a somewhere between 100 - 300 bucks you can obtain a license pretty easily. It is legal and just like everything else in this country you just need some form of paper work behind it. I find it comforting that not any average joe can go pick one up but still not good enough.



You obviously dont know a damned thing about why the 2nd amendment exists.
It's SOLE PURPOSE..is to provide the citizenry a way to arms themselves and kill the government. It has nothing to do with self protection, hunting, or gay sex.


There were cannons...they didnt say...arms except for cannons....
They said arms..armnaments.
Their intention is that anything the government can own militarily, should be owned by the people as well. (remember that most of the arms from the revolution..were provided by the people and their money, not the government)...so..again..you're wrong.


Then we should obviously have the right to own and manufacture nuclear technology, right? And tanks, It should definitely be legal for someone to cruise down the road with a fully functional main guns activated modern day tank because the army has one, why can't we? This argument is entirely flawed and only further proves my point that it is entirely outdated and need to be revised.



AR 15 is a semi-automatic...so is my 9mm Ruger, so is my .22 caliber pistol so are all of my guns, except the bolt action and black powder ones.
Learn about guns before you get so excited about them.


That I was unaware of, I saw it and must have confused it with an M4 Carbine which has a full-auto option. I'm not much of a gun freak and this argument is not about my knowledge of each individual gun. It's about the concept of ownership of automatic weaponry, so please let's stay on topic.



The 2nd amendment isnt about raising up against the government when they get around to taking your guns. there is plenty of reason to rise up prior to that...stay tuned.


This is just your paranioa talking so I do not feel the need to address it. Take the tinfoil off, everything is going to be ok.



No...there wasnt a big ruckus raised about it. The Dems have complete control of the government, they can do anything they want and dont have to discuss it, as some congressmen are proving. Dont worry though, I am sure we'll see them try to outlaw scary looking guns again. But they'll still let me purchase my 30.06 with a 5oo yard scope.

There wasn't? I heard quite a bit about it, but it hasn't taken over that's true. Doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt. The Dems can't do "anything they want" if they still want to remain in power the following years. That's the only good thing about democracy imo.

PirateGlen
08-20-2009, 22:09
Uh, the parts of the bill that empower the Secretary make no limitations except where otherwise specified in the bill. Does the bill say that counseling is not mandatory?

Which part of the bill empower him to do this?



How are my examples of quotas false? They are quotas upheld by the courts. It's historical fact.
They are false in that you seemed to allege they were done in violation of the law.

Ziegler
08-20-2009, 22:44
Try not to get your panties in a knot, your point will come through much better without caps lock buddy, if having a conversation about it is too much for your delicate emotions to handle I suggest you don't.
dont sput off about shit you know nothing about.



As for your point about the license, 1% is still a large number. And it is only that low because most people have no desire to own war-fare type weaponry. It's mainly just collectors and paranoid tinfoil hat types. I'm not sure what the laws are for every district in ever state, but for the most part if you have a clean record and a somewhere between 100 - 300 bucks you can obtain a license pretty easily. It is legal and just like everything else in this country you just need some form of paper work behind it. I find it comforting that not any average joe can go pick one up but still not good enough.

how to get a FFL (http://federalfirearmslicense.com/FFLKit.html)
Number of federal firearm license in the country (http://www.examiner.com/x-8088-National-Hunting-Examiner~y2009m7d13-Number-of-federal-firearms-licenses-decreases-says-ATF)

That 109k out of 330 million...so is .0003% of the population enough?





Then we should obviously have the right to own and manufacture nuclear technology, right? And tanks, It should definitely be legal for someone to cruise down the road with a fully functional main guns activated modern day tank because the army has one, why can't we? This argument is entirely flawed and only further proves my point that it is entirely outdated and need to be revised.
I'll agree I wouldnt want just anybody cruising down the street in a M1A1..but then..I guess if they can afford to pay 4.3 million for 1, unloaded (http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/marinefacts/blm1a1.htm)...I guess they could own one. I'd think they are probably going to be very conservative in it's use. But I'd be willing to make the cut off at anything a infantry man is capable of being issued a citizen should be able to own, and I'd even agree with registering said weapons at that point.





That I was unaware of, I saw it and must have confused it with an M4 Carbine which has a full-auto option. I'm not much of a gun freak and this argument is not about my knowledge of each individual gun. It's about the concept of ownership of automatic weaponry, so please let's stay on topic.


That is a non-issue, you just didnt know it. Now you do. I dont know much about guns either, past the ones I actually own. I do know the laws concerning them and that no one is going to be walking the street with a fully automatic weapon except a criminal and the government as it stands right now.


This is just your paranioa talking so I do not feel the need to address it. Take the tinfoil off, everything is going to be ok.

Seems the government is concerned about militias forming and people with ron paul stickers....I'm just reading the internet, and if you cant pick up on the amount of people wanting to overthrow the government, and government being highly suspicious of the citizenry, you're not paying attention



There wasn't? I heard quite a bit about it, but it hasn't taken over that's true. Doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt. The Dems can't do "anything they want" if they still want to remain in power the following years. That's the only good thing about democracy imo.

They know they cant get certain things done with the citizenry or the repubs, this is their chance...if they lose the majority in the next election, that is fine, they will still have completely changed the country into what they want. They know that it is much easier to enact something in congress than to do away with it. So yes...they can pretty much do anything they want..it may cost them politically in the end, but some sacrifices have to made.

StainlessSteelRat
08-20-2009, 23:28
Which part of the bill empower him to do this?

Don't remember precisely; there are many many sections that include a phrase along the lines of "the Secretary will determine/regulate" etc etc. The little bit of the 1000 pages I have read, I ran across it often enough to notice.


They are false in that you seemed to allege they were done in violation of the law.

Civil Rights Act forbids hiring based on race. Quotas require hiring based on race. How am I 'alleging' they were done in violation? College admission policies that used racial quotas were found illegal when challenged. But somehow Congress and the Courts are allowed to overrule this law when they want to?

PirateGlen
08-21-2009, 00:43
Don't remember precisely; there are many many sections that include a phrase along the lines of "the Secretary will determine/regulate" etc etc. The little bit of the 1000 pages I have read, I ran across it often enough to notice.
In the section about end of life counseling he gets to decide certain definitions which are in addition to other explicit options. You'll have to do better than simply say the secretary has powers in order to assert he has the capity to make something that is not mandatory into something that is.


Civil Rights Act forbids hiring based on race. Quotas require hiring based on race. How am I 'alleging' they were done in violation? College admission policies that used racial quotas were found illegal when challenged. But somehow Congress and the Courts are allowed to overrule this law when they want to?

Universities do not create laws. Congress and the courts do. Again you keep forgetting, the quotas implemented by the court were in reaction to a violation of law.

Gloomrender
08-21-2009, 02:44
So you're saying he's like a poet?

No, poets purposefully use mechanisms such as metaphor to illustrate their meanings. All he did was fuck up and not correct himself.



I will mention one thing. You claim I never counter-argued etc. You forget I responded to you calling someone naieve. The best counter argument to a non-argument of name calling, is name calling. You said he was naieve, without any surpport, so the only thing I could really say (yes, I did say it, and yes you did understand it...the rest is irrelavent...much like what the stupid protestors are doing at the town hall meetings) was that you're paranoid. If anyone is a hypocrite, it is certainly you.


Edit: There are many typing/spelling errors in this post. I could correct them, but I think it'd be funnier to watch you criticize me for them. Proceed.

You missed the 4 or so pages of arguing where I laid out exactly why I'm not paranoid, and they are naive, in regards to criminality and resistance to tyranny. Here's your dunce hat.

PirateGlen
08-21-2009, 02:52
No, poets purposefully use mechanisms such as metaphor to illustrate their meanings. All he did was fuck up and not correct himself.
Are you so dumb that you think it was an accident?... So dumb that after all this, you still don't get that he did it on purpose?

Gloomrender
08-21-2009, 03:08
I think that a regime nowadays would rather angle for the approval of the citizens and bombard them with unseen treats that the mighty government will protect them from.
Back in 1800 it was also more likely that the state had the same weapons as citizens, now the state can blow you up from a 100 miles. A gun will do little in that case.

No, they can't fight in that manner, because they will be blowing up their own countryside. They would be destroying the prize they are after. The only way for them to use force is to fight a counter-insurgency war. And in this case guns matter quite a lot. See Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.




Governments also have control in far more different ways than just "force". So while guns may make a government weary of using armed oppression, people who want to protect their freedom should also realise that a government does not only need to use weapons to keep us in control. There are far more benign but devious ways to achieve the same.
They can use economy, media, psychology and politics just the same.


So if you want your gun to be useful during a "revolution", then you better become weary of the bs they feed you on a daily basis. You should also train yourself in discovering when you are being manipulated to take a certain stance.

Oh, I know they can and they do use these techniques. And It's important for a free society to try and counter them. But that they use these techniques doesn't devalue the usefulness of guns for promoting and protecting freedom. Those techniques only go so far. If they want to establish a certain level of control, they will have to cross a certain physical line, and that's where guns come in handy. They both help prevent them from trying to cross this line through deterrence, and if they do cross it, they directly help to resist tyranny. Gun ownership acts as a power equalizer from a micro level to the macro level. That's why It's in the US Constitution.

Gloomrender
08-21-2009, 03:11
Are you so dumb that you think it was an accident?... So dumb that after all this, you still don't get that he did it on purpose?

Are you so dumb that you cannot read him saying earlier that he knew he had made a mistake and admitted he was too lazy to correct it? If you could get his cock out of your throat long enough to read what he actually says, you might not look like a retard too.

Incanam
08-21-2009, 03:53
Are you so dumb that you cannot read him saying earlier that he knew he had made a mistake and admitted he was too lazy to correct it? If you could get his cock out of your throat long enough to read what he actually says, you might not look like a retard too.

Yeah. I admit that. I was hoping you wouldn't make a big deal about it because you understood my meaning (otherwise I surely would have changed it)...yet here we are...2-3 pages later and you're still babbling on about it.

PirateGlen
08-21-2009, 03:57
Are you so dumb that you cannot read him saying earlier that he knew he had made a mistake and admitted he was too lazy to correct it? If you could get his cock out of your throat long enough to read what he actually says, you might not look like a retard too.

Let me lay it out for you, because you're obviously struggling. From the beginning he realized under normal conventions the "fix't" meme is being inappropriately applied. He did it anyways in the hope that you would realize he's calling you paranoid. You did get he was calling you paranoid confirming both that you are paranoid (because you think calling someone paranoid is directed at you), and effectively communicating his thoughts that you are paranoid. There was no mistake, nothing to correct. Just you getting called paranoid in an unconventional way.

Gloomrender
08-21-2009, 04:55
Yeah. I admit that. I was hoping you wouldn't make a big deal about it because you understood my meaning (otherwise I surely would have changed it)...yet here we are...2-3 pages later and you're still babbling on about it.

No, it doesn't have any meaning, the way it is. It's meaningless. And worthless.

And if you don't want to get shit back, don't give other people shit in a retarded fashion.



Let me lay it out for you, because you're obviously struggling. You did get he was calling you paranoid confirming both that you are paranoid (because you think calling someone paranoid is directed at you), and effectively communicating his thoughts that you are paranoid. There was no mistake, nothing to correct. Just you getting called paranoid in an unconventional way.

No, I think you're struggling to grasp reality, calling his fuck-up "poetry". And now spinning it even more into the depths of total idiocy. How low will you go? There doesn't seem to be a rock bottom for you on how distorted you can view/depict this very simple-to-understand event. Your logic makes no sense. It wasn't "An intentional master plan all along to call him paranoid on multiple levels!!@!@!one!". It was simply a botched attempt at a "fixt" post with the word "paranoid", saying "fixt! youz is paranoid!", and nothing more; he's admitted this. Incidentally you are the paranoid one in this, of looking bad, and your ego so fragile, that you must spin this sensationally ridiculous artistic conspiracy theory to try and protect it. It amazes me how foolish people will make themselves look in attempting to not look foolish. Bravo.

Edit: What's next? Gonna say It's code language?

I'm done with you two knuckleheads. If anyone wants to continue about the topic, respond to my posts, and PM me.

Incanam
08-21-2009, 06:35
No, it doesn't have any meaning, the way it is. It's meaningless. And worthless.

And if you don't want to get shit back, don't give other people shit in a retarded fashion.



And yet, you understood what I was saying. It's not meaningless. Your understanding of it gives it meaning. It's not worthless. Your arguing about it gives it worth. Thanks for the idiocy, but I don't need anymore. Please come again some other time.

Silverhandorder
08-21-2009, 06:40
I vote for Gloomrender owning this thread. Not because I agree/disagree with him but because he retaliated with overwhelming force :).

Incanam
08-21-2009, 08:06
I vote for Gloomrender owning this thread. Not because I agree/disagree with him but because he retaliated with overwhelming force :).

Meaning?

He wrote a lot of words? I think one of my previous posts was longer.

(Face it, you just don't want to side with the liberal :sly:)

Sqarak
08-21-2009, 12:56
Oh, I know they can and they do use these techniques. And It's important for a free society to try and counter them. But that they use these techniques doesn't devalue the usefulness of guns for promoting and protecting freedom. Those techniques only go so far.

Manipulating a society in order to make them more lenient towards the establishment and turn a blind eye on its more questionable actions is far more simpler and effective than you realise.

A popular tactic is sew distrust among citizens. Old school totalitarian regimes used secret police and citizens spying on each other to achieve this this. The newer style is sowing the feeling through the media that anyone could be a rapist, paedophile or terrorist.
This tactic will cause people to communicate less likely with each other, which makes it easier to control information. It also helps in preventing people of forming establishment skeptical groups.

Another tactic is create a separation within a society. This can allow for populations to focus their attention on another one. This has been frequently done based on gender, religion and skincolor.

A government can also introduce an unseen big treat that they alone can handle. Such an unseen big treat can open the path towards more restrictive laws for the sake of public security.

These things are being done on a daily basis and I'm fairly sure that most gun owners don't even have a clue that it happens.

I'm not saying you should wake up and rush out and shoot the governmental institutions to shit, but it is worth realising that the manipulation of a society is far easier and effective than you think.

StainlessSteelRat
08-21-2009, 13:43
In the section about end of life counseling he gets to decide certain definitions which are in addition to other explicit options. You'll have to do better than simply say the secretary has powers in order to assert he has the capity to make something that is not mandatory into something that is.

No I don't. ;) That's the beauty of a forum; as much or as little effort as I desire.


Universities do not create laws. Congress and the courts do. Again you keep forgetting, the quotas implemented by the court were in reaction to a violation of law.

Wow, you circle the issue well. Let's try some simple yes/nos:

Are quotas hiring based on race and therefore discrimination?

Is discrimination against the law?

Do the two cases I cited create exceptions to the law?

By what power in the Constitution do Congress/Judicial derive the authority to create exceptions to law? (Nothing was superceded, discrimination is still illegal.)

Try to avoid focusing on the 'why', that's the bullshit, emotional, human error aspect. In other words, who fucking cares if the court did it in reaction to a violation of law.

PirateGlen
08-21-2009, 22:34
No I don't. ;) That's the beauty of a forum; as much or as little effort as I desire.



Wow, you circle the issue well. Let's try some simple yes/nos:

Are quotas hiring based on race and therefore discrimination?

Is discrimination against the law?

Do the two cases I cited create exceptions to the law?

By what power in the Constitution do Congress/Judicial derive the authority to create exceptions to law? (Nothing was superceded, discrimination is still illegal.)

Try to avoid focusing on the 'why', that's the bullshit, emotional, human error aspect. In other words, who fucking cares if the court did it in reaction to a violation of law.

The 'why' is an integral portion to law and life. When the state executes someone for whatever reason, omitting why this was done is a major detail. If the state imprisons someone for whatever reason, again, the 'why' is an integral detail to the story. There's munumental differences in state action if the 'why' is because the person has been convicted of killing multiple people.

If you're attempting to eliminate the 'why' of this scenario it's because you fail to see it's relevance, or you know there are good reasons why these things were done.

Sharuk
08-22-2009, 03:54
i concur

StainlessSteelRat
08-22-2009, 04:07
The 'why' is an integral portion to law and life. When the state executes someone for whatever reason, omitting why this was done is a major detail. If the state imprisons someone for whatever reason, again, the 'why' is an integral detail to the story. There's munumental differences in state action if the 'why' is because the person has been convicted of killing multiple people.

If you're attempting to eliminate the 'why' of this scenario it's because you fail to see it's relevance, or you know there are good reasons why these things were done.

The 'why' you speak of is 'they broke law x'. The 'why' used in these cases is justification for 'ignoring law x'. Sure, it's lets everyone know their motivations, but it's not relevant to the discussion of whether 'ignoring law x' is lawful.

They can be the grandest reasons of all but that won't change the issue. Making sure everyone lives in a house, eats well, and never has a worry in their life is a wonderful reason to just give 100% of all incomes to gov't and let them dole it out as necessary to achieve utopia. There's no better 'why' in the world than that. Should we just let gov't do whatever it wants to achieve that goal? Because the goal is so 'worthy'? The ends justify the means?

Not going to answer the questions from my last post?

PirateGlen
08-22-2009, 06:37
The 'why' you speak of is 'they broke law x'. The 'why' used in these cases is justification for 'ignoring law x'. Sure, it's lets everyone know their motivations, but it's not relevant to the discussion of whether 'ignoring law x' is lawful.


We ignore law "do not murder" all the time when we execute people.



Are quotas hiring based on race and therefore discrimination?

Is discrimination against the law?

Do the two cases I cited create exceptions to the law?

Here to make you feel better:
1.Quotas based on race are discrimination.
2.Some types of discrimination is against the law. You have to look closely at the laws to see why quotas are not illegal.
3.Neither of the two cases create an exception to the law.



They can be the grandest reasons of all but that won't change the issue. Making sure everyone lives in a house, eats well, and never has a worry in their life is a wonderful reason to just give 100% of all incomes to gov't and let them dole it out as necessary to achieve utopia. There's no better 'why' in the world than that. Should we just let gov't do whatever it wants to achieve that goal? Because the goal is so 'worthy'? The ends justify the means?

Not going to answer the questions from my last post?
You're degenerating here. I'm not advocating what you appear to be arguing against here.

StainlessSteelRat
08-22-2009, 15:46
We ignore law "do not murder" all the time when we execute people.

It's not murder according to law when we execute people.


Here to make you feel better:
1.Quotas based on race are discrimination.
2.Some types of discrimination is against the law. You have to look closely at the laws to see why quotas are not illegal.
3.Neither of the two cases create an exception to the law.

2. is patently false. All discrimination is against the law. Which makes 3 false as well.

Please show me what types of discrimination are legal.


You're degenerating here. I'm not advocating what you appear to be arguing against here.

No I'm not. You suggest that the 'why' justified the what (being quotas). The ends justify the means. I completely disagree. You position holds that, in order to achieve a worthy goal, gov't can do what it pleases. Which is pretty much Bush's philosophy when it comes to fighting 'terrorism'.

biggunsar
08-22-2009, 21:46
EXACTLY. mr bible quoter. What about an "eye for an eye" asshole.

SO there goes your "we murder people all the time, ignoring the "law".

PirateGlen
08-22-2009, 22:01
It's not murder according to law when we execute people.
Correct! This is great because under the law, an execution is not murder because murder is a carefully defined act. Similarly, discrimination under the civil rights act is similarly defined.


2. is patently false. All discrimination is against the law. Which makes 3 false as well.

Please show me what types of discrimination are legal.
Oh, I looked again and... regardless of any argument I would make regarding what discrimination means, the civil rights act specifically excludes the United States as an "employer".

(b) The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or a State or political subdivision thereof,
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript


No I'm not. You suggest that the 'why' justified the what (being quotas). The ends justify the means. I completely disagree. You position holds that, in order to achieve a worthy goal, gov't can do what it pleases. Which is pretty much Bush's philosophy when it comes to fighting 'terrorism'.

No, my position holds that the quotas you referred to were not unlawful. I've made no opinion on the effectiveness or morality of quotas.

PirateGlen
08-22-2009, 22:04
EXACTLY. mr bible quoter. What about an "eye for an eye" asshole.

SO there goes your "we murder people all the time, ignoring the "law".

Are you talking about me? When have I ever quoted the bible? Have you come to make sure (in case anyone had a doubt) that you are a retard?

StainlessSteelRat
08-23-2009, 02:36
Correct! This is great because under the law, an execution is not murder because murder is a carefully defined act. Similarly, discrimination under the civil rights act is similarly defined.

No it's not.


Oh, I looked again and... regardless of any argument I would make regarding what discrimination means, the civil rights act specifically excludes the United States as an "employer".

(b) The term "employer" means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty-five or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and any agent of such a person, but such term does not include (1) the United States, a corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States, an Indian tribe, or a State or political subdivision thereof,
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=97&page=transcript

Read further:

Provided further, That it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy.


No, my position holds that the quotas you referred to were not unlawful. I've made no opinion on the effectiveness or morality of quotas.

Do as I say, not as I do?

PirateGlen
08-23-2009, 04:27
No it's not.
Oof... like a brick wall, you are.



Read further:

Provided further, That it shall be the policy of the United States to insure equal employment opportunities for Federal employees without discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin and the President shall utilize his existing authority to effectuate this policy.
Right you are. I did miss this portion.

Might be best to try to explain this way: Do you think you would have an equal employment opportunity if decades of institutionalized discrimination have disadvantaged your business compared to others?


Do as I say, not as I do?
No, that the civil rights act held a specific purpose and quotas are not a violation of that purpose.

StainlessSteelRat
08-23-2009, 16:23
Oof... like a brick wall, you are.

Yes, but your opinions is based on the fact that it's OK b/c gov't can do it.


Right you are. I did miss this portion.

Might be best to try to explain this way: Do you think you would have an equal employment opportunity if decades of institutionalized discrimination have disadvantaged your business compared to others?

It doesn't matter. Discrimination is discrimination. Rights are individual. You can't choose to disadvantage someone over another no matter the reasoning or 'why'. Two wrongs don't make a right.


No, that the civil rights act held a specific purpose and quotas are not a violation of that purpose.

Then you can't find them illegal for schools. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

PirateGlen
08-24-2009, 07:06
Yes, but your opinions is based on the fact that it's OK b/c gov't can do it.
That's not my opinion. I don't tell you your opinions and would appreciate you not do it to me.


It doesn't matter. Discrimination is discrimination. Rights are individual. You can't choose to disadvantage someone over another no matter the reasoning or 'why'. Two wrongs don't make a right.
If the goal of the bill is to achieve equal employment opportunity, it would be failing in it's purpose by ignoring prior discrimination as a factor one's capacity to gain current employment.



Then you can't find them illegal for schools. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

You should look more closely at what the decisions on school quotas were. Strict quotas were found to be a violation, but it did not require that schools could not use race as a factor in admittance. I've said it before, the first cast you mentioned similarly did not hold a rigid quota in hiring.

StainlessSteelRat
08-24-2009, 15:32
That's not my opinion. I don't tell you your opinions and would appreciate you not do it to me.

You've been saying it the entire thread. You've based the legitimacy of the quotas on the fact that they were implemented by gov't.

Universities do not create laws. Congress and the courts do. Again you keep forgetting, the quotas implemented by the court were in reaction to a violation of law.


If the goal of the bill is to achieve equal employment opportunity, it would be failing in it's purpose by ignoring prior discrimination as a factor one's capacity to gain current employment.

EEO will fail unless we discriminate in favor of minorities? lol Nice logic. Regardless, the goal of the bill is EEO and discrimination is illegal. Once more, you seek to justify the means by the ends.


You should look more closely at what the decisions on school quotas were. Strict quotas were found to be a violation, but it did not require that schools could not use race as a factor in admittance. I've said it before, the first cast you mentioned similarly did not hold a rigid quota in hiring.

I don't care if it's rigid or loose. The first one I mentioned was 10 or 15%.

PirateGlen
08-25-2009, 00:08
You've been saying it the entire thread. You've based the legitimacy of the quotas on the fact that they were implemented by gov't.

Universities do not create laws. Congress and the courts do. Again you keep forgetting, the quotas implemented by the court were in reaction to a violation of law.
I've never said quotas were ok. I said they were lawful. Lots of government activities may be wrong, bad, unwise, etc. but not unlawful. Stop confusing my assertion that they are lawful with any personal opinion of my own on quotas.


EEO will fail unless we discriminate in favor of minorities? lol Nice logic. Regardless, the goal of the bill is EEO and discrimination is illegal. Once more, you seek to justify the means by the ends.
Yes, it is accurate logic. To ignore the fact that past discrimination hinders one's present capacity to obtain employment would be to ignore the true effects of past discrimination, and thus fail to achieve EEO.



I don't care if it's rigid or loose. The first one I mentioned was 10 or 15%.

It was 10%.

StainlessSteelRat
08-25-2009, 01:46
I've never said quotas were ok. I said they were lawful. Lots of government activities may be wrong, bad, unwise, etc. but not unlawful. Stop confusing my assertion that they are lawful with any personal opinion of my own on quotas.

Replace 'OK' w/ lawful and my point still stands.


Yes, it is accurate logic. To ignore the fact that past discrimination hinders one's present capacity to obtain employment would be to ignore the true effects of past discrimination, and thus fail to achieve EEO.

Not at all. And I'd like to see you explain that. You can't achieve EEO by giving preference. The concepts are mutually exclusive.

PirateGlen
08-25-2009, 04:09
Replace 'OK' w/ lawful and my point still stands.
You could make a similar point with any other interpretation of the law you happen to disagree with. The courts took an opinion different from yours. The courts determine what is legal. If there was a superior mechanism for resolving different interpretations of the law, I'd be interested in it.


Not at all. And I'd like to see you explain that. You can't achieve EEO by giving preference. The concepts are mutually exclusive.

Person A(Rank 5), Person B(Rank 5). Person A is hired; person B is discriminated against. Because Person A was hired, he is now Rank 6.

Person B will now forever be less qualified because this prior discrimination has made Person A a rank superior to Person B. This opportunity will never again be equal without a mechanism to resolve this prior discrimination.

StainlessSteelRat
08-25-2009, 13:30
Person A(Rank 5), Person B(Rank 5). Person A is hired; person B is discriminated against. Because Person A was hired, he is now Rank 6.

Person B will now forever be less qualified because this prior discrimination has made Person A a rank superior to Person B. This opportunity will never again be equal without a mechanism to resolve this prior discrimination.

You can't retroactively create EEO.

Person C and B apply for job. Person B gets job due to quota and 'achieving' EEO.

Person D and B apply for promotion(rank 6). Person B gets promotion due to quota and achieving EEO.

You now have Person B 'equal' to Person A. Is EEO achieved? No, both C&D have now been discriminated against and they now hold inferior rank. Using discrimination to fix discrimination..... lulz. For every person you give a helping hand to erase prior discrimination, you replace w/ someone new.

PirateGlen
08-25-2009, 21:58
You can't retroactively create EEO.

Person C and B apply for job. Person B gets job due to quota and 'achieving' EEO.

Person D and B apply for promotion(rank 6). Person B gets promotion due to quota and achieving EEO.

You now have Person B 'equal' to Person A. Is EEO achieved? No, both C&D have now been discriminated against and they now hold inferior rank. Using discrimination to fix discrimination..... lulz. For every person you give a helping hand to erase prior discrimination, you replace w/ someone new.

This is part of why I don't think quotas are very good.