sturg33
I
guns
SCOTUS
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
guns
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
There isn't. The federal government isn't issuing marriage certificates. There is a Supreme Court decision that rules state bans on same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. Like I said, you can disagree with the decision, but if you don't understand why the distinction is important, you're not going to get very far in any argument, or get much latitude from your opponents in this one.
sturg33
I
Fair. I'm fine with the court hearing the case but don't see how arrived at their decision
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Ok, you're certainly in some distinguished company there, although a majority on the SC, six district courts in associated cases, and 5 of 6 US Circuit courts agreed otherwise. But, yeah, disagreeing with the decision is different than arguing that the SC can't rule on a law pertaining to x because x isn't specifically mentioned in the constitution.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
No you weren't
You said this:
Once it seems you figured out that it was in their role to take such a case
You then changed it to this:
It isn't hard to quote someone and follow a full conversation
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
You wanted me to take a question of what's the difference between paying taxes and mugging someone seriously?
You're just trolling with that, right?
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
sturg33
I
I didn't articulate my thoughts well earlier. My hope is that Obama nominates a true constitutional judge and that the republicans consider that person
sturg33
I
Let's take Bernie's plan.
Bernie wants to provide "free" education to everyone.
Bernie takes office, and gets it done.
I am then taxed a higher rate to pay for these young-ins. I didn't vote for Bernie. I didn't vote for the congress who approved. And there's no where that I can see in the constitution that education is an issue that the federal government should be getting involved in.
Tell me how that is different than me stealing a rich dude's wallet, then giving the money to a poor kid to go to college. Other than one is "legal" and the other isn't
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Dude. Seriously? Maybe you need to understand how a republic works.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Because of our tax code offering benefits to spouses as well as insurance and many other spousal privileges, it kind of has to be involved.
sturg33
I
I do.
It's weird that I cannot get an answer...
Is there ever a point where you would consider taxation stealing? What if they took it to 90%? 100%? Does the government own what we earn? If they don't, why do they feel obligated to take it? Where is the limit? Is there a limit? I'm seriously asking... though it's impossible tog et an answer out of you guys.
Is spending stealing? Is borrowing stealing? Is it accurate to say that our borrowing and over spending is stealing from future generations? I think it is. Do you not?
Oklahomahawk
Boras' Client
I don't totally disagree with you though I think you need to broaden your accusations pool, especially since I know and have already testified to your disapproval of corporate welfare. I do agree we're going to have to cut spending and across the board, so we're not totally in disagreement, but I would like to see how many of these you agree with me on. I know you won't agree on all of them, but let's just give it a whirl.
Was it stealing for big oil to collude to quadruple gas prices back during W's first term, which IMO contributed almost as much to the recession/depression in 2007 as the banking meltdown? Was it stealing for the financial institutions to take on waist deep bad paper so they could make yet another easy billion on it? Was it stealing for them to use parts of the bailout money to send their upper level managers on lavish vacations and to fund lavish bonuses, all on the government's dime? Was it stealing for Vlad Cheney, et al to (at best) cherry pick intelligence to get us into Iraq in 2003, which "stole" over 4000 American lives and totally effed up over 10X that many, then blocked monies that would have provided them better care once they got back? By the way KBR has "earned" the last time I heard over $40 Billion for their "service" in that conflict that wasn't even necessary. And what about the funds "stolen" by that same party that were meant to go to 9/11 first responders?
sturg33
I
I'm not familiar with what you're referring to... Not saying you're wrong, but simply don't know enough about the topic. I don't think President's can really affect oil prices very much... if they could, Obama would be doing more to bring prices up now. I would guess the war in the ME significantly raised the cost of oil, and I'd imagine that would directly impact gas prices, no? Also, I don't see any evidence of oil/gas prices having anything to do with the financial crisis. I think that's silly
No... It was bad business. But they didn't threaten loan acceptors with jail for not taking a mortgage when they couldn't afford it... The banks were douchebags, but I don't abstain the people who took loans when they had no business doing so from any blame
Yes... And it was stealing when the government bailed them out
I'd call that lying... But the money we're borrowing to finance these wars is stealing from future generations.
Every time we end a year on a deficit, we are stealing from future generations.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
When the government isn't doing the will of the majority of the electorate they'll be cast out.
I'm not answering you because your questions are absurd at best. You can't say things like "when is it stealing? 90%, 100%?" and expect me to take you seriously.
I think you're dealing in too many absolutes. ANd I'd be interested FWIW to hear how you'd eliminate our deficit with libertarian policies. Add in the economic impact of laying off thousands of government employees and ruining economies of several states, and the global destabilization that happens when we just up and pull out all of our military bases.
sturg33
I
So is there never a point where you consider taxation stealing?
And do you consider a $19T debt stealing from future generations?
These are very simple questions. I suppose you're answer is no. And to that, I think you're nuts. How is a $19T debt not stealing from future generations? And when Bernie makes proposals that he can't pay for, that is stealing from *someone*
Why is asking about 90% "absurd"? We've seen those rates in the US before... and Bernie has hinted that he could support those rates.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
WE had a top marginal tax rate of around 90% in WWII and it's post era. The effective top tax rate has pretty consistently been between 20 and 30%. Basically meaning you had to be rich and a total moron to pay 90% taxes. YOu're not using your brain, and it's sad.
As far as the debt, I do agree it's a problem. Sanders has weirdly optimistic plans to work on lowering the deficit a little. I'm not a fan of Sanders entirely. Again I'm to the right of the Green Party. I don't believe governemnt is bad, and I don't believe it's responsible for taking care of our every want.
I do agree that Sanders has a lot of bad plans. Namely that he wants to give away free college and have a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage. Which at best would lead to rapid inflation and knocking down current members of the middle class a few rungs.
sturg33
I
Yes, that was the top marginal tax rate... but that is not the point I'm making. The point I'm making, which you guys are mocking without disproving, is that when the government runs up deficits to spend on all these freebies, they are stealing from someone. They are taking the money that I have earned, and are giving it to someone that hasn't earned it. I worked for it, and they confiscate it. Or, if you believe it to be the will of the people and what the society needs, then it has to be paid for, or it is stealing from future generations. Which is even worse because they aren't even here to defend their future earnings.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
But you're confusing stealing with spending.
OK lets say you're in a condo association with 40 other condo owners. THey vote to spend 25K to rebuild your roof of the condo as it's leaking or any number of other issues. 39 people vote for it you don't. Do you think that you should have the right to not pay for the part of it because you think it's unnecessary? Part of being in this country is that we spend money on things we don't agree with. And we voice our opinions when we don't agree with them until we stop spending that money. Or enough people voice their opinion in support until we do spend that money.
As far as future generations go. You're right they need to be accounted for. But we live in a world where the Senate votes on if Climate Change was caused by man and say it isn't (or can't be proved or whatever **** that was) you think the ****ers that work in Washington care about anyone's future but their own? If you care about the future generations tell them to get bent and cut down on emissions cause debt won't matter whne we're at war for water all the damned time.