BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-09-2011, 11:17 PM   #23
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1997gtx View Post
Add a few more people to the list who don't agree with you:

(1) The US Supreme Court
(2) A few other random peeps, like Alexander Hamilton.

See, Scott, your problem is not that you immediately dismiss any argument you don't agree with because you think the other person is misinformed, your problem is that you immediately dismiss any argument you don't agree with because YOU are misinformed and just don't understand what is being said.

I, for one, can readily admit (like I noted in previous threads), that for every founding father that said one thing, you can find another who said the other (for example, i'll even do your work for you, and tell you that James Madison felt the exact opposite way of Hamilton). But that's the beauty of the founding fathers, the Constitution, and the country as a whole -- there is very rarely a CLEAR black and white answer to these very complex problems.

But again, so long as you continue to pretend these issues are easy, and that you have all the answers despite decades of precedent and law saying otherwise, you'll continue to look like a buffoon.
Actually, it is not quite so difficult. The difficulty comes in the fact that government is a beast that has an appetite for control and growth. Were it not so, the words on which the country was founded were pretty clear. Yet it didn't take long for the rulers to move us further along the path of tyranny.

And you are right about my identifying with James Madison. Reading the minutes of the first continental congress made it clear with whom I could agree (and seemed to win the day). Madison would likely be that one if I had to pick a single one.

Was it unanimous that the Constitution was adopted? Or was it a simple majority? Or a super majority? Should the Constitution be the ultimate legal authority? Or is it subordinate to statute? What weight does the general public give to the Constition in their daily dealings with governement?

I am not asking you to answer all these questions. These are here to perhaps get you to think outside of what you were told to think. Perhaps they are rhetorical. Yet for some, the answers are not obvious.

And it looks like personal attack may also be your mode of discussion. That is not an attractive approach.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 11:22 PM   #24
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post

And it looks like personal attack may also be your mode of discussion. That is not an attractive approach.

Stop trying to play the refs. Everyone knows what the board rules are.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 11:36 PM   #25
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1997gtx View Post
Ask Alexander Hamilton, and you'll get one answer.

Ask Thomas Jefferson, and you'll get another answer.

As the Supreme Court, and you'll get a hybrid answer.

Why don't you understand this?

However, no matter what you or I think, the Supreme Court's precedents clearly say that General Welfare is a very broad term. I'm not saying that I even agree with it. I'm merely presenting the FACTS.

There are plenty of other Supreme Court precedents that I personally don't agree with, but it doesn't make the law and the precedents they're based off of any less true.
It's not that I disagree with your words. What I disagree with here is your complacency. One example, perhaps, would be the "tradition" that a Supreme Court Justice is a life appointment. I could be wrong as I haven't looked at this lately, but weren't individual justices to potentially be recalled by congress? They are not gods. And recognizing that the Constituion is not scripture, if it is to be violated, why should it be in favor of larger governement if opinion can be persuaded to the side of freedom from the centralization of government?

I am not a Constitutional scholar, though I do have greater understanding of it than you credit me. And it is not a terribly complex document. Perhaps the thrust of it can be described as our government is there to serve, not to be served. It is there to protect us from each other, and from outsiders. It is there to keep out encroachment on our freedom. The checks and balances exist in the 3 branches of government to keep it from quickly acting. The people are to be superior to government, but that is not the real situation today.

I advocate for change.
Appreciate 0
      05-09-2011, 11:44 PM   #26
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
"General Welfare" is a very broad category that includes way more than what we should be logically spending our money on. By that I mean that there are plenty of things that we could cut from the federal budget --- not because the spending is unconstitional, but because we can't afford the spending and there are better priorities.

There is a great debate to be had about exactly what these priorites are.

The problem is that the Republican Party is trying to chop off the debate by trying to wrap themselves falsely in the US Constitution. The Republican Party is trying to say their priorities for spending on National Defense are constitutional, while saying spending on General Welfare is unconstutional. This is clearly a lie, and it only takes a moment to READ the constitution to see this is a lie.

So you can keep repeating the lies you have been told to repeat, like a good delivery boy, or you can admit that the budget debate isn't a constitutional debate. You can't be part of the budget debate until you first recognize that you are dogmatically repeating Republican talking points specifically designed by Republican Party wonks to derail LOGICAL and HONEST debates about priorities.
What Republican talking points am I making? I am not Republican. I certainly am not Democrat, but I am not Republican. As for national defense, I would not spare it from the axe, though it would not be eliminated, unlike much of what the federal governement has taken on.

I have stated it many times before. Though repetititve, I will say it again as you may not have read my words. As the federal governemtn diminishes, I would likely want to live in a state where the state and local governments increase their work. And I would hopefully have 50 states from which to choose one that is arranged to my liking.

You see, I am for diversity. Those who prefer a large federal government are relatively against diversity.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 07:32 AM   #27
rs6655
Second Lieutenant
rs6655's Avatar
3
Rep
211
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 X3 (MT)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngelinIsRich08 View Post
^^^ Above is good thoughts. But what needs to be changed is the school system. There's calculus classes but no classes on investing, saving and financial planning.......
I don't think big business really wants the masses investing, saving and financial planning. This is money that's taken out of the system. What they really want is good consumers that will crave every new thing that hits the street and borrow at almost any rate to have it right now.

Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 02:34 PM   #28
schoy
Private First Class
1
Rep
129
Posts

 
Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SD

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by pman10 View Post
And what do you propose we do with illegal immigrants that are ill and need treatment? Send them away to die? Not only is that immoral but it is directly antithetical to the oath that every physician in this country takes.
Point of clarification: While I don't necessarily fully subscribe to AngelinIsRich08's draconian solution, it's not the physicians who would turn them away, but the hospital administrators (who may not necessarily be doctors). The docs take care of the sick; the administrators run the show. Of course, if the docs don't like the system set up by the administrators, they can certainly leave and open their own practice (and directly deal with the ill illegal immigrants who can't pay).
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 02:56 PM   #29
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
Point of clarification: While I don't necessarily fully subscribe to AngelinIsRich08's draconian solution, it's not the physicians who would turn them away, but the hospital administrators (who may not necessarily be doctors). The docs take care of the sick; the administrators run the show. Of course, if the docs don't like the system set up by the administrators, they can certainly leave and open their own practice (and directly deal with the ill illegal immigrants who can't pay).

Great, just what we need. A bunch of pencil pushing bureaucrats taking medical decisions out of the hands of doctors.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 03:00 PM   #30
schoy
Private First Class
1
Rep
129
Posts

 
Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SD

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
Great, just what we need. A bunch of pencil pushing bureaucrats taking medical decisions out of the hands of doctors.
That's how the system works now, isn't it?
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 03:09 PM   #31
Echo M3
Major
No_Country
35
Rep
1,431
Posts

 
Drives: E90 M3
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NY

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
Point of clarification: While I don't necessarily fully subscribe to AngelinIsRich08's draconian solution, it's not the physicians who would turn them away, but the hospital administrators (who may not necessarily be doctors). The docs take care of the sick; the administrators run the show. Of course, if the docs don't like the system set up by the administrators, they can certainly leave and open their own practice (and directly deal with the ill illegal immigrants who can't pay).
Administrators make the strategic decisions, but doctors deal with the patients and make the day-to-day, individual patient decisions within a hospital. And when a (illegal immigrant) patient shows up at 3 am with a life threatening condition, admin won't drive in from their suburban house to stop the physician from treating the patient.

Anyway, I was just trying to raise the point that turning away sick patients from a general hospital would be hugely unpopular and frankly, morally unsound. As you also seem point out, basic medical care, while not necessarily being a right, is not something you can morally withhold.

The issue is not that we give benefits to illegal immigrants, but that these folks are even in the United States in the first place. Immigration reform is not something that can be left at the wayside forever.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 04:43 PM   #32
schoy
Private First Class
1
Rep
129
Posts

 
Drives: Melbourne Red E90 M3
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: SD

iTrader: (0)

^ "Morally unsound" by what standard? I don't think doctors are required (legally or even morally/ethically) to treat everyone that comes through their doors, life-threatening or not. Do we expect our doctors to always be charitable, whatever the cost? Or can we not allow our doctors to run their practice like a business?

Perhaps I might be more persuaded with the charity argument if medical school didn't cost $30K-$50K per year ...

Edit: rs6655: Thanks for the link below. I do note that the law only applies to participating hospitals (i.e. hospitals obtaining federal funds, say via Medicare). The practical result, as per the article, is that it applies to all hospitals, but only because of Medicare. Perhaps then it is the Medicare program that needs fixing? There's got to be a better way ... but that is for a different thread I suppose ...

Last edited by schoy; 05-10-2011 at 04:50 PM.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 04:43 PM   #33
rs6655
Second Lieutenant
rs6655's Avatar
3
Rep
211
Posts

 
Drives: 2009 X3 (MT)
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Florida

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by schoy View Post
Point of clarification: While I don't necessarily fully subscribe to AngelinIsRich08's draconian solution, it's not the physicians who would turn them away, but the hospital administrators (who may not necessarily be doctors). The docs take care of the sick; the administrators run the show. Of course, if the docs don't like the system set up by the administrators, they can certainly leave and open their own practice (and directly deal with the ill illegal immigrants who can't pay).
Hospitals have no choice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergen...tive_Labor_Act
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 04:57 PM   #34
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lieutenant
United_States
20
Rep
469
Posts

 
Drives: 1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 2

iTrader: (0)

Get rid of the federal income tax, flat tax on state income tax (15% sounds good to me), get rid of long term capital gains tax (would promote savings and retirement contributions), keep short term capital gains at 15%, get rid of inheritance tax/estate tax, and get rid of corporate taxes (would promote all industries across the board).

Federal government should do a complete internal audit to trim as much fat off as possible. Then let the states all decide how much to contribute, from the income taxes that were collected, to create the federal budget.

And hell, while we are at it. Privatize social security and pensions.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 06:04 PM   #35
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by pman10 View Post
And what do you propose we do with illegal immigrants that are ill and need treatment? Send them away to die? Not only is that immoral but it is directly antithetical to the oath that every physician in this country takes..
So is abortion and assisted suicide. What is it? Over 30 Billion babies butchered since 1973? Let's stop that.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 08:00 PM   #36
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Lieutenant
United_States
20
Rep
469
Posts

 
Drives: 1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: 2

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
So is abortion and assisted suicide. What is it? Over 30 Billion babies butchered since 1973? Let's stop that.
The odds of one of those babies being a serial killer is very high. Many lives were saved...
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 08:48 PM   #37
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What Republican talking points am I making? I am not Republican. I certainly am not Democrat, but I am not Republican. As for national defense, I would not spare it from the axe, though it would not be eliminated, unlike much of what the federal governement has taken on.

I have stated it many times before. Though repetititve, I will say it again as you may not have read my words. As the federal governemtn diminishes, I would likely want to live in a state where the state and local governments increase their work. And I would hopefully have 50 states from which to choose one that is arranged to my liking.

You see, I am for diversity. Those who prefer a large federal government are relatively against diversity.

I already know that you want to destroy the US economy by multiplying by 50 all the bureaucracy that businesses already have to deal with. You've said it all before. What you are calling for would result in:

50 different emissions standards
50 different health care standards
50 different banking standards
50 different environmental standards
50 different book keeping standards
50 different investment/retirement standards
50 times the political corruption

I can't think of anything more damaging to businesses in the US than having 50 different standards replacing each and every current Federal standard. The destructive force on businesses being thown off a cliff into that ever-moving chaos would hammer the final nail in the coffin of the US economy.

Gone would be any ability for companies to plan. Uncertainty would be through the roof as any single state could change anything anytime. Big companies would become mired in lobbying, spending all their time wrangling corrupt wildcat small-time local political hacks with axes to grind.

What you call diversity, I call market uncertainty on a level never seen before. You will destroy our country, but at least you will have choices, right?
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 08:54 PM   #38
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
So is abortion and assisted suicide. What is it? Over 30 Billion babies butchered since 1973? Let's stop that.
Thanks for reminding me.

We really need to de-criminalize assisted suicide. Get the damn gov't OUT of my death bed, telling me when and how to die! When I die is between me, my health care provider, and my religious beliefs. We don't need a big massive nanny Gov't telling everyone what to do at the end of our lives.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 09:02 PM   #39
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
Thanks for reminding me.

We really need to de-criminalize assisted suicide. Get the damn gov't OUT of my death bed, telling me when and how to die! When I die is between me, my health care provider, and my religious beliefs. We don't need a big massive nanny Gov't telling everyone what to do at the end of our lives.
What is the hypocratic oath? Why should a doctor help you commit suicide?
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 09:37 PM   #40
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
I already know...
I already know that you want to destroy the US economy by multiplying all the bureaucracy that encumbers businesses and controls the people. Have you said it before? Tell about what you are calling for:

What emissions standards do you want to require of all of us?
What health care standards would you require of all of us?
What banking standards would you require?
What environmental standards would you have for all?
What book keeping standards would you require?
What investment/retirement standards would you have?
What political corruption are you willing to accept?

I can't think of anything more damaging to small businesses in the US than having a set of standards that are designed to suppress competition and keep the small business down as a Federal standard. The destructive force on small businesses who cannot send their workforce overseas like large corporations, being unable to compete with the Chinese, would hammer the final nail in the coffin of the US economy.

Gone would be any ability for small companies to win against behemoth monopolies and duopolies, and ex-patriated US corporations. Stagnation and decline would define the futuer of the nation as no state could determine their own way. Big companies would become lobbying machines, bribing powerful and corrupt political hacks with axes to grind and elections to win.

What you call market uncertainty, I call diversity on a level not seen since the nineteenth century. You will destroy our country, but at least you will have uniformity, right?

Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 10:05 PM   #41
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
I already know that you want to destroy the US economy by multiplying all the bureaucracy that encumbers businesses and controls the people. Have you said it before? Tell about what you are calling for:

What emissions standards do you want to require of all of us?
What health care standards would you require of all of us?
What banking standards would you require?
What environmental standards would you have for all?
What book keeping standards would you require?
What investment/retirement standards would you have?
What political corruption are you willing to accept?

I can't think of anything more damaging to small businesses in the US than having a set of standards that are designed to suppress competition and keep the small business down as a Federal standard. The destructive force on small businesses who cannot send their workforce overseas like large corporations, being unable to compete with the Chinese, would hammer the final nail in the coffin of the US economy.

Gone would be any ability for small companies to win against behemoth monopolies and duopolies, and ex-patriated US corporations. Stagnation and decline would define the futuer of the nation as no state could determine their own way. Big companies would become lobbying machines, bribing powerful and corrupt political hacks with axes to grind and elections to win.

What you call market uncertainty, I call diversity on a level not seen since the nineteenth century. You will destroy our country, but at least you will have uniformity, right?

I love how you don't even attempt to address the massive negative impacts of your own stated policies. Just more attacks
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 10:15 PM   #42
11Series
.
6
Rep
668
Posts

 
Drives: BMW turned up to 11
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: These things go to eleven

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by scottwww View Post
What is the hypocratic oath? Why should a doctor help you commit suicide?

"hypocratic oath"? Do you mean Hippocratic Oath? The ancient pledge to pegan Gods Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia and Panaceia?

The Hippocratic Oath is not law, nor should a VOLUNTARY oath be given the force of law.

It's bad enough that religious nutters want to make make Taliban-style biblical-based laws. We definitely don't need laws based on oaths to pegan Gods.
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 10:54 PM   #43
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
I love how you don't even attempt to address the massive negative impacts of your own stated policies. Just more attacks
In what way did I attack any more than you did? Be objective.

And who is it around here that often makes ad-hominem attacks against those who are discussing issues?
Appreciate 0
      05-10-2011, 10:59 PM   #44
scottwww
Brigadier General
scottwww's Avatar
United_States
166
Rep
4,759
Posts

 
Drives: 07 BMW 335i Cpe, 05 Mazda RX8
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Send a message via MSN to scottwww
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11Series View Post
"hypocratic oath"? Do you mean Hippocratic Oath? The ancient pledge to pegan Gods Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia and Panaceia?

The Hippocratic Oath is not law, nor should a VOLUNTARY oath be given the force of law.

It's bad enough that religious nutters want to make make Taliban-style biblical-based laws. We definitely don't need laws based on oaths to pegan Gods.
Part of the discussion had gone to the oath taken by physicians. Was that not the Hippocratic Oath?

You are a mean-spirited individual. You appear to have little capacity to participate in civil discussions and seem to be very intollerant of competing ideas.

To whom was your cutting remark directed "religious nutters want to make make Taliban-style biblical-based laws"?
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:08 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST