Drunk Drivers' Rights?

[C0ckney]

ben kenobi

[rah]

Then why are you opposed to the elimination of the plan?

Hmm I've paid in all that money and now you want me to advocate eliminating it before I get a penny out of it?
You must be the most stupid person I've ever known.

What poor people? SS has never been intended for this. It's always been a distribution from people with fewer assets to those with greater.

Hmmm,
rich people pay in more than they ever get back.
Poor people get back more than they ever pay in.
Seems like the money is flowing from rich to poor to me.

I'll never get back anywhere near what I put in. That money went to the previous generation of older poorer people that the program was created for. (by them by the way)
We paid for them. It's only fair that we don't get shut out for doing our civic duty.
I agree that changes need to be made and I've recommended some here frequently. The most obvious one is to remove the cap for contributions (at least the workers portion. You could still cap it for the employer contribution). That alone would eliminate a lot of problems and keep the system solvent for quite a while. You could also slide the age requirements on future enrollees. But to change the age on people that are within a few years is a disservice to those that have been paying in for 40 years.

You've been paying in for just a few years and not paying in much. A total change of the system would have little long term effects on you. You still have plenty of time to plan.

[Sava]

rich people pay in more than they ever get back.
Poor people get back more than they ever pay in.

#richmanproblems

Tell the rich people to pay the poor more. Problem solved.

[Berzerker]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't protect reading the Bible? Your contempt for our religious freedom is duly noted, can I quote you the next time you complain about the government intruding upon yours?

If you don't have the constitutional right to smoke pot then the government and congress can regulate it's distribution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. - 9th Amendment to the US Constitution

God I hope no one is paying you to teach the Constitution to children, they warned us about people like you. The Framers were not authoring an encyclopedic listing of our rights, they focused on the few they considered most important and vulnerable to a growing tyranny. The Constitution doesn't mention a right to eat food, do you really think that gave Congress the power to ban it?

I like how things that BK like are OK because they aren't explicitly forbidden in the constitution, but things he dislikes aren't OK, because they aren't explicitly allowed in it.

No 9th Amendment for you!

The constitution explicitly protects freedom of religious expression.

But you dont believe in religious freedom, you think its funny when the state jails people for practicing religions you dont like

Given that the United States has always regulated the distribution of alcohol, this suggests to me that it was the intent of the founders to regulate these things from the very start.

Nobody here is arguing for no regulation. The argument is over how it ought to be regulated. There is no constitutional right to pot.

You're confusing taxation with regulation and Congress has the power to tax. Booze was not regulated back then and when the power to ban it was created it took an amendment to the Constitution. But Congress did exempt the Church and its members because they used alcohol in their religion. Imagine that, drug use and religion is okay for your Pope and Church... I'm beginning to think hypocrites were Jesus' target audience.

[Sava]

Berz

[DaShi]

Have you turned over a new leaf?

I was derping around last night reading a lot of archived posts. I'd forgotten how militantly anti-legalization you were. Your discussions with Berz are classic!

Dr Strangelove is who they based Breaking Bad on.

[Ben Kenobi]

What do you call a history teacher who can't pass his own class?

Does it hurt you that I earned my degree?

[Ben Kenobi]

abolishing private property is not the same as taxing it, you imbecile.

Arguing that they favor confiscation, isn't going to counter the argument that wealth taxes are at the core of the manifesto.

[N35t0r]

somehow wealth taxes and expropriation are exactly the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

So the 1st Amendment doesn't protect reading the Bible? Your contempt for our religious freedom is duly noted, can I quote you the next time you complain about the government intruding upon yours?

Your argument, "toking up is a religious practice protected by the 1st."

No, it's not. Getting high is not a religion.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the people do not have the enumerated right to smoke pot.

God I hope no one is paying you to teach the Constitution to children, they warned us about people like you.

People who believe that smoking pot is a fundamental freedom? They warned us about people like you who would insert whatever the hell they wanted to into the constitution.

The Framers were not authoring an encyclopedic listing of our rights

Find one who argues that there is a constitutional right to pot.

, they focused on the few they considered most important and vulnerable to a growing tyranny. The Constitution doesn't mention a right to eat food, do you really think that gave Congress the power to ban it?

Are you arguing that pot is necessary to sustenance in the same way food is? You've got a serious addiction problem if you believe that to be the case.

But you dont believe in religious freedom, you think its funny when the state jails people for practicing religions you dont like

I don't believe getting high is a religion. Sorry Berz.

You're confusing taxation with regulation

Taxation is a form of regulation and regulation via taxation involves controls on the distribution. The US has always had controls on importation of quite a number of goods. This is not unconstitutional.

Booze was not regulated back then

Booze was regulated back then, quite heavily actually.

and when the power to ban it was created it took an amendment to the Constitution.

Banning!= regulation. Pot is not banned, but it is heavily regulated like most other psychoactive drugs. Are you arguing cocaine should be freely available OTC in supermarkets to whomever?

But Congress did exempt the Church and its members because they used alcohol in their religion. Imagine that, drug use and religion is okay for your Pope and Church... I'm beginning to think hypocrites were Jesus' target audience.

Right, show me a religion where toking is a sacrament. We've used wine for several thousand years now.

[Ben Kenobi]

somehow wealth taxes and expropriation are exactly the same.

Are you seriously arguing that a communist would be opposed to a wealth tax? 4 of the points of the Manifesto involve communist takeover of various ways of earning wealth.

[C0ckney]

communists want to abolish private property, not tax it. you can't tax something that doesn't exist. things don't get more basic than this.

[Ben Kenobi]

communists want to abolish private property, not tax it. you can't tax something that doesn't exist. things don't get more basic than this.

Are you seriously arguing that a communist would be opposed to a wealth tax?

[C0ckney]

it's as if you don't speak english.

[Sava]

it's as if you don't speak english.

I know, right? It's pathetic