Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Drunk Drivers' Rights?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Berzerker
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    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?

    Originally posted by N35t0r View Post
    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!

    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sava
    replied
    Originally posted by rah View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • rah
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • C0ckney
    replied
    ben kenobi

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • C0ckney
    replied
    abolishing private property is not the same as taxing it, you imbecile.

    edit: x-post, directed at BK.

    Leave a comment:


  • AAAAAAAAH!
    replied
    Clearly if Berzerker thinks the government should collect taxes, he's a Communist!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
    What is the number 1 form of wealth in America? Land and private property. The Manifesto seeks to eliminate this altogether.

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
    Again, another form of wealth redistribution.

    3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
    I wonder why the Commies would try to confiscate inheritances?

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
    Ooh, look. If the commies don't like you they confiscate your wealth!

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
    Gosh, now why would they want control over banking and the wealth inside? So they can confiscate it?

    I rest my case, wealth taxes are the core of communism.

    Leave a comment:


  • N35t0r
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    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.
    Does it say so in the constitution?

    Leave a comment:


  • AAAAAAAAH!
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Kenobi View Post
    It's a core part of the Manifesto.
    Are you talking about this?
    Nevertheless in the most advanced countries the following will be pretty generally applicable:

    1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

    2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

    3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

    4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

    5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

    6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

    7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

    8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

    9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of population over the country.

    10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.


    LOL people who think children should receive an education instead of working in factories are COMMUNSITS!

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    I believe his only actual interest in God is his desire to be God.


    The only ones who want that are atheists.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    Hey, I kept my part of the pact and contributed over a quarter of a million to support those poor people you keep trying to say are victimized.
    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.

    The US government's promise was that I'd get a small portion of it back to help when I needed it.
    It was a terrible deal for you. But, given present compensation rates it's unsustainable.

    I've always known I was never going to recoup it all but I paid in without whining. (of course it's not like I had a choice )
    Then why are you opposed to the elimination of the plan?

    So stop whining and do your share. That's what being an American is all about. Or go back to where you came from.
    Right. America never existed without social security. I would argue that social security is contrary to what America is all about.

    Leave a comment:


  • My Wife Hates CIV
    replied
    just smoke it. don't do something stupid. don't get into a fight. don't drive around like your high. even where it's kinda legal, act like it is %100 not legal.

    Do all the above and who cares what the law is because no one will know you're smoking it.

    and... if you have to get a job... well... couple of month break is not going to kill you - ha! probably will help you.

    I mean... how hard is all that? and if you can't do the above... well... maybe that's why you're in trouble.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    Hey man, you came HERE.

    GTFO if you don't like it.
    Right the fact that plenty of Americans raise the same objections I do here never crossed your mind? Or do I have to be an American to argue that all young Americans are getting a ****ty deal?

    The system is going to collapse. Maybe we should do something before it does, eh?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Kenobi
    replied
    I like how things that BK like are OK because they aren't explicitly forbidden in the constitution
    The constitution explicitly protects freedom of religious expression. 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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X