Trans Ladyboy Forum

Go Back Trans Ladyboy Forum > General Discussion
Register Forum Rules Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Bookmark & Share

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #351  
Old 07-16-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?
Wow, to hear the liberals talk, the corporations in America are not taxed at all (in GE's [the company in obama's back pocket] case this would be true). The only country with a coperate rate higher than ours (40%) is United Arab Emirates.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #352  
Old 07-18-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.
Perhaps I was too vague. But I see from your last post perhaps what you're talking about when you say political implications. Your talking about corporations and free speech?
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?
Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business.
You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #353  
Old 07-18-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?
I find your analogy to Hollywood movies to be rather specious, and I contend that there are umpteen movies that espouse what some might call the "right viewpoint," but be that as it may ... Here's a big difference. In a Hollywood movie, who is funding the message and stating the message is clear. When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?
Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential. Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights." I could put a map of impoverished places in the world, where all water is unpotable, disease is rampant, there are no educational opportunities, and food is scarce, and ask "What person would want to live here?" Does the answer have anything to do with our subject? Of course not.

Nevertheless, since based on experience one might reasonably assume you will pretend not to see the point and accuse me of not answering your question now asked multiple times, I will state that I don't think corporate taxes are high enough in this country. Now, you can take that up as a way of avoiding the subject I first raised ... it is my gift to you, because you are always so deserving.

(Yes, that's sarcasm.)
Reply With Quote
  #354  
Old 07-18-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?
Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential.
You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights."
No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #355  
Old 07-18-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.
That's why we have a Constitution that's meant to be interpreted. In this case, the interests of democracy might be a compelling reason to mandate such transparency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.
I find it really, really, really, really hard to believe that you never saw the video of Romney in Iowa saying "corporations are people" and then giving a completely illogical followup to his comment that is the equivalent of saying that anything that does something for people or gives something to people is thus itself people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?
I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.
Reply With Quote
  #356  
Old 07-18-2012
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
Wow, to hear the liberals talk, the corporations in America are not taxed at all (in GE's [the company in obama's back pocket] case this would be true). The only country with a coperate rate higher than ours (40%) is United Arab Emirates.
To hear some right wingers talk, you'd think they have a real aversion to something called facts. Where is the federal corporate tax rate 40%? Oh, you must be lumping in state and local tax rates to the "statutory minimum" federal rate of 35%. Yep, that's right, the federal tax rate is only 35%. And it only applies to businesses making over $18 million of taxable income. Income between $335,000 and $10 million is taxed at a flat rate of 34%. Income below the $335,000 threshold is taxed less.

It's certainly conceivable that if state and local taxes are added to the federal tax rate, a FEW corporations may pay in the neighborhood of 40%. But this is far from universally true-- if for no other reason that some state (and many municipalities) don't have corporate taxes at all.

Further, even if every state did have corporate tax to levy, still, the vast majority of corporations would pay nowhere near 40%. Those who know anything about business know that the effective tax rate (aka. the actual rate that a corporation ends up paying after factoring in deductions, credits, etc.) is 19%. Obviously, the distribution of deductions and credits is not even by business or industry-- under the current tax code, some corporations end up paying close to the federal "minimum" rate, others pay hardly any tax at all.

What does all this mean? That our tax code is definitely convoluted. But it also means that it's disingenuous to lay out a blanket percentage of tax rate as if it's fact that applies equally to all.
Reply With Quote
  #357  
Old 07-18-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.
I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body

Last edited by TracyCoxx; 07-18-2012 at 10:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #358  
Old 07-19-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY

Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.

You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.
Reply With Quote
  #359  
Old 07-19-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

The whole issue about raising corperate taxes or taxing the rich, is BS. The government needs to CUT SPENDING. As of early 2009 (the ecconomic situation has further deteriorated) if we had a total freeze on government spending and had a 100% Feeral tax, it would still take ten years to pay off the debt.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #360  
Old 07-19-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
The whole issue about raising corperate taxes or taxing the rich, is BS. The government needs to CUT SPENDING. As of early 2009 (the ecconomic situation has further deteriorated) if we had a total freeze on government spending and had a 100% Feeral tax, it would still take ten years to pay off the debt.
I'm all for cutting government spending. But I bet we won't agree on the cuts to make.

Let's get real about this deficit. The U.S. federal budget deficit today doesn't even come close to the percentage of the economy it was in, say, 1943, when it accounted for

30.3%. The Congressional Budget Office's most dire projection is that it will be 5.8% in fiscal 2014. This deficit business is a made-up catastrophe. Yes, it's large, but by no means insurmountable. When Reagan was president in 1983, the deficit was 6% of the economy, and by 1998 it had been turned into a surplus.

The call for drastic cuts are simply part of the strategy to shrink government, not the deficit. If deficit reduction was serious, the screamers of doom would be calling for cuts in the parts of the budget that are significant, and not stupid-ass stuff like the National Endowment for the Arts. But Romney, for instance, wants to increase the budget for the Pentagon -- the base budget for which has increased by nearly doubled in the last decade.

Reply With Quote
  #361  
Old 07-19-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I'm all for cutting government spending. But I bet we won't agree on the cuts to make.
You might be surprised.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #362  
Old 07-19-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Then we could start over and build an economy based on meeting human needs, not enriching a handful of individuals at the expense of people and the environment. Think it can't be done? We have the resources to do so; it just requires a mindset change. And before they leave, we could take back whatever they've stolen.
whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
You're welcome to scatter along with the corporations, TracyCoxx.
What was that for?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #363  
Old 07-20-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
You might be surprised.
I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?
Reply With Quote
  #364  
Old 07-20-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.
I didn't say a word about undocumented workers, but your attempt to change the subject (I know, you'll argue that I used the word "human" and so anything is game) is transparent.

But I have to hand it to you, TracyCoxx, you're relentless. I admire your willingness to go to the mat every single time with your provocative behavior. Sometimes I think the Internet was created for anonymous people like you who never have to face their audiences. As I've posted many times before, I believe with everything I'm made of that you would be used to mop the floor in a real debate. I refer readers to other posts for an explanation of why, lest I use the description that sends you off whining to the site owner.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
What was that for?
Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.
Reply With Quote
  #365  
Old 07-21-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s.
Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.
What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #366  
Old 07-21-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.
Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional. As I wrote then about you as a "friend" of the Constitution, "The sworn enemies of the United States would have better luck bringing down the nation by encouraging more of these types of friends than through conventional warfare."

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?
And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.
Reply With Quote
  #367  
Old 07-22-2012
St. Araqiel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy.
What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over. If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!

Last edited by St. Araqiel; 07-22-2012 at 01:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #368  
Old 07-22-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional.
My criticisms of the court ruling were based entirely on what was in the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.
You're saying that is what you meant when you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.
This doesn't suggest a different type of economy. This suggests that I leave the US.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #369  
Old 07-22-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Araqiel View Post
What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over.
You don't have to wait until corporations leave to close a loophole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by St. Araqiel View Post
If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!
Yeah, except for conflict of interest. You say things without any thought to consequences.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #370  
Old 07-22-2012
GRH's Avatar
GRH GRH is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: New England
Posts: 531
GRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to beholdGRH is a splendid one to behold
Default

If corporations are people, it's time we start treating them like people. When laws are broken by corporations (or the agents of the corporation), I don't want to see this "settlement" bullshit that the FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. will engage in. I want the corporations taken to court, tried, and if convicted, I want their corporate charters revoked (or the stockholders can be wiped out and the corporate assets liquidated to the highest bidder).

I see this as a double standard. In terms of speech, corporations are viewed as "collections" of people...This collection of people is entitled to spend money and speak for the whole (regardless of whether the individual shareholders agree). But when this same collection of people breaks the law (even if it's individuals within the corporate entity), suddenly the "collective" mindset breaks down. The corporation isn't held accountable; instead, the individual agents acting on its behalf are held accountable (and only sometimes at that).

It's nothing original, but I love the statement: I'll start believing that corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Reply With Quote
  #371  
Old 07-24-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?
socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


"Government ownership and administrationship" hmm, does that sound familiar (banks, mortgage firms, automobile companies, wall street, the medical industry, need I go on)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you.
The unSupreme Court's decision on obamacare(if it's such a gerat system then why are they [government workers] and unions exempt?) was not Constitutional. That's not simply my opinion, that's what the document says. I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #372  
Old 07-24-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


"Government ownership and administrationship" hmm, does that sound familiar (banks, mortgage firms, automobile companies, wall street, the medical industry, need I go on)?
You can post all the definitions you want, but your profile identifies your location as "Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America." So, prove with your definitions that we live in a "Socialist" country, where the preponderance of economic activity fits your definition. (And, by the way, it's ownership AND administration, not ownership OR administration.)

The argument that the United States is socialist is simply ridiculous. Every capitalist country in the world has some elements of the economy that have "socialistic" characteristics, but to say this is a socialist country is beyond asinine. I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idiotic, and you -- having proven yourself in post after post to have a level of seriousness and intelligence beyond such an idiocy -- ought to be embarrassed, too.




Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
The unSupreme Court's decision on obamacare(if it's such a gerat system then why are they [government workers] and unions exempt?) was not Constitutional. That's not simply my opinion, that's what the document says. I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?
Like TracyCoxx, you simply post again and again that the ruling by the Supreme Court is wrong. You're both welcome to your opinion that the Court made a mistake, but over and again both of you reveal that you do not support the U.S. system of government -- because the Supreme Court gets to make its decisions whether you think the Constitution "empowers" it to do this or that. It is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional, not you, and not TracyCoxx. You either have to accept how it works as a system, or state without equivocation that you want to overthrow the Constitutional system established. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Look that word up, like you did "socialist."
Reply With Quote
  #373  
Old 07-24-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
(And, by the way, it's ownership AND administration, not ownership OR administration.)

The argument that the United States is socialist is simply ridiculous. Every capitalist country in the world has some elements of the economy that have "socialistic" characteristics,
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I recognize that the concepts of capitalism, socialism, even communism and facism are abstract and therefore theoretical. You will not, and possibly perhaps should not, find these concepts applied in a purist form..

You must remember, as I've stated before, I am a very firm advocate of State's Rights. The ever-expanding Federal government makes me chafe (well that and starch in my thong). I abhore the burdensome "top down" model - I know that some may not see it as such - that is currently so pervasive throught DC. People and buisness would be better served with less centralized controll over their lives. I'm not saying there should be a total free-for-all where there's anarchy in the streets and the buisness or corporations are simply steamrolling anyone they want to. The Federal government needs to be rolled back to it's originally intended size.

(BTW, in case you forgot my questions?)
Quote:
I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #374  
Old 07-24-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I recognize that the concepts of capitalism, socialism, even communism and facism are abstract and therefore theoretical. You will not, and possibly perhaps should not, find these concepts applied in a purist form..
Rather than argue with you about the degree of abstractness in these concepts (I speculate that I don't think they are nearly as abstract as do you), I will instead pose a query: if the term "socialist" is abstract, why then do you apply it concretely to describe the United States? In addition: what is the point at which the United States economy, in its preponderance, switched from capitalist to socialist? I ask these questions in all seriousness, particularly the second of the two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
(BTW, in case you forgot my questions?)
I am not trying to avoid your questions. I thought I answered the first and second ones several times, even if not directly. My answer is that I do not know where in the Constitution the federal government is empowered to run health care. I am not a Constitutional scholar. More important, though, is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make that determination. And it empowers the Court, through its rulings, to address the wording of legislation in whatever way the Court ITSELF deems to be Constitutional. You continue to disagree with the Constitutional authority given to the Court to do so, and then when challenged on that point you simply ignore it. By calling it the unSupreme Court, you disrespect the very system you claim to support.

I would also argue that the Affordable Care Act does now empower the government to RUN health care, by any definition of RUN.


As for your third and fourth question: I don't know what will be next, since I don't accept the terms of your description of what the Court ruled. As for your question about hybrid cars, I will answer by turning the question around. When will the Court rule that it is unconstitutional for the government to give my tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and use its power to keep gasoline prices artificially low so as to encourage the continued use of unsustainable fuels and the automobiles that burn those fuels?
Reply With Quote
  #375  
Old 07-24-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I will instead pose a query: if the term "socialist" is abstract, why then do you apply it concretely to describe the United States? In addition: what is the point at which the United States economy, in its preponderance, switched from capitalist to socialist? I ask these questions in all seriousness, particularly the second of the two.
I have long felt that the Federal government has taken far too much power unto itself. It has been a steady weathering away of State's Rights and personal liberties for many years. But I'll admit that obamacare, where some blowhard a thousand miles away is demanding that I buy a service otherwise they'll penalize or rather tax me, has kinda pushed me over the edge. If I had a black toga, I'd be wearing it.

In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I am not trying to avoid your questions. I thought I answered the first and second ones several times, even if not directly. My answer is that I do not know where in the Constitution the federal government is empowered to run health care. I am not a Constitutional scholar. More important, though, is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make that determination. And it empowers the Court, through its rulings, to address the wording of legislation in whatever way the Court ITSELF deems to be Constitutional. You continue to disagree with the Constitutional authority given to the Court to do so, and then when challenged on that point you simply ignore it. By calling it the unSupreme Court, you disrespect the very system you claim to support.
There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to take controll of health care. In Articles One and Two, there is a clear list of what powers the Federal government is to have. In the Tenth Ammendment it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." therefore according to the Constitution, health care is not the domain of the Federal government.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do?


Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
When will the Court rule that it is unconstitutional for the government to give my tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and use its power to keep gasoline prices artificially low so as to encourage the continued use of unsustainable fuels and the automobiles that burn those fuels?
The honest answer, about two days after hell freezes over.

I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #376  
Old 07-24-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idiotic
Then don't. What? Do you need a 12 step program to stop?

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Like TracyCoxx, you simply post again and again that the ruling by the Supreme Court is wrong. You're both welcome to your opinion that the Court made a mistake, but over and again both of you reveal that you do not support the U.S. system of government -- because the Supreme Court gets to make its decisions whether you think the Constitution "empowers" it to do this or that.
We are asking legitimate questions. Questions that you apparently don't know the answer too other than "because the Supreme Court said so". If you don't know an answer, it's ok not to answer the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
It is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional, not you, and not TracyCoxx. You either have to accept how it works as a system
We do accept the system. The system is that the supreme court makes rulings based on the constitution. I do not see that they have in this case.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #377  
Old 07-25-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
I have long felt that the Federal government has taken far too much power unto itself. It has been a steady weathering away of State's Rights and personal liberties for many years. But I'll admit that obamacare, where some blowhard a thousand miles away is demanding that I buy a service otherwise they'll penalize or rather tax me, has kinda pushed me over the edge. If I had a black toga, I'd be wearing it.

In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank.
First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you. By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.

To your post, tslust ...

Words matter, and despite your much appreciated answer to the question I posed you still use the term socialism to describe something that isn’t even remotely socialist. You described the term “socialist” as abstract in an earlier post. Do I understand correctly that, in the concrete, you reserve the right to describe as socialist an entire country regardless of how much “socialism” (i.e., national government “intervention” in economic affairs might exist)? If so, than is every capitalist country in the world actually a socialist country? Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?

These are serious questions, even if the cartoon below is tongue-in-cheek.




Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to take controll of health care. In Articles One and Two, there is a clear list of what powers the Federal government is to have. In the Tenth Ammendment it says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." therefore according to the Constitution, health care is not the domain of the Federal government.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do?
I don’t remember anyone calling Bush “unSupreme,” but your point is taken. If it makes you feel better to use the term “unSupreme,” go ahead. Using such words does nothing to bolster an argument, and only makes arguments look rather childish ... in my opinion.

To the point regarding “constitutionality,” though, I guess I'll try one last time to make my point, which at this stage of the discussion I must admit I think is being deliberately ignored. My point (and you will either respond or not): the Supreme Court is, in essence, given the power to determine its own powers. Yes, you can quote the Constitution, but our system is set up in a way that thwarts the literal interpretation of the Constitution in that the Court itself can rule that it has powers. My point all along has been that this is how it works, and you either support the system or you don’t. The Court has ruled many times in ways that seem to go against what the Constitution, taking its words literally, might mean. Most scholars of the U.S. Constitution use the word “beauty” to describe how the Founding Fathers made it so “wise” men and women would use their judgment.

Do they get it wrong? Sure, often. They ruled that Blacks were less than whole persons, for instance.

Look, I don’t like the Affordable Care Act. I have quoted Lawrence O’Donnell, in agreement, calling it the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. But you know, tslust, that anything not strictly stated in the Constitution is open to Court interpretation. You can say you disagree when the Court does this and agree when the Court does that, in fulfilling its interpretative mandate, but if you support the system than you have to agree that sometimes you’ll agree and sometimes you’ll disagree with the Court’s decision. The Court’s interpretative mandate to DECIDE is constitutional. Again, that has been my point all along.

As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court? That is the implication of how your 2% milk question is initially posed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tslust View Post
The honest answer, about two days after hell freezes over.

I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.
Well, I'm glad to read that, but do you believe that most subsidies SHOULD be done away with? That’s the far more important question.

Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!
Attached Thumbnails
you-might-be-a-socialist.jpg  
Reply With Quote
  #378  
Old 07-25-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Then don't. What? Do you need a 12 step program to stop?
Your wittiness is rivaled only by your sophistry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
We are asking legitimate questions. Questions that you apparently don't know the answer too other than "because the Supreme Court said so". If you don't know an answer, it's ok not to answer the question.
I know you like to put words in people's mouth, but I've made my point again and again, including in my response just above to tslust. I also know that you like to ignore what people actually write when it doesn't suit your purposes. So have your fun. As we both know from the Internet, people get off on all sorts of weird things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
We do accept the system. The system is that the supreme court makes rulings based on the constitution. I do not see that they have in this case.
Again, my point is made in the response to tslust above. Apparently, you now speak for tslust. I would think tslust, who actually takes this stuff seriously, would not want to give that kind of carte blanche to someone who doesn't, but the Web is a place of infinite surprise.
Reply With Quote
  #379  
Old 07-25-2012
TracyCoxx's Avatar
TracyCoxx TracyCoxx is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,308
TracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these partsTracyCoxx is infamous around these parts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you.
Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.
Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.
I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
I know you like to put words in people's mouth, but I've made my point again and again, including in my response just above to tslust. I also know that you like to ignore what people actually write when it doesn't suit your purposes. So have your fun. As we both know from the Internet, people get off on all sorts of weird things.
You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.
__________________
A lesbian trapped in a man's body
Reply With Quote
  #380  
Old 07-25-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.
You can ignore what I write until the cows come home, and cast aspersions, and try to paint me as having deliberately ignored a post in another thread, but you're the troll and not me.

Your post in the other thread will be answered when I'm done writing this post. I don't remember seeing it, which is probably why I didn't answer. Unlike some people, I masturbate to pictures online, not just things I myself have written, so I might have been busy.

(Yes, go whine to the site owner that I insulted you. I have decided to do you a solid by giving you as many direct opportunities to whine to the site owner as possible, so you don't have to spend time writing compelling arguments about how something that wasn't really an insult actually is.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...
I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!
]

A time-honored trick: throw that which you are accused of back at the accuser, rather than deal with the substance. The differences will be clear to anyone who has the time to look at the full, complete record of your posts and mine, in toto, but I doubt anyone will do so. It's not worth the trouble.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.
Wow, you're so clever, trying to make it look like I don't know something, or that I'm refusing to answer your questions. But the reality is that I did answer. I have written that unlike you, I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. I have written that I accept the Supreme Court's decision because they get to make it. I think the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I also happen not to like the Affordable Care Act, as I've also written. I think we should have single-payer healthcare, Medicare for all.

Now, I'm going to the other thread to deal with that post that you are implying I deliberately ignored ... despite that you have no proof. I could point out all the things, again, that you've never actually answered, but I have other things to do after logging off. For instance, I'm going to search for a manual that explains how to be the best possible troll, because you're slipping. I'll send you the link.
Reply With Quote
  #381  
Old 07-25-2012
smc's Avatar
smc smc is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Boston area, U.S.A.
Posts: 18,085
smc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond reputesmc has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to smc
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TracyCoxx View Post
NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.


I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!
Oh, I forgot that I wanted to address this quote more directly.

Hundreds? Seriously? More important, though, I defy you to find a single post of mine where I reserve the right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum. Find one. I dare you.

I, on the other hand, can find many posts of yours where you have complained that I intervened in, or interrupted, or had the nerve to participate in, an open thread -- open meaning anyone can participate.

So, in the tradition of TracyCoxx, I want an apology for attributing to me something that I have never done. ... Not really -- I don't want an apology. Because an apology from you would be meaningless. An apology from someone who serially makes up stuff like what I quote above is meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #382  
Old 07-29-2012
tslust's Avatar
tslust tslust is offline
Senior Ladyboy Lover
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America
Posts: 743
tslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to beholdtslust is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?
I believe that the buisness should, for the most part, be allowed to function on their own. I don't think there should be zero government intervention, some regulation is good for the consumers. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with the public use and private sector production. I don't believe it would be possible to impliment "pure" capitalism. As for government meddling into buisness, I believe that so long as the general public isn't put in danger by a buisness' practiecs (either through health concerns or lack of ecconomic incentives reasulting in degradation of services, ie monopolies) the government shouldn't get involved.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court?
It's not that I don't understand your position. The fact is that the Court upheald the idea that the Federal government has the authority to demand that the citizens must purchase a product. And that is blatantly against the Constitution. I suppose that one could argue that the individual mandate/tax is in effect a Bill of Attainder and therefore void. The 2% analogy stems from the question of how much further will the Federal government go. What will they demand that we buy next?

I have no problem with the selection process of Judical nominees. However I would like to see them made more accountable to the people. It's interesting to note that in Article Three, Section I, it says: "...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,..." Does that mean the Constitution gives us a way to get rid of judges that we see as bad? IMHO If enough people sign a petition (like about 40%) saying that Ruberts is a bad justice and is not doing his job; then the question of whether he should be retained or not as a justice would be put on the ballot of the next National election. If 51% vote him out, then he has to go.


Quote:
Originally Posted by smc View Post
Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!
It is in the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science..." That being said, there's too much waste and too much money being poured down holes with nothing to show for it. That's why I said meaningful investments.
__________________
Just because I'm telling you this story doesn't mean that I'm alive at the end of it.

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

DEO VINDICE
Reply With Quote
  #383  
Old 07-30-2012
St. Araqiel
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH View Post
If corporations are people, it's time we start treating them like people. When laws are broken by corporations (or the agents of the corporation), I don't want to see this "settlement" bullshit that the FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. will engage in. I want the corporations taken to court, tried, and if convicted, I want their corporate charters revoked (or the stockholders can be wiped out and the corporate assets liquidated to the highest bidder).

I see this as a double standard. In terms of speech, corporations are viewed as "collections" of people...This collection of people is entitled to spend money and speak for the whole (regardless of whether the individual shareholders agree). But when this same collection of people breaks the law (even if it's individuals within the corporate entity), suddenly the "collective" mindset breaks down. The corporation isn't held accountable; instead, the individual agents acting on its behalf are held accountable (and only sometimes at that).

It's nothing original, but I love the statement: I'll start believing that corporations are people when Texas executes one.
Hear, hear!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © Trans Ladyboy