7,846 Forum Posts by "Camarohusky"
At 11/12/14 08:10 PM, Th-e wrote: I feel that someone like Chris Christie would be better than Warren.
Maybe 2 years ago. Christie has been exposed as more of a shill as he goes along. He's essentially pulled a 2008 McCain, but before he ran for President.
Elizabeth Warren is a far left politician, likely even moreso than Obama or Clinton, and I feel that what America needs is a move back towards the center. I don't know how well Christie fits, but I would prefer a candidate that is more moderate, whether Democrat or Republican.
I don't know what to tell you except, that the US has shifted a good deal right since the 1990s. The US is, at the leftest, slightly left of center. It's more likely down the middle or even to the right. If the US was even moderately deep in the left, Obamacare wouldn't exist, single payer would. Taxes wouldn;t have dropped to Great Depression levels, and the debt would be stagnant, if not shrinking.
At 11/12/14 06:39 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Because ones political beliefs or lack thereof change the core human condition and basic health care needs ?
Please read, it really ain't that hard.
The point was that when the left attacks Obamacare, they do so with a very clear plan to replace it. When the right attacks Obamacare they do so with no plan to replace it and without even trying to say why the previous regime was better.
At 11/12/14 01:23 PM, Feoric wrote: Obamacare should have came with a public option, but, about that:
This was meant for the right, not the left. The left who trash Obamacare do so with single payer quite openly in mind.
Trash Obamacare all you want, but until you prove the prior system was better, or provide your own better alternative, it's just white noise.
At 11/12/14 12:18 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Korriken
You said, "The problem with minimum wage is that workers are not supposed to remain there forever."
The does represent a problem with raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage is supposed to be minimum. It is not meant to be a great wage. The biggest problem with it is not its level, per se, it's how the employers have decided to utilize it. It is meant to be a floor for wages, not the most widely paid wage in a business. So, do we distort the minimum wage to make up for those who use it improperly? I mean if a raise is meant to create quality and motivation inworkers, will a higher minimum wage not dig into that. Then again, if the private sector is entirely unwilling to do the right thing, is it not the government's job to step in and mke them do it?
These tough questions are why the issue is so damn difficult to pick a side on for me.
There are many people who can't afford to go to college and even if they can a lot of people do not have the IQ needed to pass college.
When it comes to getting raises, IQ, education, intelligence, and talent are highly overrated. The ability to work hard and do what one is told, especially in lower end jobs, is all that is needed to get raises, and in many cass, to get them fairly quick.
By the way I know this is a bit off topic but does anyone know what pinko commie means? I mean I know that commie is short for communist but what the hell does the pinko part mean?
My dad always thought it was tied to the red card of the communists (His dad loved to refer to the Beatles as "Long haired commie pinko freaks"). I did look it up and got a vague reference to being effeminate or soft, a rough equivalent of a limousine liberal today. Meaning this person was too soft to help the people and never got their hands dirty. Also indicating that this person was too bourgeoisie to speak on issues of the people. Though my interpretation could be wrong.
I usually have pretty stark opinons on issues, however, here, I have adit that I have no idea what to think. I like the apsirations of the high minimum wage side. I do worry about possibl enegative effect of raising the minimum wage, and the effect of raising it so high so fast.
At 11/11/14 09:05 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Not that businesses are given any choice but to go along with this.
Actually, they are. Partnership is the default business structure for multiple person businesses. Businesses choose to become the other entities granted by the government in order to recieve benefits from the government in the form of less taxes and/or legal protections.
Lol, you act as though running a business in America is some imposition upon the country
Not even sure what you mean here.
Have you forgotten that personal income taxes exist?
Have you forgotten that businesses are "people" too?
Although tax avoidance is largely a selfish act, that doesn't mean it doesn't have real social benefits. By minimizing the tax that they are required to pay, some companies may allow themselves to remain running when they would otherwise close.
False. Flat out false. Businesses are not taxed like people. They are only taxed on profit (with a few exceptions). This means, that side from those few excepted locations, a business only pays taxes if they make money.
Even when this isn't the case, most companies are larger than they would be if their revenue was lowered significantly due to paying more taxes, and larger firms mean, ceritus paribum, higher employment, higher wages and greater output (and hence cheaper/better standard of living generally). Which is IMO better than what would be done with it as marginal tax revenue.
Again, only profits are taxed. Meaning costs of the company are only affected if the owners of the business decide their pocketbooks are more important that their employees (which sadly, is too often the sentiment.
Given your hatred of private enterprise and near-absolute faith in the government, I genuinely wonder why you don't advocate for the complete nationalization of the economy.
And here it comes, the conservative (don't give me that "I'm libertarin" shit, most libertarians are just too much of a pussy to admit they are actually conservative) tactic where if someone disagrees with you, you lambaste them with hyperbole until the person they argue with feels ashamed and feels it necessary to back peddle instead of actually debating.
You can try to twist all you want. My only driving factor here is that dollars in the higher echelon of the wealthy make a significantly smaller positive impact in the conomy than dollars in the government. If truly growing the economy were you goal, instead of merely wanting to feed the wealthy, you'd be aiming for money to go the the government or to keep it from getting locked away in the relm of the extremely wealthy.
Even if we assume this is the 100% true, it presents a kind of prisoner's dilemma wherein firms are punished for acting 'morally'. Even if a CEO recognizes the 'immorality' of tax avoidance, he has little choice but to do it if he values his job.
True. This is a problem as the system has stilted businesses toward actions that can be parasitic toward the soiciety they rely upon to exist.
You guys speak of Iran's nuclear capability as if it were aiming for a US style system. Iran doesn't need to us a B52 or an ICBM to deliver a nuclear bomb. Heck, Iran doesn't need to do much to deliver a nuclear bomb to a place like the US.
The ubuquity and enormity of global travel and trade, means that with fairly little effort, a nuclear bomb can be smuggled into even the most developed of ports. The check rate for containers on container ships is pathetically low (think below 5% at the high end). Let's also not forget other methods of smuggling, many of which do not involve any ports at all. With the miniaturization of nuclear explosives and the mechanics needed to arm and detonate them, nuclear warfare can be conducted entirely without any traditional delivery method.
The biggest fear with a state like Iran who has questionable ties with terrorist groups is that, by intent or mistake, these terrorists will get a hold of the nucelar material/weapon and carry out attacks on their own.
At 11/10/14 04:11 PM, Feoric wrote: recalcitrant witnesses.
Oh, and an tip to all. This site that Feoric used (and I have used for a while) is the best place to look up Federal Statutes. All federal statutes are free to the public, but this site has a very good catalogue and navigational system. My law school's reference desk highly recommends this for easy searches (though, it never hurts to hit the most recent digest to ensure proper citation.)
At 11/10/14 04:00 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Oh. I guess uncooperative with authorities, not being 100% helpful with investigations, or just plain seeming like you have an interest in stalling or stymying a case. (But not actually hampering said case) That sort of contempt. Was that narrow enough?
Well, actual hinderance can be called hindering prosecution or Obstruction of a law enforcement officer and I'm sure there are other names.
However, if you don't actually hinder the case, but you are not being helpful when questioned, that's called (this is a term of art, mind you) "Really suspicious". It's not illegal to not help an invesigation, though it does attract a ton of police and state attention. It is illegal to go out of your way to hurt an investigation.
You can be held in general contempt for failing to show (in many jurisdictions this depends on the type of service), or failing to answer questions as a witness in court. There are a few privileges that allow a person to not talk, but in reality, these only apply to a very small percentage of witnesses.
At 11/10/14 03:43 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: What is the legal term for "contempt prior to investigation"? I need this to win an internet argument.
That depends? What exactly do you mean by this? Explain the situation or give me an example and I'll see. Also, terminology can differ widely by jurisdiction.
At 11/8/14 04:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Said like a government shill. Love has nothing to do with economics and government contracts and if it does then you best drop that gold digging bitch cause it will never work. Love is not a business contract that is unless you are going to the whores and paying them to pretend to love you. You can't legally contract someone into loving another that's not how it works. Again if you are not in love at the time of marriageis that not an illegal marriage in the eyes of God and Country LOL
So much you don't understand...
First off, the love I was speaking of is NOT lust. It's companionship love. Any marriage that lasts more than a couple years thrives on this sort of love. Oh, and the key point I was making is that this is the love that keeps marriages and families together, and does not require an ounce of romantic love to exist. I would actually posit that your high importance placed upon romantic love has done more to hurt marriage than any amount of gayness could. The high divorce rate is largely based upon people thinking that romantic love is all that is needed for marriage. When it fades, these people divorce. Or, when it fades, the partners go out and seek it extramaritally.
Now, Companionship is something that is built. People who have no love for eachother can uild this love through work. Oh, and last I chekced, public marriage (shit even privat emarriage) never required actual love. At the most they required the appearance of actual love. So why change the rules now, because you're afraid you might start wanting it in the butt because gay people do it?
In Canada even with a Prenuptial agreement it is ultimately up to the Judge who gets what and most of the time due to minority rights and affirmative action the women still gets awarded more things that she did not earn or deserve in the first place. In the past prior to massive Government intervention and programing the women was reliant on her man to bring her resources ... now in days the women can steal from the man through the use of Government programs in turn mitigating his place and job in the relationship.
That's a problem with your government. If you don't like that, get those laws changed.
What I have been saying for some time.
I'm pretty sure you have said all state marriage is bad and that gay have no business being in marriage becuase your personal disgusts are more important than everyone else.
There are many reasons.
They range from Eurocentrism, a twinge of racism, the difference in strategy involved, the difference is locations involved, and even a bit of sweeping under the rug.
The Eurocentrism and racism are tied together. They focus more on Europe because they believe Europe is more important and that Europeans more closely represent Americans.
The difference in strategy involved makes the Pacific Theater seem much less glorious than the European Theater. The Pacific theater was much dirtier, much deadlier, and involved a significantly higher degree of brutality than the European theater. It's extremely difficult to place glory upon a battle for an island where the US gave up 850 lives (x 3 wounded) per square mile.
This ties in a little bit to the locations involved. They key point in teh Pacific theater were Saipan, Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima, Luzona (not including Manila), and Okinawa. On the other hand look at Europe: Paris, Berlon, Amsterdam, Normandy, Elsass. The locations in the Pacific theater are otherwise nameless islands, or dense and dank jungle. The European locations are historical cities, beautiful farmlands, and other locales Americans would consider Picturesque.
Lastly, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a litte guilt/sweeping under the rug of tha Pacific Theater because of the use of Atomic weapons. To play up the Pacifc Theater is to play up the fact we ended it with a weapon that is darn near universally considered deplorable.
Put these all together and short story is that the European Theater makes for a better and more palatable story for Americans than the Pacific Theater.
At 11/8/14 08:13 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Please stop derailing the thread.
Says the boulder on the railroad track to the train.
At 11/8/14 03:33 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: IMO Marriage is a ridiculous notion absolutely. If people need confirmation from others to tell them who they love then that it's not love at all.
Again, you don't understand. Pure government marriage (the trditional type of marriage) was NEVER meant to be about love. It's about the economic joining of two families.
Also, anyone who's been married for a while can tell you that marriage love is a very different kind of love than romantic love. Marriage love can form between two people who had absolutely no love for each other at the time of wedding.
That's aside from the dumb ... "contract notion" and Government intervention. 6months relationship in Canada and the women can take half your shit. Marriage is fucked and another way to break the natural bond between man and wife. I don't know why gay's would want to get married as there are no benefit's to it just more subjugation.
Yeah, and you can get Comcast cable and be fucked in three months. That's how contracts work. A good portion of contract don't end up all hunky dory, rainbows and sunshine. Oh, and guess what? Don't like the rules? GET A PRENUP. Just as with every contract, you have the right to negotiate the terms.
Finally, and here's the biggest kicker to all you, if you don't like state marriage, just don't get your marriage (should you choose to have one) recognized by the state. It's that easy.
This article shows a much bigger problem: How conservative news outlets market Op Eds as news.
Ain't nothing about this to trust. It's an Op Ed and it doesn't source anything.
The racist notion that Obama is going to sully your pristine white Klan Korner with brown and black people is wholly unsupported and flat out wrong. Obama cannot do what this person is claiming he can. But hey, if it involves baseless rasicm, you know Sadisticmonkey will be right there, hood in hand.
At 11/7/14 09:38 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: 1. Camaroa, do you give free legal advice?
Aboslutely not. One of the first things I was told (and, I sure to hell hope everyone in every law schol is told) is that you never give out free advice. This isn't to be a money grubbing dick or antyhing. It's because the minute a lwayer gives out advice, that lawyer is now liable for any and all negative consequences of the advice. On top of that, the laywer may unintentionally create an attorney client relationship which would entail other duties.
In short, in order to cover my ass, I do not give out free advice.
2. So being a lawyer seems a little boring. How do you guys break up the monotony and tedium etc.?
The section I practice is very interesting. Not only do I do trials (which, in reality are pretty boring, except when you're taking part), but my section involves child welfare. This means there's always a stroy involved and they can be pretty nutty, even making Jerry Springer guests appear like pillars of society.
Then again, I have seen what other people do and I can't stay interested in just hering about it for more than 10 seconds. It all depends on exactly what the attorney does.
At 11/5/14 10:52 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:At 11/5/14 10:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:You believe that certain groups of people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
I want people to be qualified to vote. If everyone was qualified, I'd be happy with that. You totally miss the main point here. I don't like measure to reduce voting for the sole sake of reducing voting. Putting up an obstacle for hundreds of thousand of people to vote in order to stop what averages out to .2 people per cycle voting fraudulently is not a good enough reason.
Now, if voter fraud were actually a problem, say in the range of 1-5% of the whole, then, yes, I'd be OK with IDs being required, regardless of who is blocks. Yet, with the lack of actual fraud, the republican lean of those who propose IDs, and the fact that the people disenfranchised just so happen to be minority and Democrat lead me to believe that voter IDs are in fact NOT a method of weeding out voter fraud, and instead a method of culling the voter ranks of the opposing party.
If you can't be bothered voting (not the same as being politically nihilistic) then chances are you aren't going to be well-informed about anything.
That is true. However, getting an ID isn;t easy for many people, especially with the rules some states have imposed. One should not hae to travel 300 miles just to get on a list to wait to recieve a voter ID to then travel a good distance to vote later on. That is clearly meant to act as a poll tax in order to keep people from voting.
"Oh lawdy dese government paperworks is too hard for my simple self to be udnerstandin' "
Nice Blackface, Klan.
What does it matter if the result is still the same?
You are right, in that certain things the results are the only thing tht matter. However, when it comes to discrimination and voter suppression, the means and the intent are the important measure.
What I want to do is not intended to black out voters. It's intended to ensure that people put in a base level of effort and knowledge before coming to the polls. Will some people never make the cut? Yeah. That's merely an incidental consequence.
The voter ID movement (aside from its bullshit claims of fraud) is targetted for the sole purpose of signling out minorities and keeping them from voting. Not because anything about that group makes them unqualified to vote, but because they're minorities and because they tend to vote for the other guy. That is textbook discrimination and supression.
Unless you have anything new to say (doubtful) that's the end of this. You're trying to pigeonhole my statements and have failed. Let you have anything productive, that's it. Al you're doing is flapping your lips and conveniently adding more racist comments to your already Klan-eqsue profile.
At 11/6/14 05:11 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: State involvement in a purely private and personal matter like marriage is insane. Marriage is absolutely not a business contract and Government has no place in it. Now on a religious/spiritual standpoint one could argue that God never intended for same sex relationships.
You've got it all backward. Marriage started off as a social/governmental institution meant to facilitate the economic combining of two families. Up until recently only poor marriages (ones where the marriage had no economic value) were personal.
Also, as far as a marriage goes, it isa contract. Two parties, in return for governmental recognition and assistance with marriage related issues, decide to join together and perform many acts (a large amount of them which have legal consequences) as a single family unit. The state puts up consideration in recognition and benefits. The couple puts up considertion in their joining together and acting a marital unit. Sounds like a contract to me.
There are numerous reasons to have a governmentally recognized coupling. It sorts out many murky legal issues and has gap filler terms for others. On top of that, governments benefit from stable family units in terms of higher productivity and higher tax revenue due to stability. So, if we alredy have a system of governmentally recognized coupling, why scrap it cause a few people don't like little tiny bits of it? If you would go back and read the entire thread you woul see that modern marriage is actually comprised of two separate marriages: the private (of which you refer), and the public (the contract to which I refer.) There is no need to change either just because the other wants to.
I'm going to start with the last comment here first:
At 11/6/14 03:37 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: I thought you had a base in arguing from a human rights perspective.
I did not. I, again, do not believe you understand my point. My point here has never been about gay marriage. It has been about debunking the idea that the best way to 'fix' marriage is to get rid of state involvement.
Well, you can't really force a tradition to change, it's gotta happen naturally or the resistance will utterly crush the invading, oppressive force attempting to overthrow established cultural and biological systems.
No you can't, which is why I am not advocating for the change of anyone's already set notions about private marriage. If they want restrictions on marriage, they can keep them in their private group. What they cannot do is impose their entirely private restrictions upon public marriage.
If marriage, as defined by DOMA (is that still even standing?), isn't broken, WTF is gay marriage about?
DOMA is gone. I did enter the caveat into my points that marriage so long as all can enter is not broken. Also, marriage beyond the entry restrictions is not broken. The only problem we have is the denial of people into the program because we don't like who they picked.
It's extremely befuddling, as somehow the conversation made evry accomplishment into a negative.
- Obama was bad for the economy (except that the economy has recovered fairly well and jobs numbers are way up)
- Obamacare is hurting the nation (Except that 20 million people are insured that weren't before, medical costs have stopped rising at an astronomical rate, and insurance is starting to get cheaper)
- Obama is bad for the debt (even though the defecit has been lowered by percentages almost unheard of, save for Clinton)
- Obama is bad on foreign policy (even though Obama was able to get a widespread coalition to fight ISIS, to the point of ISIS having been largely contained without having to use american soldiers on the ground)
This is as befuddling as the popularity of the iPhone.
I'm kind of curious as to exactly why the shift to red happened.
All of the metrics show that the country has significantly improved under Obama.
At 11/5/14 02:58 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Obama is holding a news conference about the elections LINKY I do hope its about the copious amount of cream applied to getting burned so bad. LOL
What burn? He lost 3 senate seats in friendly states. That's hardly a burn. This election just happened to land with the stark majority of contested seats being in already red states. Had it been the 2016 slate, the Dems would likely have gained seats, not lost them.
At 11/5/14 09:59 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: i.e. what you've been advocating for this whole thread
Point to the words that say that. Oh wait, those words are only yours.
I would imagine that getting off your ass and securing an ID so you can vote would fall under the criterion of 'effort' as you explained it earlier
No. Efforts needed to get to the voting station have nothing to do with the effort needed to actualy vote as a citizen. The ffort entails attempting to familiarize onesself with the issue enough to vote on it on the proper lines.
So voter ID laws leading to less black people voting = bad, political knowledge tests leading to less black people voting = perfectly okay.
Aside from your poorly veiled racism stating the minorities are automatically dumb, I have to ask you a question. Does the word intent mean anything to you? An incidental consequence and an intended consequence are very different, even f they have the same result. I don't believe that the voter ID movement is anything but a bald attempt to keep the other voters away.
I'm actually surprised that no media moguls were put up there. Gates may have a lot of money, but he tends sit stay back with it. Murdoch, on the other hand, isn't nearly as wealthy, but uses his wealth to great political end.
I would like to know what metric Forbes used to deterine this, perhaps if thy included potential power in the same boat as actual power.
Having a just reason to break the law doesn't change the fact you still broke the law. Now, that being said, it should have a large effect on what sentence the kid recieves if ay at all.
At 11/5/14 05:23 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: really, so you don't buy into voter ID laws being a conspiracy to stop minorities voting?
I know they are, and it's not a conspiracy, as it's hardly veiled at all.
If someone does something with the intent of causing disparate impact it is no longer disparate impact, rather it is full on discrimination. Something that incidentally causes disparate impact is of no problem to me.
It is possible to believe that the voter ID movement is truly about voter fraud, but with the mountains of eveidence aginst them and the convenient disenfranchising of those who belong to the other party, I call total garbage on their sincerity. Because their stated goal is a total load and they benefit greatly from the blocking of minorities, it's extremely difficult to believe they didn't do voter IDs just to block a bloc that won't vote for them. That block being minorities.
I don't mind if everyone votes, just so long as they know the basic of what the hell they're talking about. I'm tired of people saying "Invade Ukraine!" even though they cannot even find Ukraine on a map. Far too often people vot basd off of irrationality and buzz words. Even more often people vot eon issues they couldn't find if it were the only thing with them in an empty room. People bitch about how the government has become hijacked y certain groups, and yet they fail to realize that it has been the stupid among us who vote for things and candidate blindly that allowed such outsiders to gain control.
Proof that many voters are too stupid to handle voting:
Washington State had measures I-591 and I-594. These were essentially competing ballots, with one authorizing the state to expand universal background checks for firearms. The other expressly denied the state any opportunity to expand background checks for firearms.
In several counties, BOTH measures had more than 50% yes votes.
Yes, that indiciates that many people wanted to give the state bigger leeway in background checks AND wanted to ensure that state had no leeway for background checks.
'Murica!
At 11/4/14 09:15 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It would mean a whole lot less black and hispanic people voting, you do realize.
Don't try to use disparate impact on me. I don't buy into that concept.
Republicans may have hurt themselves by winning here. I get the feeling that they will have cost themselves the big prize for the short term benefit (turns out they actually ARE the party of business).
They ran on a platform of Obama is so terrible he hasn't be able to do anything. Yet, I don't see the Republicans as being able to do anything. They run the huge risk of running on a platform of greasing the wheels only to see them remain as locked as ever.
In this age of people voting hard to one angle on the measures and the other way in candidates, the issues aren't as important as the campaign message. The Republics MUST do something, and I don't see Obama and the Democrats playing along. It's essentially going to be a reverse of what happened between 2008 and 2010.
