Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thelawlorfaithful

Trump's First 100 Days

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

I've got more sheepdogs than you've got sheep, Mr. Welfare Farmer. 

Is it a plush animal in your dorm room Mr. Mom and Dad are Waiting for me to get a Career?

You should REALLY read into what a subsidy is. You're really exposing your lack of understanding of a lot standard items, that you claim to oppose but really just don't understand why pro-palestine journalism isn't as respected as an industry that puts food in your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predicted it would take Trump a full year to take America down with him. So 100 days is just his warm up period. 

Image result for atomic bomb gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Joe from WY said:

As someone who bankrolls your welfare, I demand you be drug tested. 

Spoiler

 

Deal. As a career child, I demand you pass any test dealing with the understanding of anything agriculture.

And change your name to one of those soccer kid's name, like Grayson it something stupid like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe from WY said:

I've probably forgotten more about agriculture than you'll know (My double major in undergrad was Botany). 

I'm also willing to bet you couldn't pull 60,000 dollars out of an acre either, but what do I know. 

Hahahahahahahaha.......botany.

I'm glad I have that in text!  People are going to think I'm making this chit up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

I never once said government didn't exist. I said the federal government didn't exist, which meant there was no market for defense lawyers in federal courts that necessitated the government providing public defenders. The 6th amendment only applied to these courts, not state courts, which means the founders didn't see it as government's, in the general sense, responsibility to provide public defenders. It wasn't about filling gaps in the market, man. It was about freedom from a powerful government. If local governments wanted to provide something like public defenders that was up to the people they directly served, and had jack diddly to do with what applied in some swampy bog in bum+++++ Maryland. So can you now see how the healthcare debate doesn't have a damn thing to do with what the founders understood about markets?

The founding of our federal government had nothing to do with establishing the legal market..

Profession. Law was dominated by part-time or amateur lawyers and judges in the 1600s, but by the late 1700s there were many well-trained lawyers in the English colonies, especially in and around the major port cities and towns. They constituted a valuable resource. As early as 1700 the legal profession became noticeably more professional in the city of New York, and most of the colonies experienced the Anglicization of their legal systems. Despite misgivings in many colonies about lawyers, the increasing complexity of commerce and daily life made their presence ever more necessary. Americans found themselves explaining and defining their relationship to the mother country from the early 1600s onward. In times of political or imperial crisis, such as in the 1680s or the 1760s, legal knowledge could be invaluable. The debates in the 1760s and 1770s about rights, government, and authority, arguments that led to the American Revolution, occurred because by that time both lawyers and legal language were very much a part of the common culture.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/1600-1754-law-and-justice-overview

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The founding of our federal government had nothing to do with establishing the legal market..

 

It does if you're in the market for a lawyer because you have to appear for a federal court, which is the only market relevant to this discussion! It's the only market where the founders decided the government would provide counsel, as opposed to all the other courts where they didn't. How are you not getting this?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

It does if you're in the market for a lawyer because you have to appear for a federal court, which is the only market relevant to this discussion! It's the only market where the founders decided the government would provide counsel, as opposed to all the other courts where they didn't. How are you not getting this?

Because as noted they already had to deal with England.   The "market for lawyers" was well established.   

Now if your point is because of "natural rights" they felt public defenders should be provided, I agree.  But you have to ask yourself why they didn't rely on the existing established market of lawyers to provide services?  

The answer is the same as health care......  market solutions (by design) don't cover everyone.  If that coverage breadth is your goal then like public defenders, the post office and utilities the government (at whatever appropriate level) must step in.   It's fine to say universal coverage isn't your goal.  But if Universal coverage is your goal, then saying you will rely on pure capital markets is foolish and not what our founders modeled.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Because as noted they already had to deal with England.   The "market for lawyers" was well established.   

Now if your point is because of "natural rights" they felt public defenders should be provided, I agree.  But you have to ask yourself why they didn't rely on the existing established market of lawyers to provide services?  

The answer is the same as health care......  market solutions (by design) don't cover everyone.  If that coverage breadth is your goal then like public defenders, the post office and utilities the government (at whatever appropriate level) must step in.   It's fine to say universal coverage isn't your goal.  But if Universal coverage is your goal, then saying you will rely on pure capital markets is foolish and not what our founders modeled.   

Communists are funny, despite all evidence and a century of proof they still think more government is better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Because as noted they already had to deal with England.   The "market for lawyers" was well established.

And the founders believed it was acceptable for people to fall out of that market in the state courts. So what was the difference?

Quote

 Now if your point is because of "natural rights" they felt public defenders should be provided, I agree.  But you have to ask yourself why they didn't rely on the existing established market of lawyers to provide services?

They only provided public defenders for the federal courts. Ask yourself why.

Quote

 

The answer is the same as health care......  market solutions (by design) don't cover everyone.  If that coverage breadth is your goal then like public defenders, the post office and utilities the government (at whatever appropriate level) must step in.   It's fine to say universal coverage isn't your goal.  But if Universal coverage is your goal, then saying you will rely on pure capital markets is foolish and not what our founders modeled.   

This is the understanding of a progressive who seeks reform, not of the founding fathers.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bluerules009 said:

Communists are funny, despite all evidence and a century of proof they still think more government is better.

Only you would consider providing public defenders, the post office or utilities as communism.  Then I remember your comment that workers are leeches.  It then all falls into place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

 

And the founders believed it was acceptable for people to fall out of that market in the state courts. So what was the difference?

They only provided public defenders for the federal courts. Ask yourself why.

This is the understanding of a progressive who seeks reform, not of the founding fathers.

Federalism.  The central government despite your assertions to the contrary was relatively weak at that time and such a mandate would not have stood.  Federalism is the answer to your "why" not some stupid attempt at trolling like "the market didn't exist".   

No a progressive would be claiming healthcare is a basic right for all which I don't actually agree with.... You might know that if you actually bothered to see what people thought before labeling them.  But labeling even moderates as liberals or communists is standard practice by Freedom Caucus extremists like you and Tools.   

My point is "if" you decide to offer healthcare for all then don't do it stupidly like mandating emergency rooms accept all patients or prohibiting the government from negotiating with pharmaceuticals to have access to the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sactowndog said:

Only you would consider providing public defenders, the post office or utilities as communism.  Then I remember your comment that workers are leeches.  It then all falls into place.

Only a moron wouldn't consider government run businesses  not a communist enterprise.  It takes someone with no education or economic understanding to think that way.

You continually say you are a capitalist and you continually want communist solutions, and I just point it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

Federalism.  The central government despite your assertions to the contrary was relatively weak at that time and such a mandate would not have stood.  Federalism is the answer to your "why" not some stupid attempt at trolling like "the market didn't exist".

Bullshit. The central government they created was incredibly powerful. Jeez man, look at the thing today. Do you think it's as powerful as it is because of the 17 amendments after the bill of rights? Much of the power it wields today was in there from the outset. They just didn't wield it because that wasn't the way it was supposed to function as they understood it.

The founding fathers served as governors and represented their states in the legislatures, as well as serving in the continental and federal governments. They were highly influential leaders of thought within those states. If they believed it was unacceptable for people to go without counsel before a court, they absolutely had the sway to make it happen in the state governments. They didn't. They created the market with the federal courts, no matter how deep you stick your head in the sand about this. Because they did so, they ensured for a defense from that power within the government to head off the the threat it posed to freedom, not to show future generations how to confiscate wealth and redistribute it.

That you still can't see that distinction, yet still say libertarians don't understand the classical liberalism of the founders, means you are either uninformed or are being willfully ignorant on the matter. The matter of which level of government provided public defenders and which provided public education was not an accident. And it sure as hell isnt comparable to the current healthcare debate.

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

 No a progressive would be claiming healthcare is a basic right for all which I don't actually agree with.... You might know that if you actually bothered to see what people thought before labeling them.  But labeling even moderates as liberals or communists is standard practice by Freedom Caucus extremists like you and Tools.

Why don't you do some reading yourself before judging me and my supposed "ilk". I don't throw words like progressive and liberal and socialist and comminist around as insults. I use them for their actual definitions and the beliefs of their ideologies. I actually throw real insults when I mean to, you nitwit. Go look up what progressives actually believe, the history of the movement. For a guy who advocates workers be entitled to employment regardless of behavior, massive government intervention in healthcare, advocates heavy government involvement in order to construct markets in a mixed economy, and points to wealth inequality as a sign of economic unfairness; you're pretty damn progressive for someone who says they are not.

6 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

My point is "if" you decide to offer healthcare for all then don't do it stupidly like mandating emergency rooms accept all patients or prohibiting the government from negotiating with pharmaceuticals to have access to the market.

"When" have you ever not advocated to offer healthcare for all? When have you even once shown the inclination to not offer government healthcare at all?

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Bullshit. The central government they created was incredibly powerful. Jeez man, look at the thing today. Do you think it's as powerful as it is because of the 17 amendments after the bill of rights? Much of the power it wields today was in there from the outset. They just didn't wield it because that wasn't the way it was supposed to function as they understood it.

The founding fathers served as governors and represented their states in the legislatures, as well as serving in the continental and federal governments. They were highly influential leaders of thought within those states. If they believed it was unacceptable for people to go without counsel before a court, they absolutely had the sway to make it happen in the state governments. They didn't. They created the market with the federal courts, no matter how deep you stick your head in the sand about this. Because they did so, they ensured for a defense from that power within the government to head off the the threat it posed to freedom, not to show future generations how to confiscate wealth and redistribute it.

That you still can't see that distinction, yet still say libertarians don't understand the classical liberalism of the founders, means you are either uninformed or are being willfully ignorant on the matter. The matter of which level of government provided public defenders and which provided public education was not an accident. And it sure as hell isnt comparable to the current healthcare debate.

Why don't you do some reading yourself before judging me and my supposed "ilk". I don't throw words like progressive and liberal and socialist and comminist around as insults. I use them for their actual definitions and the beliefs of their ideologies. I actually throw real insults when I mean to, you nitwit. Go look up what progressives actually believe, the history of the movement. For a guy who advocates workers be entitled to employment regardless of behavior, massive government intervention in healthcare, advocates heavy government involvement in order to construct markets in a mixed economy, and points to wealth inequality as a sign of economic unfairness; you're pretty damn progressive for someone who says they are not.

"When" have you ever not advocated to offer healthcare for all? When have you even once shown the inclination to not offer government healthcare at all?

The strength of the central federal government was hardly a given at its inception.  Much debate existed between the leaders as to the role of the central government.

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/the-formation-of-a-national-government/hamilton-vs-jefferson.php

Your position they created the legal market upon founding the nation is among the dumbest thing things I have heard you say.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

 

"When" have you ever not advocated to offer healthcare for all? When have you even once shown the inclination to not offer government healthcare at all?

What I have advocated is healthcare is a poorly formed market for a number of reasons.  And that government has a reasonable role to help shape that market.   

As far as government healthcare for all.   I believe it is in the countries interest to provide access to basic healthcare for younger people and that provided access should decline as people age.  So hardly unlimited healthcare for all.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

The strength of the central federal government was hardly a given at its inception.  Much debate existed between the leaders as to the role of the central government.

It had the direct power to tax, keep an army, and went around the backs of the state legislatures that appointed them to claim it was a government of the people. Which was ratified by convention, not through the elected state representatives. Shit man, we just went through this a couple of months ago. The only reason we have a bill of rights was many of the founders threw themselves in front of it. It's why the whole thing was done in secret. Everybody recognized it was usurping power from the local state governments. But because Washington and other influential minds were behind it, people trusted it. 

Quote

http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/outlines/history-1994/the-formation-of-a-national-government/hamilton-vs-jefferson.php

Your position they created the legal market upon founding the nation is among the dumbest thing things I have heard you say.   

I never said they created the entire legal market. I said they addressed the market that they did create. And that's the only market they addressed. I can't believe you are still bashing your head against the wall about this. It should be obvious.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

What I have advocated is healthcare is a poorly formed market for a number of reasons.  And that government has a reasonable role to help shape that market.   

As far as government healthcare for all.   I believe it is in the countries interest to provide access to basic healthcare for younger people and that provided access should decline as people age.  So hardly unlimited healthcare for all.   

Progressive reform it is. I don't agree with it. I think it is extremely harmful in the long term. But it's okay to disagree. Just don't act like what you propose is something it isn't. You aren't a moderate. There are no moderates on this topic. If the government is heavily involving itself, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amount of envy for Peter is all that is left to decide.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

Progressive reform it is. I don't agree with it. I think it is extremely harmful in the long term. But it's okay to disagree. Just don't act like what you propose is something it isn't. You aren't a moderate. There are no moderates on this topic. If the government is heavily involving itself, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The amount of envy for Peter is all that is left to decide.

It has nothing to do with envy.  

The reason basic healthcare makes sense is having people in the society with long term disability is a drain on society resources.   Society is better off if those people are treated early, remain productive, and pay taxes versus consuming resources.   We stupidly go to heroic measures to keep people alive but no effort to keep them productive.  What's worse, we pour massive resources in keeping non-productive 80 year olds around and nothing into keeping the 20 year old with some manageable issue productive.   

I'm for some basic healthcare and against our previous model because the previous model was stupid as hell.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...