I am now a democrat, please join me

[reno cool]

so he does pay taxes. Thank you. Is it so hard to admit? And by the way, that's a long ways away from the median income, or even the 30%tile
Now you're going to bring in emergency medical care. Are you ****ing kidding?

[andywend]

so he does pay taxes. Thank you. Is it so hard to admit? And by the way, that's a long ways away from the median income, or even the 30%tile
Now you're going to bring in emergency medical care. Are you ****ing kidding?

There you go again changing the major theme of the argument.

We were talking about the "poor" so why are you bringing up "median income" or the "30%tile"? If you believe in what you say, there is no need to change the subject or embellish.

Also, the $188 annual figure I mentioned was the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE AMOUNT any individual can pay that is at the poverty line. I would guess at least 90% of the above mentioned group pays no income taxes whatsoever.

Now that we have established the poor pay virtually NOTHING in income tax, why should they be entitled to unlimited, free health care and why should others have to pay the bill?

You bet I am going to bring up emergency medical care because the law needs to be changed allowing emergency medical facilities the right to require up-front payment BEFORE services are rendered in the event they feel the chance of non-payment is strong.

The MASSIVE ABUSE by the poor when it comes to emergency medical care is the reason why the costs are so high for the rest of us.

If Obama's socialized medicine plan is passed, this EXACT SAME ABUSE BY THE POOR will spread from the emergency room to all avenues of medicine. Since the poor generally have a lot more free time on their hands to wait for medical services (especially if its free), the hard working middle class are going to suffer greatly as a result.

I don't want to see that happen.

[reno cool]

Read the ****ing thread moron. The issue is whether or not the bottom 30% or 50% pay any income taxes.
Your other asinine questions have also been answered in this thread.

[losturmarbles]

What's hard to understand? If a group of people with power agree on something and make it law it's subjective. It has nothing to do with natural law. Natural law= those who can, dictate the law.
What I'm saying is the public should not accept law that's detrimental to it. We as the public should use whatever collective power we have to create a more just and healthy society. Instead of deferring power to elites out of blind ignorance.

wtf does all this mean?

can you give me an example of a "subjective" law?

and i'm still waiting for you to tell me how there is "Nothing objective about the constitution". and "the poor ... wasn't their concern."

the constitution, the most freeing and liberating documents since the magna carta and you scoff at it because it doesnt reward the poor for being poor.

[pavyracer]

Sure...France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Norway constitutions are horrible compared to the US constitution.

[reno cool]

you need a license to drive a car = subjective
you can't stone your neighbor = subjective
Mr A owns this property and no one has the right to use it without his permission = subjective
and of course all of these laws are enforced by government.

I'm not debating whether the constitution is a good document but it most certainly is an agreement between the parties involved and is subjective.

There is a lot of law that a society agrees on and takes for granted. Rightfully so. But obviously some law is in dispute.

[losturmarbles]

Sure...France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Greece, Norway constitutions are horrible compared to the US constitution.

you and reno should go in halvsies on that US history class.

[losturmarbles]

you need a license to drive a car = subjective
you can't stone your neighbor = subjective
Mr A owns this property and no one has the right to use it without his permission = subjective
and of course all of these laws are enforced by government.

I'm not debating whether the constitution is a good document but it most certainly is an agreement between the parties involved and is subjective.

There is a lot of law that a society agrees on and takes for granted. Rightfully so. But obviously some law is in dispute.

stone your neighbor?
a right to other people's property?

these are in dispute? unreal.

[pavyracer]

you and reno should go in halvsies on that US history class.

Seriously though...How do you know Sweden's constitution is not better than the US's? Or is it because this is what they taught you at the high school you attended in the US at the american history class?

[losturmarbles]

Seriously though...How do you know Sweden's constitution is not better than the US's? Or is it because this is what they taught you at the high school you attended in the US at the american history class?

are you talking about sweden's current constitution and the US's current? which apple and which orange are you talking about?

sweden's constitution of 1772 established an absolute monarchy.

it seems you didnt understand the context of my original statement.

although going out on a limb, and comparing any constitution to the original us costitution, the original us would be a heavy favorite as being the "better" one.

[pavyracer]

I suggest reading the following document and if you find a law that is inferior to the US constitution let me know.

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx

[reno cool]

stone your neighbor?
a right to other people's property?

these are in dispute? unreal.

what constitutes whose property is constantly disputed in court. And I didn't even say what laws are in dispute. Please, you know better.

[losturmarbles]

I suggest reading the following document and if you find a law that is inferior to the US constitution let me know.

http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____5562.aspx

well that doesnt give me the actual constitution to look at, although i do like the requirements of amendments having to be approved twice.

from wiki:
To amend or to make a revision of a fundamental law, the Parliament needs to approve the changes twice in two successive terms, with a general election having been held in between. The change can be dismissed but not formally approved by a popular vote coinciding with such a general election, although this option has never been utilised. If the people do not dismiss a change, it still has to be ratified by the newly elected Parliament.

in theory it seems there is a balance of power with this. although it may give the public a bit too much with the popular vote dismissal. i dunno.

on the us,
the us's current government is inferior to how it was originally designed. we were never suppose to be a democracy. and the federal government was to have little to do with your everyday life. last 100 years or so that has drastically changed.

[losturmarbles]

what constitutes whose property is constantly disputed in court. And I didn't even say what laws are in dispute. Please, you know better.

ok so these suppose to be subjective? lol

stone your neighbor? this should be legal? i guess it was made illegal to stop poor people from stoning their rich neighbors, right? are you kidding me?

property rights? i guess if i own an extra house and there's a homeless person, they have a right to it? they must in your fcked up world.

property rights dont come from a social norm. property is an extension of an individual's faculties, the exertion of labor on natural resources. one owns property just like they own themselves. you dont have a right to it, no more than you do of the person.
and i guess production is just a spontaneous occurrence in your world.

[pavyracer]

My point was unless you actually know what the constitutions of other countries are you can't claim ours (US) is the best.

[losturmarbles]

My point was unless you actually know what the constitutions of other countries are you can't claim ours (US) is the best.

i never did pavy. so i dont understand your objection.

[reno cool]

ok so these suppose to be subjective? lol

stone your neighbor? this should be legal? i guess it was made illegal to stop poor people from stoning their rich neighbors, right? are you kidding me?

property rights? i guess if i own an extra house and there's a homeless person, they have a right to it? they must in your fcked up world.

property rights dont come from a social norm. property is an extension of an individual's faculties, the exertion of labor on natural resources. one owns property just like they own themselves. you dont have a right to it, no more than you do of the person.
and i guess production is just a spontaneous occurrence in your world.

yes, you got it.

[andywend]

Losturmarbles, the really scary thing is there are a whole bunch of extreme left-wing politicians currently serving in office that have the exact same mindset as RenoCool.

Heck, we just confirmed one of them to the Supreme Court.

[RonPaul2008]

The Democrats and Republicans in Washington DC are essentially the same thing.
Vote Libertarian!