Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Needs Vs. Wants


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Needs Vs. Wants Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/21/2012 8:36:52 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Do you honestly think that any viable commercial entity would consider leasing office or warehouse space 'certified' by a lowest-bid contract inspector? Their insurance companies would drop them instantly were they to be so foolhardy, I can tell you that. Only the shadiest of insurers would venture to provide basic property insurance for such a structure to begin with, in that instance.


And, what would the Market, then, decide? Probably to set up some sort of measure or set of codes to go by. The difference is, this is the Market doing it. If a code isn't necessary, it probably won't make it in, or it won't stay in.

quote:


I'm sure there are a few lawyers who would be all with you on the "just sue somebody if people die" 'solution,' but again, this is why the remaining third world countries remain third world.


Really? That's bullshit and we both know it.

quote:


Wherever there is a constitution and a highest court of the land, the twain shall meet, in less than polite fashion sometimes. It is the way, in every advanced country. There is no country that I know of that adheres stridently to their original constitution, on every point. You are welcome to enlighten us otherwise, if such be the case.
If there is progress of any sort, then boundaries of strictly written constitutions will be exceeded. The German Grundgesetz ("Basic Law") has only been around for ~ 60 years, and these same issues come up. Law professors smarter than either of us cannot agree on proper meaning of just the first two amendments.


It's all in the interpretations. That is the entire problem. How is it the Founders weren't clear? How is it that The Federalist Papers weren't enlightening arguments showing precisely what was intended by the words written? Sure, you can look at the "interstate commerce clause" and rationalize that what can by any stretch have an effect on commerce that crosses state lines can be regulated, but you'd be ignoring the entire reason it was put in. This was a guard against prohibitions on commerce between states, and was about things at the state level. Is Ohio preferentially burdening Michigan with a tariff? No. Why? Part of that is because it is illegal, or at least it may have had an impact. And, since little is actually made entirely within one state without anything from other states, and then consumed in that same state without crossing state lines, anything could, ostensibly, be regulated under the ICC. Do you truly believe that our Founders wanted Government to be able to touch pretty much every single facet of our lives?

quote:


But then I think that people arguing about what our society should be and how we should conduct ourselves under color (or cover, we might say) of the 230+ yr. old constitution, with no understanding of the history of language or historical politics or sociology or economics, are doing so because they lack any logical foundation for their argument in today's terms. Don't go pushing us back into third world status, thinking you can get away with it by using a document you do not understand, and that, as written, allowed for changes. History professors have to make good effort to figure out what the heck people were actually saying 230 years ago, constitution aside. I will put forth that if people don't know why so many words were capitalized in the declaration of independence, they have no business discussing the constitution. I in fact do know why this is the case, but you won't see me claiming to be a constitutional expert.
Make your case, stand or fall, but unless you're all in with the 3/5's vote thing, let's leave the constitution out of it.


What pray tell is the manner in which the Constitution can be changed? And, then, explain to me how things like The Patriot Act get passed, and not challenged. Explain, too, how it is that President Grover Cleveland refused to use Federal aid to assist Texas, based solely on it not having the authority in the Constitution, but then riding in on a "________" horse (enough was screwed up that this could be a horse of many colors, depending on what you experienced) into New Orleans.

Keep your academic elitist bullshit to yourself. You don't know me. You don't know what I know. And, simply because you won't claim to be a Constitutional Expert doesn't make you any better or worse than someone that does. If the Supreme Robes decide that PPACA is un-Constitutional, or that the mandate is un-Constitutional, we will have a "Constitutional Scholar" and Constitutional Professor that was wrong about the document he is purported to be a Scholar and Professor of.



_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 121
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/21/2012 10:24:43 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
The Patriot Act is bogus, start to finish. I didn't need the constitution to tell me that, nor did many others. Corporate ownership of the country is a bitch, innit?

quote:

How is it the Founders weren't clear?


How is it that you haven't taken even the first mandatory US history or US government class, where it is explained (and well documented) that the only way to get such a monumental and far reaching document agreed upon and voted was to be as vague as possible, whenever possible? Even as a HS dropout, and well before the 'interwebs,' I knew all that before taking the mandatory classes at the uni (muchas gracias, public library!). No excuse for such ignorance on the subject as you dispense in this day and time. No excuse at all.

As to how the thing was allowed change; just the general lawmaking was established from the outset. If any law is passed, it is a "change" from the constitution, by any logical reasoning. But in pursuit of that and in anticipation of potential unforeseen issues, there is a clause in there somewhere that says "and shall have power to make laws," etc., and something about the rules for making amendments. Well, what'a ya know! They vehicle-tested the thing by passing ten amendments, right from the outset!

"Interpretation," you say? Again, I need to point out that just understanding what people were saying 230 years ago is a chore in itself. I know about half the reason that the Declaration of Independence has so many capitalized words, you don't. Sorry if that pisses you off, so 'elitist' I am, then, even though I learned most of what I know (at this juncture) before taking the first college class (muchas gracias, public library!).

quote:

And, what would the Market, then, decide? Probably to set up some sort of measure or set of codes to go by. The difference is, this is the Market doing it. If a code isn't necessary, it probably won't make it in, or it won't stay in.



Quite hilarious it is, that you actually capitalize the word 'market.' It's a word for an economic system, not a religion. This immediately brought to mind someone still playing with Barbie and Ken dolls. Sorry.


In any case, this was all done, all of it, in ancient Mesopotamia, in Medici-run Italy, back in the day, in Bruges, back in the day, in Antwerp, and Amsterdam, back in the day ...

They all decided, in every case, that leaving the rule-making to the government was the only economically logical way. Sorry about the elitism inherent in pointing that out. The heads of all those money-changer and merchant groups were probably bonafide elitists, actually. I appreciate the well intended compliment, but I'm not in their class, not at all.








< Message edited by Edwynn -- 6/21/2012 10:42:51 AM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 122
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/22/2012 9:20:14 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
The Patriot Act is bogus, start to finish. I didn't need the constitution to tell me that, nor did many others. Corporate ownership of the country is a bitch, innit?


It is bullshit, start to finish. And, it has been allowed to stand. And, you apparently don't know this, but, yes, Corporatism is a bitch. I'm all for the ending of Corporate Ownership of Government, but we also need to make sure that in ending Corporate ownership, we don't end up giving de facto ownership to a different special interest group.

quote:

quote:

How is it the Founders weren't clear?

How is it that you haven't taken even the first mandatory US history or US government class, where it is explained (and well documented) that the only way to get such a monumental and far reaching document agreed upon and voted was to be as vague as possible, whenever possible? Even as a HS dropout, and well before the 'interwebs,' I knew all that before taking the mandatory classes at the uni (muchas gracias, public library!). No excuse for such ignorance on the subject as you dispense in this day and time. No excuse at all.


Nothing like more attempts to belittle and tear down. Don't you people ever get tired of it?

You missed the part where they weren't as vague as possible.

quote:

As to how the thing was allowed change; just the general lawmaking was established from the outset. If any law is passed, it is a "change" from the constitution, by any logical reasoning. But in pursuit of that and in anticipation of potential unforeseen issues, there is a clause in there somewhere that says "and shall have power to make laws," etc., and something about the rules for making amendments. Well, what'a ya know! They vehicle-tested the thing by passing ten amendments, right from the outset!


You are half-right. The "power to make laws" doesn't change the Constitution at all. The Amendment Process is the only Constitutional way to change the Constitution. The Constitution is a framework from which all laws are supposed to be made. The laws do not change the framework. The framework defines the areas that the laws can effect. If we have a framework that can be shifted as easily as "making a law," we have no framework. There is a damn good reason why changing the Constitution was designed to be damn difficult.

By your reasoning, no law could possibly be un-Constitutional. If making a law changes the Constitution, no law can be Un-Constitutional.

quote:


"Interpretation," you say? Again, I need to point out that just understanding what people were saying 230 years ago is a chore in itself. I know about half the reason that the Declaration of Independence has so many capitalized words, you don't. Sorry if that pisses you off, so 'elitist' I am, then, even though I learned most of what I know (at this juncture) before taking the first college class (muchas gracias, public library!).


Yes, interpretation. I hope you have noticed I don't give a rat's testicle as to why certain words were capitalized. And, that, has nothing to do with interpretation.

quote:

quote:

And, what would the Market, then, decide? Probably to set up some sort of measure or set of codes to go by. The difference is, this is the Market doing it. If a code isn't necessary, it probably won't make it in, or it won't stay in.

Quite hilarious it is, that you actually capitalize the word 'market.' It's a word for an economic system, not a religion. This immediately brought to mind someone still playing with Barbie and Ken dolls. Sorry.


I capitalize for specific reasons. I am glad you enjoy my intentional capitalizations. I could not possibly be someone still playing with Ken and Barbie dolls, as I have never started playing with Ken and Barbie dolls. So nice of you,however, to attempt to rebut my assertions with petty aspersions and concentration on grammatical rules.

quote:

In any case, this was all done, all of it, in ancient Mesopotamia, in Medici-run Italy, back in the day, in Bruges, back in the day, in Antwerp, and Amsterdam, back in the day ...
They all decided, in every case, that leaving the rule-making to the government was the only economically logical way. Sorry about the elitism inherent in pointing that out. The heads of all those money-changer and merchant groups were probably bonafide elitists, actually. I appreciate the well intended compliment, but I'm not in their class, not at all.


And, you have demonstrated your not being in the class of the academic elites with your not knowing the difference between being an academic elite, and being an academic elitist.




_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 123
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/22/2012 10:11:36 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		"Academic elitist"?
Does somebody have a chip on their shoulder about not going to college?

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 124
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/22/2012 10:28:47 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
"Academic elitist"?
Does somebody have a chip on their shoulder about not going to college?


I'm assuming you're talking about me, but I assure you I don't have a chip on my shoulder about not going to college. That wouldn't be possible anyway. I am degreed.

And, you have shown that you don't understand the difference between an academic elite, and an academic elitist. They are spelled differently not because it's just an alternate spelling and looks cool, but because they are very different.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 125
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/22/2012 11:21:11 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		The main connection is that anybody who goes around complaining about elitists is narked by the fact that they don't feel that they're a member of the elite themselves.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 126
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/22/2012 6:52:27 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
Or he feels that his ability to make up terms in a different light and provide purely personal and idiosyncratic definitions and distinctions which don't play out in any company outside his own, with himself, nevertheless makes it valid.




(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 127
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/22/2012 7:58:45 PM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
By your reasoning, no law could possibly be un-Constitutional. If making a law changes the Constitution, no law can be Un-Constitutional.


No, that was directly in response to your stance that almost any law as presented is in violation of the constitution. If you don't comprehend well enough to know that Lincoln and Roosevelt and most presidents of the 20'th century and this century, and many supreme courts along, whether in concert with or in opposition to, then go away. It has turned out for bad, it has turned out for better, depending upon circumstance.


quote:

Yes, interpretation. I hope you have noticed I don't give a rat's testicle as to why certain words were capitalized. And, that, has nothing to do with interpretation.


Your fascination with rodent gonads aside, it has plenty to do with explaining how the caps are only the start of figuring out interpretation. Lots more to it than that, but if you can't get past first grade with it, don't waste our time.



quote:

I capitalize for specific reasons.


Yes, we see that.

quote:

I hope you have noticed I don't give a rat's testicle as to why certain words were capitalized.


Yes, we saw that too.

Howevermuch torment it might cause you to reconcile the two above sentiments, please spare the rest of us the much greater torment in having to read whatever explanation as to why that might be.

But just so you know, it will not escape notice from academic elitists or even the average dumbass that you describe you own use of caps as being for whatever mysterious reason, but don't give a (your fetish here) about the original founders of the country's use of same.

You obviously place your own command of the language, proper use of caps included, well above those who wrote the original documents that founded the nation.

But I am the 'elist,' so we are to have it.

I have never asked for explanation for anything form you. I am not a masochist. I am merely pointing out flaws which are blatant to any thinking person, if not to yourself.









quote:

I could not possibly be someone still playing with Ken and Barbie dolls, as I have never started playing with Ken and Barbie dolls. So nice of you,however, to attempt to rebut my assertions with petty aspersions and concentration on grammatical rules.


I never claimed to know what you actually played with as a child, I merely pointed out that the imigary evoked by your posts brought to mind an adult playing with Barbie and Ken dolls.




(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 128
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 6/25/2012 12:32:46 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead
The main connection is that anybody who goes around complaining about elitists is narked by the fact that they don't feel that they're a member of the elite themselves.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Or he feels that his ability to make up terms in a different light and provide purely personal and idiosyncratic definitions and distinctions which don't play out in any company outside his own, with himself, nevertheless makes it valid.


You two are fucking hilarious! I am not an elitist. I don't condescend or have an attitude of condescension based on some level of academic attainment/achievement. I am plenty happy with most of my education. I sure do wish I would have pushed just a little bit more for one more quarter and finished my Master's Degree, but, that's in the past and nothing I can do about that now. Yes, I have a college education. No, I don't think that makes me better or worse than anyone else, especially not in the realm of politics. That makes me not an elitist. I' don't discredit others based on a presumed (right or wrong) level of education.

Edwynn, your obsession with capitalizations and your claim to know why they were capitalized is nothing but pure elitism. It does not make you elite, but it does make you an elitist. You may be an academic elite. I have no idea, nor do I care. You have shown yourself to be an elitist, though.

Moonhead, I have no idea where you come up with the idea that I'm bothered by your not thinking I'm an academic elite. I don't care if I'm considered an academic elite. I don't get narked by not being considered an academic elite. I most definitely don't get narked by not being considered an elitist.

Just for something more for the two of you to chew on:

Elite:

    Part of Speech: adjective
    Definition: best, first-class
    Synonyms: aristocratic, choice, cool*, crack*, elect, exclusive, gilt-edged, greatest, noble, out of sight, out of this world, pick, selected, super, tip-top, top, top drawer, top-notch, topflight, upper-class, world-class


Elitist:

    Part of Speech: noun
    Definition: snob
    Synonyms: highbrow, name-dropper, pompous ass, pompous person, social climber, stiff, stuffed shirt


Can the two of you see a difference? Or, is it now your belief that I am the owner and creator of thesaurus.com?

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 129
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Needs Vs. Wants Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.063