Quote :

"If we put programs in place to help dysfunctional families then we would be, in effect, rewarding dysfunctional behavior."

Dysfunctionality still comes with it's harsh set of consequences. We certainly aren't erradicating the consequences of dysfunctionality, we are merely making them a little more humane.

Quote :

"Telling people that all they have to do to get free money for life is fuck up their current situation then they'll do it."

Then why do we have rich people? Why do we have so many people trying to do better in the world if you say they would just start bum rushing welfare?

You've oversimplified the situation, it's much more complex than that.

Quote :

"If, however, medicaid started covering abortions I'd march on Washington !"

No you wouldn't.

7/21/2005 3:12:13 PM

Quote :

"Dysfunctionality still comes with it's harsh set of consequences. We certainly aren't erradicating the consequences of dysfunctionality, we are merely making them a little more humane."

But we don't want to make them more humane. They should suffer

Quote :

"Then why do we have rich people? Why do we have so many people trying to do better in the world if you say they would just start bum rushing welfare?"

Obviously because these individuals value wealth over laziness. More importantly, because everyone is only allowed five years on welfare. We have done a miraculous job dismantling the worst offenders among the welfare system, thank you President Clinton, and the benefits of doing so are plain to see.

Quote :

"No you wouldn't."

You're right. I might write my congressman, but probably not even that. Most likely, I would begin protesting against medicaid itself because it is a major remaining offender of perverse incentives of our government.

7/21/2005 3:25:40 PM

I'm still a little bit worried about Roberts being the anti-Christ due to that crazy lightning storm on the night that he was nominated.

7/21/2005 3:30:11 PM

Quote :

"But we don't want to make them more humane. They should suffer"

Why? Making the punishment even more harsh isn't going to change their actions any more or defer any more people from it. Why punish them more than we have to? Why not at least give them the chance to succed?

Quote :

"Obviously because these individuals value wealth over laziness."

But you said "Telling people that all they have to do to get free money for life is fuck up their current situation then they'll do it.". Are you saying that statement is wrong and that most people would probably be working hard regardless of the availbility of free money at the cost of fucking your life up?

People who work hard do it because they have been conditioned to. In the same respect, people who don't work hard don't do it because they are conditioned not to. The reward-punishment scenario that you are trying to depict has such a small effect it is like peeing in the ocean.

Quote :

"We have done a miraculous job dismantling the worst offenders among the welfare system, thank you President Clinton, and the benefits of doing so are plain to see."

We still have offenders, and we will always have offenders. And I don't suppose you have any sort of evidence for these benefits that we can so plainly see, do you?

Quote :

"Most likely, I would begin protesting against medicaid itself because it is a major remaining offender of perverse incentives of our government."

Actually I'm going to go with "do nothing but bitch and moan even harder on the internet about how the big bad govt is taking over your life"

7/21/2005 3:36:52 PM

Wolfpack2K,

Are you retarded? The entire purpose of Supreme Court has ALWAYS been to interprut the Constitution. Even "strict constructionists" must interprut the Constitution. For example, let's say I think the federal government shouldn't have any more powers than those expressly alloted in the Constitution. Well, how far do those powers extend?

The federal government has the power to make laws regulating interstate commerce. Would making regulations on food processing fall under those powers (since most foods and sold across state boarders)? How about regulations on labor? Maybe just regulations on labor mobility?

One can't use the Constitution without interpruting it. You're confusing "Strict Constructionism" with "Interprutation". The question isn't interprutation or no interprutation, but how much interprutation we should allow. Are there implied powers in the Constitution? If so how many and why? That's the difference between Strict Constructionism and everything else.

7/21/2005 5:09:25 PM

two things:

1) borders (no 'a')
2) inteprE

7/21/2005 5:54:48 PM

like you've never spelled anything wrong

7/21/2005 6:27:33 PM

i have, but i usually only do it once or twice. not 15 times. i also don't misspell obvious shit like "interpret" or "border"

7/21/2005 6:41:38 PM

OMG flip flop

7/21/2005 6:42:02 PM

Which part of the Constituation did the court rule on in Roe?

7/21/2005 8:38:14 PM

I don't know, but it had something to do with aboartion!

7/21/2005 8:46:39 PM

aaronbrarro, I've never respected a guy that couldn't find more than one way to spell a word.

[Edited on July 21, 2005 at 11:23 PM. Reason : and you smell funny/]

7/21/2005 11:22:04 PM

Quote :

"Why? Making the punishment even more harsh isn't going to change their actions any more or defer any more people from it."

Says you. I don't know about you, but I respond to incentives and punishments everyday. To suggest that individuals don't respond to incentives and punishments is utterly rediculous. If working 40 hrs a week will only marginally improve your living standards, why would you do it? Yes, I realize most people have a concience and actually care how they appear to others. But the fact is, the only thing individuals hate more than being bums is being suckers. If the government handouts are large enough, then many individuals will take them and spend their time laughing about others which aren't getting rent subsidies or free medicare. There is a point at which the takers cease to be bums and non-takers become suckers.

Quote :

"Why punish them more than we have to? Why not at least give them the chance to succed?"

I already answered this question. While I'll admit it is too late to disuade the current "fuck-ups" from fucking-up, it is not too late for everyone else. By helping one pregnant drug-addict you set a precedent, because everyone else will see you do it.

Quote :

"most people would probably be working hard regardless of the availbility of free money at the cost of fucking your life up?"

Most people are not who we are talking about. Most people were properly conditioned to feel bad about themselves if they ever got into one of these situations. As such, they go through life making reasonable decisions, such as only taking risks when they can afford to. What we are talking about is the other 20% which has no shame, and all they care about are whats best for them.

7/21/2005 11:50:13 PM

Quote :

"To suggest that individuals don't respond to incentives and punishments is utterly rediculous."

So you really think people make a concious decision to be poor?

Quote :

"If working 40 hrs a week will only marginally improve your living standards"

It doesn't, it increases them greatly, it also offers the possiblity of advancement and security in the future. There's no need to even discuss a hypothetical this outlandish

Quote :

"By helping one pregnant drug-addict you set a precedent, because everyone else will see you do it."

And you really think people look at the tiny handout you give her and immediately think "damn, she has it on easy street, I wish I was a drug addicted pregnant prostitute."? Let's stay in reality here.

Quote :

"Most people are not who we are talking about."

Why not discuss the majority? Every system has drains on society, why should we focus on them. Why not judge the system by how it's majority lives?

Quote :

"What we are talking about is the other 20% which has no shame, and all they care about are whats best for them."

Well that 20% doesn't apply either, because it's never in anyone's best intrests to be poor.

7/22/2005 12:02:30 AM

Quote :

"So you really think people make a concious decision to be poor?"

Did I say that? I said people respond to incentives. That having been said, I made a concious decision last year to be more poor in exchange for laziness. I have a Masters degree in Engineering, so I can demand a rediculously high salary. But everyone wants you to work 50+ hours a week! I didn't like that, so my current job is 10 hours a week for $1500 a month. I don't consider myself poor, but I am sure as hell relatively poor compared to the annual salary I could be getting.

Quote :

"It doesn't, it increases them greatly, it also offers the possiblity of advancement and security in the future. There's no need to even discuss a hypothetical this outlandish"

I know. Just read my situation. I could be earning 10 times more with 5 times the labor, not a bargan I want to make right now.

Quote :

"Why not discuss the majority? Every system has drains on society, why should we focus on them. Why not judge the system by how it's majority lives?"

Because the majority is not being thrown off welfare. Hell, we didn't even eliminate welfare, we just scaled it back to temporary dependence (5 years total). Yes, today there are half the number of people receiving welfare, it is those people we are talking about. The vast majority of people go through life never having received a single welfare check as one of my favorite senators said "the only safety-net sensible people will ever need is unemployment insurance."

Quote :

"Well that 20% doesn't apply either, because it's never in anyone's best intrests to be poor."

Really? You have never met someone that valued their free-time? Besides, you know that to be false, it is a generalization to state "it's never in anyone's best interests."

7/22/2005 8:10:44 AM

Quote :

"That having been said, I made a concious decision last year to be more poor in exchange for laziness. I have a Masters degree in Engineering, so I can demand a rediculously high salary. But everyone wants you to work 50+ hours a week! I didn't like that, so my current job is 10 hours a week for $1500 a month."

Well you are in a much different situation from who we are talking about. You don't have to choose between working and starving. I'm sure people will opt towards laziness much more if their parents will pay for them. So if you plan on bringing up some anecdotal evidence, make sure it applies.

Quote :

"You have never met someone that valued their free-time?"

Sure, I've never met anyone who doesn't. However, that doesn't mean that work is at ends with free-time. More on the contrary, people work to be able to enjoy their free time. For example, I'm not going to have too much free time in the future if I can't afoord to get decent health care. Yeah, I don't like working, but I dislike death even more. I've got to eat, once agian, i don't like to work, but starving certainly isn't my bag either. Then I've got house payments, I've got to pay car insurance to be able to get to work, and many other things. Yeah I don't much care for work, but it's certainly better in all aspects than not working.

Quote :

"Besides, you know that to be false, it is a generalization to state "it's never in anyone's best interests.""

I felt comfortable doing it, poor is a very general term.

7/22/2005 12:34:32 PM

Quote :

"Why? If we put programs in place to help dysfunctional families then we would be, in effect, rewarding dysfunctional behavior. Telling people that all they have to do to get free money for life is fuck up their current situation then they'll do it"

The promise of a Child-Support check doesnt make teen pregnancy an appealing situation.

7/22/2005 1:19:44 PM

^ I didn't say it did. I merely stated that it made it less abhorrent.

Quote :

"Well you are in a much different situation from who we are talking about. You don't have to choose between working and starving. I'm sure people will opt towards laziness much more if their parents will pay for them."

I don't like the implication that my parents are paying for me. I share a rental property with two college students. I currently work for the University. I do not understand your insistance that there is no middle-ground between working as much as possible and full unemployment. I am sitting here on the middle ground! I earn exactly as much as I need to keep gas in the car, eat, and pay my rent, my employer pays for health insurrance, etc. All I want is $1500 a month. I could be earning $900 a week, but turned it down because I like my current job.

7/22/2005 2:08:51 PM

Quote :

"I didn't say it did. I merely stated that it made it less abhorrent."

And what's so bad about that? You aren't neccesarily encouraging a behavior simply by making it more living with it more humane.

Quote :

"I don't like the implication that my parents are paying for me."

Well if all you are making is $1500 a month, there's no way you could be living on what you make from your job alone. Hell I almost made that much in high school.

Quote :

"I do not understand your insistance that there is no middle-ground between working as much as possible and full unemployment."

Because in the real world, no one lives like that.

Quote :

"I am sitting here on the middle ground! I earn exactly as much as I need to keep gas in the car, eat, and pay my rent, my employer pays for health insurrance, etc."

Well some of us want to own a house. You should consider it, it's never too early to plan ahead. Yeah I could live just working 2 days a week, but what happens if my car breaks down? What happens if I catch mono? Or my girlfriend gets pregnant? It's well worth it for me to go ahead and start investing some money should the worst happen, because if it did, I'd be fucked without it.

Quote :

"I could be earning $900 a week, but turned it down because I like my current job."

You're going to have to grow up sooner or later, don't be so afraid, the real world isn't that bad, I was worried to, but I still have plenty of time to have fun and do what I want.

7/22/2005 2:20:38 PM

Quote :

"Well if all you are making is $1500 a month, there's no way you could be living on what you make from your job alone"

I earn about $25 an hour factoring that I only work about 15 hours a week, not counting weeks I get off.

Nevertheless, I think you underestimate the cost-reduction effects of sharing a residence. I am one of three residents, that means all bills are split three ways.

My expenses breakdown:
Rent_______300
Cable_______29
utilities______80
gasoline____120
food_______300
interest_____20
total_______849
salary_____1500
remainder___651

Quote :

"Yeah I could live just working 2 days a week, but what happens if my car breaks down? What happens if I catch mono?"

I use that other $650 a month. Or if things get really hard up, I get another job working 40 hours a week. DuH.

Quote :

"You're going to have to grow up sooner or later, don't be so afraid, the real world isn't that bad, I was worried to, but I still have plenty of time to have fun and do what I want."

You're the one worried about falling on hard times.

[Edited on July 22, 2005 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .]

7/22/2005 5:39:47 PM

I'm not too worried about Roberts and hope my fellow democrats don't make a huge stink about it. That is assuming that no bombshells come out disqualifying Roberts. While he leaves some things to be desired, he's as good as we can expect from Bush. I don't like his comments on Roe v. Wade, and I would have prefered to see a woman or minority nominated.

The reason I can accept him is that I think he has a tremendous respect for the Supreme Court, moreso than he feels obligated to the people who appointed him. He will rise above his personal opinions and mellow and will conduct himself as a Supreme Court Justice.

7/22/2005 6:05:31 PM

I find it very suspicious that you didn't mention the constitution.

7/22/2005 6:10:03 PM

Quote :

"Nevertheless, I think you underestimate the cost-reduction effects of sharing a residence. I am one of three residents, that means all bills are split three ways."

This isn't much of an option for poor families and pregnant women.

Quote :

"food_______300"

You must like oodles of noodles and not having sex.

And I guess you don't have to pay your own car insurance. And what kind of person doesn't have a cell phone?

Quote :

"I use that other $650 a month. Or if things get really hard up, I get another job working 40 hours a week. DuH."

What are you going to do if you get in a car wreck and break some bones? You probably won't be able to work that month, and even if you could, you've got no car. 600 bones isn't going to go very far covering car repairs and medical costs. And getting another job isn't really an option at that point.

Quote :

"You're the one worried about falling on hard times."

I don't have to worry. I have a safety net much larger than $600. Hell, I could buy a new car and live a good 4 or 5 months with no salary. I am more than willing to work 5 days a week to not have to worry about hard times and I don't have to worry so much about my budget strangling me.

7/23/2005 12:24:33 AM

Quote :

"^ I didn't say it did. I merely stated that it made it less abhorrent. "

Quote :

"Why? If we put programs in place to help dysfunctional families then we would be, in effect, rewarding dysfunctional behavior. Telling people that all they have to do to get free money for life is fuck up their current situation then they'll do it. "

Here is where you imply that if people can get free money by making a baby then they'll make a baby.

7/23/2005 12:50:42 AM

Quote :

"Well if all you are making is $1500 a month, there's no way you could be living on what you make from your job alone. Hell I almost made that much in high school."

Uh, that's WAY more than forty a week at min wage... you must have had a hot job in high school, or worked crazy hours. I work around thirty a week and make about half what Snarkie makes.

And $300 a month is plenty for food for one person...

7/23/2005 1:01:42 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON — The White House is citing the attorney-client privilege as the basis for refusing to reveal memos written by Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. when he was representing the government before the high court. At the time, Roberts was the top deputy to Solicitor Gen. Kenneth W. Starr. Usually, the attorney-client privilege protects private lawyers from being forced to reveal what their clients told them. It also shields their notes and memos from prosecutors. This rule of secrecy is seen as vital to the adversarial process. But in 1996, Starr challenged the notion that White House lawyers who worked for Clinton could invoke the attorney-client privilege when Starr sought notes they had written. Starr argued that the lawyers worked for the people of the United States, not for the president. ... The dispute was one of many legal tussles during Starr's six-year investigation of the Whitewater matter. It resulted in a broad appeals court ruling that held that government lawyers did not have the same right to keep secrets as private attorneys did."

ha ha ha

8/1/2005 8:29:24 AM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/220805idcards.htm

Quote :

"Nominee once argued for national ID cards LA Times/David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein | August 22 2005 WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee John Roberts made clear in his days as a Reagan administration lawyer that he did not share the traditional conservative fear of the U.S. government creating national identification cards for American citizens. Rather, when faced with what he called "the real threat to our social fabric posed by uncontrolled immigration," Roberts urged his superiors to switch course and support national ID cards."

And Roberts would uphold Roe v. Wade as well. What a "conservative" guy!!!

8/22/2005 11:41:47 AM

I do not believe he would uphold Roe v. Wade as a Supreme Court Justice. Nothing he has said would give that impression.

8/22/2005 2:17:22 PM

Too bad it'll never get overturned.

Too bad that, if it did get overturned, it wouldn't stop people from having abortions.

What a worthless talking point.

In fact, just seeing Roe v. Wade in print makes me want to kill a baby. Not a fetus, per se, but a living, breathing baby.

8/22/2005 2:23:07 PM

I think it will get overturned; John Paul Stevens is older than the earth itself, well heck let's face it none of the pro abortion Justices are young. With Roberts, the court will be 5-4 pro abortion, but will favor restrictions on partial birth abortions and things like that. Only one more retirement is needed.

And that is step one. Then, after that, we work on passing laws and enforcing them to make abortion not only illegal but reduce it.

8/22/2005 2:25:15 PM

thank god youre not in charge

8/22/2005 2:27:39 PM

No, the pro-lifers are in charge, and appointing people to the courts every day. And to the Supreme Court when the circumstance arises.

8/22/2005 2:29:20 PM

we shall see

8/22/2005 2:33:58 PM

Incorrect verb tense. We are seeing. Judge Pryor, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, Judge Priscilla Owen, Justice John Roberts, etc etc...

8/22/2005 2:35:05 PM

In three years that could all change, though. Democrats could win the presidency and pro-choice people could get elected. It must really be nerve wracking for someone like you, who cares so much about the issue, to watch this whole process. I guess the beauty is that you can somewhat contribute to the process.

8/22/2005 2:39:55 PM

i was talking about whether or not RvsW will get overturned.


just because they are pro-life, it doesnt mean they are necessarily going to overturn a decision thats been law for so long.

8/22/2005 2:42:55 PM

"... Pressed during his 2003 confirmation hearing for his own views on the matter, Roberts said: 'Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.'"


http://bureaucrash.com/modules/newbb/print.php?form=2&forum=28&topic_id=584&post_id=3844

8/22/2005 3:01:50 PM

Aha! It's not really fair to expect you to see the fallacy you have fallen into because you are not a lawyer. But let me show it to you anyway - he was up for Court of Appeals Judge at that time. Now, the way the legal system works is that lower courts are bound by precedent from higher courts. Even if you do not like it, you do not have the power to overrule it when you are on a lower court - you have to apply it because that is just the way the system works.

I'll tell you too - that had I been the nominee, I would have made that exact same statement. There is no other statement to make.

So yes, to an appeals court judge, Roe v Wade is the settled law of the land. However, the Supreme Court is not literally bound by any precedent. It can overrule precedent as it pleases. So while it may be settled law to an appeals court judge, a Supreme Court Justice can unsettle it.

The roles of Appeals Judge and Supreme Court Justice are different. A Supreme Court Justices makes precedent and can overrule precedent - an Appeals Judge does nothing but follow precedent.

Quote :

"In three years that could all change, though."

That's conjecture. And even so, while the Supreme Court has reversed precedent many many many times, it has never reversed the reversal of precedent - in other words, it has not reversed a precedent just to come along and reinstate it later. It is a question of the dignity of the institution. If the court flip flops around with every new Justice, then the institution is seen as just a political branch of government. So while it is likely that Roe v Wade will be overruled, it is not likely that a subsequent court would come in and reinstate it, just as a matter of institutional image and dignity.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:14 PM. Reason : add]

8/22/2005 4:11:18 PM

I think 7 of the justices on the last supreme court were appointed by republicans. But the court continued to implement the socialist agenda...upholding abortion, upholding affirmative action, upholding draconian police state measures, etc.

Roberts is just another phony conservative, like George W. Bush and all the other phony conservatives in D.C. If Bush was a real conservative, why did he denounce the Minuteman project and call their members "vigilantes"? Why has he and the republicans in Congress done absolutely nothing to stop illegal immigration, even after 9/11? Why has the size and power of the federal government exploded to record highs under Bush and republican control of congress?

People need to wake up to the fact that the left/right, RepubliCON/Democrat paradigm is a scam. Both parties are controlled from the top by the Zionist elite controlling world events. No matter which party is in power, the size and power of the government continues to grow and the socialist agenda is implemented.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:16 PM. Reason : 1]

8/22/2005 4:11:32 PM

Quote :

"Both parties are controlled from the top by the Zionist elite controlling world events."

Proof please.

8/22/2005 4:15:20 PM

i really feel bad for people who are so blinded by their beliefs that they don't accept reality.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:15 PM. Reason : gh]

8/22/2005 4:15:37 PM

Or rather, accept your version of reality? In that case are you not expressing sorrow for yourself?

What makes you think that your predictions for the future are any more valid than mine?

As far as not overturning a decision that has been settled law for so long, just look at Lawrence v. Texas from two terms ago.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:17 PM. Reason : add]

8/22/2005 4:17:08 PM

igve me a break. read what you said. if you dont think this:

" So while it is likely that Roe v Wade will be overruled, it is not likely that a subsequent court would come in and reinstate it, just as a matter of institutional image and dignity.
"

is portraying an obscured sense of reality, then i dont know what is. but you dont see that. THAT, my friend, is why i feel bad for you.

8/22/2005 4:21:24 PM

Is that all I wrote? Or did I explain my reasoning behind it too, using historical trends? Why do you simply ignore my reasoning and then criticize me for not using any reasoning? The historical trend is there - I can provide a litany of times the Supreme Court has overruled precedent - show me three times in its entire 200+ year history when it went back and reinstated a precedent it had previously overruled.

So again, what makes your predictions about the future any more valid than mine? ESPECIALLY when I have provided the historical data to support my predictions and you have provided zippo.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:25 PM. Reason : add]

8/22/2005 4:24:09 PM

Quote :

"No, the pro-lifers are in charge, and appointing people to the courts every day. And to the Supreme Court when the circumstance arises."

Signed,
Pro-Lifers for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush

8/22/2005 4:25:29 PM

so are you saying that the supreme court has established a "precedent" in not overturning a decision that has been reversed before?

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:28 PM. Reason : d]

8/22/2005 4:28:15 PM

Improper use of the term "precedent". Precedent is a decision by a higher court in a case upon similar facts. It does not mean a "pattern of behavior", but rather a rule of law announced by a higher court examining a similar fact pattern.

8/22/2005 4:31:36 PM

im affraid not. a precedent can also be defined as a "convention or custom arising from long practice".

if the supreme court has had a history of overturning laws, yet never overturning those overturned laws (if that makes sense), then they have essentially established a historical precedent.

[Edited on August 22, 2005 at 4:36 PM. Reason : df]

8/22/2005 4:35:08 PM

yes but a historical precedent is different from a legal precedent

8/22/2005 4:39:39 PM

i agree.

8/22/2005 4:40:56 PM