I can't stand when people try to claim theory has less value than practice, when practice is just the exercise of another theory.
Everything is theory.
Not have health insurance? Don't expect a tax refund.
- Thread starter papajohn56
- Start date
Everything is theory.
It actually tramples on the whole "liberalized pussified america" movement ... and I for one love it.
America was founded on the white man voting ... from my understanding of history, this had little to do with racism or sexism. Close to 100% of land owners (people who shouldered the financial burden of the country) were white men and the founding fathers wanted to people who paid the taxes to make the rules.
I say it's common sense.
There should just be another way to gauge the ability to vote so there won't be any special interest groups claiming racism like they always do.
I've always felt voting rights should have somehow been attached to productivity but how do you implement it in a way that is perceived as fair and equal in the eyes of the general public.
I've always felt voting rights should have somehow been attached to productivity but how do you implement it in a way that is perceived as fair and equal in the eyes of the general public.
ok so justify why a constitution as a theory is better than no constitution as a theory. The point is you can't cite theory like that without backing it up with real life evidence.
You're right, who needs rules.
I've been disadvantaged since birth since I've been living under those pesky 10 commandments so I can't lie to and covet my neighbors wife while worshiping a stolen golden calf.
Lets just fucking throw out the constitution and let the politicians decide which way this country should go without any framework.
esomark == genius
No it isn't, its the supreme court, the American people, and congress that are stopping this from happening. The constitution on its own can't stop this.
If the supreme court interpreted the constitution to make this acceptable, Obama implemented it and the American people were happy about it, then it would happen for sure.
$325 is nothing for a big baller, but for someone who is living paycheck to paycheck that's pretty fucked up. They should waive it if your AGI is less than 30k a year or so.
Refunds themselves are a bad thing. It's your money and you should have had it sooner.
Refunds themselves are a bad thing. It's your money and you should have had it sooner.
yes, and I should be charged not 35% but 39% to pay for the operations these people get because they're willing to drop $12/day on 2 packs of cigs but are unwilling to instead spend that money on healthcare. Of course we don't let them die, we operate and when I have a child I fork over $6k out of pocket (my deduct on my $1k/month PPO plan since I don't have a nice large group like every other corporate monkey) because these costs get absorbed into the medical system and funneled to those who actually a) pay or b) whose insurance pays.
you know what- FUCK that. Provide a healthcare option that people can afford and require it.
I can't opt out of medicaid/social security taxes, they shouldn't be able to opt out of making sure they're responsible members of MY society. Call it socialism, call it whatever gets the collective idiots panties in a bunch, I really don't care. Meanwhile however the rest of the civilized world is laughing at us, and rightfully so. To have our medical outcomes and our medical clusterfuck while people whine about gun rights and stockpile munitions because our president bumps Jay-Z in the oval office- probably while doing the Harlem shake- is just ludicrous.
I don't defend Constitutions (you would know this if you followed my posts), because I agree with everything you wrote about them. They have an intent when they are created, but by their very design cannot fulfill that intent. Somewhat like a bucket with a hole in the bottom.
Sure you can. It is called deduction. It uses a priori knowledge.
I can deduce from first principles that adding 2 + 2 walnuts together will total 4 walnuts. I don't need to get a bunch of walnuts together and perform arithmetic empirically (create evidence).
While you and I arrive at the same conclusion, we come to it from different directions, one of us by deduction, the other by induction.
Induction can be illogical if the observer does not understand what he is observing. Example, the belief that the sun revolves around the earth. People observed the movement of the sun, and drew conclusions around what they observed. Unfortunately, because their knowledge was incomplete (limits of observation) they were wrong.
Logic (due to the limits of knowledge at that time) could not have solved it either, but the difference is, logic would not have yielded a false conclusion the way empiricism did.
So if you didn't have the 10 commandments you would just go on a rape and pillage spree? I find that hard to believe.
I am not for throwing out the constitution because at the moment it's the only thing keeping politicians and the gob'ment 'honest' but that doesn't mean that some things shouldn't change. I don't like how the supreme court gets to interpret it and be appointed by the president. We should get to vote in the judges! I want to see how they've ruled, where they stand on certain arguments, etc.
But when a theory is proven wrong by real life examples, its then wrong to use that theory in your argument.
EDIT: theory is useful, but when there's a contradiction, reality takes priority.
EDIT2: for example you may deduce that 2 + 2 walnuts = 4 walnuts, but then in reality you find that one of the walnuts has gone rotten, in effect you now have 3 walnuts.
What if the "proven wrong" is the result of a misunderstanding?
Again, back to the sun revolving around the earth. People would say, "You are crazy man, everyone knows the sun revolves around the earth, we can see it in real life examples!" Still a failure of observation no matter how much you appeal to "reality".
Reality cannot trump logic. When there is a conflict, it is usually a failure of observation.
That is completely irrelevant to my point.
Or maybe it isn't. Some people don't learn how to think logically, and then they are lead around by priests, politicians and demagogues.
What you are doing is trying to introduce more variables to falsify logic.
Why not just add some leprechauns and unicorns to the walnuts in an attempt to disprove that 2+2 = 4?
Reality trumps incorrect logic.
Failure of observation can lead to false logic being applied. Its wrong to apply the logic of 2 + 2 = 4 when one of the walnuts is rotten. Instead you need to apply the logic 2 + 1 = 3.
Alternatively if you were brain dead and you're logical thinking led you to believe that 2w + 2w = 3w (assuming there are no rotten walnuts), then the reality would help you and everyone else to see that in actual fact 2w + 2w = 4w.
uh. wow. Do you know the last time the constitution was amended?
EDIT sorry about double post, chrome fucking up
What is so hard about the concept that if every body paid there hospitol bill the cost would go down . Many poor people go to emergency rooms for basic things and dont pay the bill .If they go to the doctor with out money or no health insurance the doctor wont see them . nobody wants to be forced to by insurance but the problem is the insured is paying for the uninsured health coverage. who the hell wants to pay $400 for health insurance when they are healthy and in there 20ties but when you break your arm and it cost $10K and if you dont pay it wont affect your credit rating why pay it . I have been paying car insurance for 20 years never had a claim . If i could legally not carry car insurance i would save the $150 per month . imagine the confuson if only 60% of the drivers on the road had car insurance.