| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:24 Mohdoo wrote: That's actually a really good thing and I'm amazed you see something wrong with it. Why not elaborate on why you think its a bad thing? Very simple: it's not the business of any government what I eat. The precedent for privacy invasions that these types of laws and regulations set is incredibly bad and dangerous. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:25 meatbox wrote: thank goodness for Iraqi citizens for putting a huge dent into the American War Money Making Machine! They've paid with their lives  , Arabs would rather die standing than live on their knees.  This is really quite offensive... Being thankful for poeple dying is distasteful, regardless if you agree with the politics. | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:32 BluePanther wrote: This is really quite offensive... Being thankful for poeple dying is distasteful, regardless if you agree with the politics. You've misinterpreted my post. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
http://epstein.usc.edu/research/supctLawJohnson.pdf | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
I don't think I did. Unless you completely failed to say what you actually meant, I take offense to what was written. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:37 Signet wrote: Related: the influence of oral arguments on the US Supreme Court http://epstein.usc.edu/research/supctLawJohnson.pdf Oral Argument is extremely powerful in close cases. (I do appellate legal work myself) A well-articulated "slippery slope" policy argument in this case would be rather powerful, I would think. | ||
|
Warillions
United States215 Posts
On March 26 2012 23:09 meatbox wrote: Having money is bad if you have NFI how to distribute it in a budget, so I guess the left is right  . The best solution that will never occur is to at least halve military spending, put a tax threshold whereby anyone earning less than $50,000 doesn't pay any tax and instil a fair progressive system up to 60% for those earning over $200,000 and 60% with no tax shielding for every dollar earned over $1,000,000. Something along these terms needs to be introduced, that way the economy can divert useless funds (military) and stimulate the 99% which matter with the extra cash in hand. You simply cannot cut any spending in the fields of education and medicare needs to be introduced so any citizen can see a doctor for free. sounds like your totally oblivious to the wasteful spending our government has. our overcrowded jails and a huge failure on the war on drugs. cutting funding from our military so we can put more pot smokers in jail is not the solution. also your tax idea promotes shady businesses. theres many answers but yours are not one of them | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:29 xDaunt wrote: Very simple: it's not the business of any government what I eat. The precedent for privacy invasions that these types of laws and regulations set is incredibly bad and dangerous. Wait, don't they just regulate what restaurants sell in New York? You can bath in all the trans fats you want, then take it and put that shit on every single thing you eat or why not have a trans fat party with your friends? You see, probably you agree that restaurants should not be allowed to put everything in their food (even if it does not kill you immediately, like certain carcinogenes). But you decide to draw the line at trans fat, while others do not. No biggie. No dystopia. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:37 Signet wrote: Related: the influence of oral arguments on the US Supreme Court http://epstein.usc.edu/research/supctLawJohnson.pdf Eh, having given oral arguments (both at appellate and trial levels), it's pretty clear to me that judges almost always have made up their minds before the oral arguments are held. Judges always spend a lot of time reviewing briefs and doing independent research ahead of time so that their questions are informed. I find it hard to believe they'll have not made up their minds after doing all of that work and independent research. This isn't to say that there is no room to maneuver at oral arguments (particularly in close cases) -- just that it's more likely than not that oral arguments will have little to no effect on what is usually a predetermined outcome. | ||
|
RageBot
Israel1530 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:25 meatbox wrote: I said along those lines, even at 60%, they will stay, the big bucks are to be made in America, it remains the strongest economy for now, but in the next 5 years they'll be screwed, thank goodness for Iraqi citizens for putting a huge dent into the American War Money Making Machine! They've paid with their lives , Arabs would rather die standing than live on their knees. edit: Oops, nevermind that. | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:41 Warillions wrote: sounds like your totally oblivious to the wasteful spending our government has. our overcrowded jails and a huge failure on the war on drugs. cutting funding from our military so we can put more pot smokers in jail is not the solution. also your tax idea promotes shady businesses. theres many answers but yours are not one of them How can you justify a total of $929 billion in military spending for 2011? Did you know there was over $1 trillion in tax exemptions in 2010? Tax revenue amounted to only $2.1 trillion so effectively half the revenue was lost thanks to good accounting. Sounds like you have no idea about the country you live. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:51 xDaunt wrote: Eh, having given oral arguments (both at appellate and trial levels), it's pretty clear to me that judges almost always have made up their minds before the oral arguments are held. Judges always spend a lot of time reviewing briefs and doing independent research ahead of time so that their questions are informed. I find it hard to believe they'll have not made up their minds after doing all of that work and independent research. This isn't to say that there is no room to maneuver at oral arguments (particularly in close cases) -- just that it's more likely than not that oral arguments will have little to no effect on what is usually a predetermined outcome. R^2 = .19; that seems consistent with what you're saying. [edit - that OA is important, but overall has much less effect than the other factors at play] | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:51 xDaunt wrote: Eh, having given oral arguments (both at appellate and trial levels), it's pretty clear to me that judges almost always have made up their minds before the oral arguments are held. Judges always spend a lot of time reviewing briefs and doing independent research ahead of time so that their questions are informed. I find it hard to believe they'll have not made up their minds after doing all of that work and independent research. This isn't to say that there is no room to maneuver at oral arguments -- just that it's more likely than not that oral arguments will have little to no effect on what is usually a predetermined outcome. I would strongly disagree with that. While I agree that in a number of cases (namely cases where OA is mandatory), judges many times have predetermined the outcome, I think it may make a difference in a case like the one today. (edit: my perception may be skewed by the jurisdiction I work in, each is different) edit2: just don't do this (love the respondents argument, lol): | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
dokiely | ||
|
meatbox
Australia349 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:39 BluePanther wrote: I don't think I did. Unless you completely failed to say what you actually meant, I take offense to what was written. I'm Arab lol, the mentality is different, we fight for what we believe in, America is now screwed as they should be, serves them right, they won't make a profit from Iraqi resources. | ||
|
PeZuY
935 Posts
On March 27 2012 02:12 meatbox wrote: I'm Arab lol, the mentality is different, we fight for what we believe in, America is now screwed as they should be, serves them right, they won't make a profit from Iraqi resources. What is that you belive in? I am not standing in the US side either.. just curious. | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:59 BluePanther wrote: I would strongly disagree with that. While I agree that in a number of cases (namely cases where OA is mandatory), judges many times have predetermined the outcome, I think it may make a difference in a case like the one today. (edit: my perception may be skewed by the jurisdiction I work in, each is different) edit2: just don't do this (love the respondents argument, lol): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8ksvG_X4Z4 Well, given your field, I can definitely see why you'd disagree. Legal briefs are far more important than the oral arguments and typically do a better job of getting the point across than oral arguments can. Where oral arguments become more important and have value is in discussing all of the policy issues that often don't really fit into the briefs. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 27 2012 02:12 meatbox wrote: I'm Arab lol, the mentality is different, we fight for what we believe in, America is now screwed as they should be, serves them right, they won't make a profit from Iraqi resources. "the mentality is different" I don't mean to be rude, but it's not. Being Arab doesn't give you some magical outlook on life that is unique to you alone. "we fight for what we believe in" And nobody else does? The only reason ANYONE ever fights is because they believe in something. If you disagree with American foreign policy, fine. I get that. But say that then. Doing things such as praising suicide bombings and saying things like On March 27 2012 01:29 meatbox wrote: USA will soon be a fascist state, the national eugenic program will be commencing within the next few years... is extremely offensive to me as an American. It's the equivalent of me praising the liberation of Iraq and all the 'culture' and freedom we've bestowed upon the people because of our military actions. If you can't understand how both are offensive, you really should do a better job of understanding the other side of the debate before proferring such extremist arguments. | ||
|
Warillions
United States215 Posts
On March 27 2012 01:54 meatbox wrote: How can you justify a total of $929 billion in military spending for 2011? Did you know there was over $1 trillion in tax exemptions in 2010? Tax revenue amounted to only $2.1 trillion so effectively half the revenue was lost thanks to good accounting. Sounds like you have no idea about the country you live. u hit up google for some figures and now u think u know all the answers... im not debating on the military's spending habbits. i spent 4 years in the military i seen my share of wasted funds. military also accounts for a lot of jobs for the people. many people don't have the chance to succeed in life and being able to join the military is a huge resource i would never want to cripple. and i bet there is a huge tax exemption, im gettin a few grand from my tax guy, when i prolly shouldnt be  how any ppl live in america? yea it adds up. to suggest a tax rehaul is extreme. solving how taxes are filed and stopping government money gettin handed to ppl that dont work should have priority. your also have no way to justify that military spending WASNT justified. and apparently the rest of the work cant either... if your going to suggest anything, have something backing it. if u dont have anything to back it dont take offence when u get called out for some bogus u thought up. hows that bandwagon ride btw? like i said. theres many problems with out spending along with every other country. but what you suggested isnt justified at all....too many types to edit. typing while driving | ||
| ||
|
|
|
EPT
