>> ^IronDwarf:
Did you read through the article you posted?

Yes. They don't have to accept it as payment if they want to negotiate something else, but they cannot post $88 fee then change their policy arbitrarily which is what this lady did by not accepting the payment:

From Snopes: "So, for example, if an automobile dealer signs a contract agreeing to sell you a car for $8,000, but when you begin making monthly payments he rejects them and insists he wants to be paid in gold instead, you can go to court and have your debt discharged on the grounds that valid payment was offered and refused."

Like I explained above. They asked for 88 US Dollars for payment, not 88 top hats or 88 pencils or 88 bottles of beer on the wall. Still, they're towing cars under the law, so they have to accept USD. It would be unfair for them to tow your car and demand you pay them the entire planet of Jupiter. I think it's implied they must accept USD if they're to deal with towing people's property.

>> ^KnivesOut:
>> ^bcglorf:

Maybe there's better ways to empty a building full of explosives?

Great advice, you need to phone the military up right away, I'm sure it just never occurred to them.
I can be smarmy too if you like.

Oh you're right. I should be duly impressed by how fucking awesome it is to blow shit up in the middle of a suburban neighborhood. Go our team! Boo terrorists!


Maybe you haven't heard but the majority of the explosives stored like this cache usually end up in an automobile and explode in the middle of a marketplace somewhere. Better one big explosion in the attackers home than multiple ones at targets the attacker picked. In the mess that is a war this is still a win, that doesn't have to make it happy, just less sad than the alternative.


illegitimate war?

I'd love to hear someone explain what a 'legitimate' war might look like or consist of.

Whenever the idea of money comes into the "should we execute them or not?" argument, I cringe. Massive amounts of wealth in this country is being spent on totally frivolous things. I read a book written by a Republican lady who said that half of America's money is spent on non-necessary things. Entertainment, vacations, automobiles, etc. The idea that we would kill people to save some money, when there is so much money being thrown around for hedonistic things, just seems incredibly wrong.

If we were living in say, Mozambique, where the average person makes 200 bucks a year or something around there, then I could OK the death penalty as a money saving measure. But in the US? Not so much.

Sure, the assembly line day laborer may lose his job to the robotic arm, but other jobs will be created to manufacture those arms, write the software for them, service them, etc.

One factory for industrial robots is enough to supply a vast number of regular factories. The whole chain is done in this area, from software development to robot design to robot construction and naturally, it takes less manhours than it saves through increased productivity, or else it wouldn't be done in the first place.

Let's take a look at Volkswagen. Last I heard, they need an increase of 7% in sales just to keep up with rising productivity. 7% more sales or 7% less workers or 7% less wages ... every year. To see the consequences of this, one only needs to take a look at Bremerhaven or any train station along the railroad line from the factories in Wolfsburg, Braunschweig and Hannover (not to mention the ones in southern Germany) to the northern harbours, where the vehicles are brought to be shipped out. Enough bloody cars to fill the English Channel, everywhere you look. That's not sustainable, not in the least. And yet they still want to keep a dying automobile manufacturer (Opel) alive ...

Just a few days, two key railroad switches at Wunstorf were shut down for maintenance, now there are countless car trains stuck at the classification yards, enough to mobilize the whole bloody state. And they are not even back to pre-crisis production levels.

What I'm saying is this: they produce more cars than ever, more than any current market can take, and even though it takes vastly more work to build a modern car than it did 50 years ago, they still need considerably less manhours per car. That includes all the suppliers as well. And they should be damn proud of it, because that's what previous generations worked for. However, it is basically kept alive artificially and has to collapse eventually. That'll be fun. Opel will be the first, 2011 at the latest.

Only completely new areas have the ability to create enough jobs to remotely compensate for the loss caused by increased productivity and saturated markets. Telecommunications was the last one, renewable energy will most likely be the next one.

That said, there will always be endless work that needs to be done, just not jobs that create an income. For instance, the national railroad could use at least the 100k people back they let go over the last 2 decades. Though to get everything done according to regulations, 200k should be a closer bet. But since it's more profitable to cut maintenance personal by another 10%, the status of the infrastructure can only be described as desolate in large parts of the country.

Edit: damn, that's 3/4 just rambling ... sorry.

Now if only Americans could make automobiles that are better than German ones...

/obligatory

>> ^blankfist: Wouldn't that be "the people's" property and therefore the people's roads?

Yes, but not any single persons roads. Buying 100 shares in Walmart does not mean you can walk into their retail space and take whatever you want. Your claim on the property of the state is no different.

You seem to sound like a Stalinist when you write like that.

Actually this argument is in Lib-speak, I'm simply making the observation that the state is just another corporation, in which we all happen to hold shares.

And given your continued reference to "State property" and that they haven't given someone "permission" is, to me, the most dangerous, unreasonable and tyrannical way of thinking.

So I don't need "permission" to take product out of Walmart ?

To me, public property should be open to all free citizens without infringement and inspection from the State. "Can I see your papers, Komrad!"

So you want no state, no police, no courts? Look that's a fine argument to make, but the state is the company which offers you the services of property and currency. If you want those things you are going to have to deal with the state, and its legitimate control, including licensed use, if its own property.

I'm asking what right the "state" has to restrict a free person's movement (in whatever vehicle he or she chooses to purchase or pay to move)?

The state owns the roads, and, just like any other property owner, has the right to determine the manner in which they may be used. The fact that the state chooses to allow a level of use in order to meet a right, which the state itself defined, does not, in anyway, undermine the right of the state to control its own property.

A license is a restriction of free movement because it says you can only freely move via car if you have their permission to do so.

No, it says you may only OPERATE a car ON THEIR ROADS if you agree to the standards and practices which they set for the use of their roads. People can, and do, move on state roads in vehicles operated by others without themselves acquiring licenses.

If you choose to drive a perfectly safe automobile, why does the State have to restrict that?

Because if you are not driving subject to the contract you are stealing.

I think you've shown only a biased Stalinist perspective to government holding all the rights over man, and that is dangerous in my opinion.

If the state did not own them somebody else would, asphalt does not grow on trees. You seem to feel perfectly fine with stealing from a company called the state, do you feel the same about all business and claims to property? If not on what basis do you claim to have the right to decide that the property claims of The USA inc. are invalid ?

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about being ticketed for speeding on the turnpike (non-gov property toll road)?

"...with somebody else's (the state's) property."
"...sign a contract with the state for the use of it's roads"
"...misusing the state's property constitutes non-contracted use"
"...[you] have not been given permission to drive over the speed limit."

Wouldn't that be "the people's" property and therefore the people's roads? If so, shouldn't we all have fair use as long as we're not hurting someone else in the process or hurting the property? You seem to sound like a Stalinist when you write like that. And given your continued reference to "State property" and that they haven't given someone "permission" is, to me, the most dangerous, unreasonable and tyrannical way of thinking.

To me, public property should be open to all free citizens without infringement and inspection from the State. "Can I see your papers, Komrad!"

"So you are not arguing for a right, you are arguing for means of expression."

No. The right to free movement is intrinsically woven within the right to free expression. Purchasing a means of movement is the responsibility of the person, and I have said that. I'm asking what right the "state" has to restrict a free person's movement (in whatever vehicle he or she chooses to purchase or pay to move)? A license is a restriction of free movement because it says you can only freely move via car if you have their permission to do so. I understand people can walk or pay for a cab, etc. My point is, what right does the State have to restrict your means of free movement? If you choose to drive a perfectly safe automobile, why does the State have to restrict that?

Your answer is because the roads are the "State's" property as if we have no right to use the property freely. I think you've shown only a biased Stalinist perspective to government holding all the rights over man, and that is dangerous in my opinion.

Alcohol is one of the most dangerous drugs. For our safety, let's ensure people only drink a safe amount by limiting each person to a beer every 56 hours.

Doesn't that make sense?

You may laugh at it now, but I could see the rationing of alcohol to be a law in fifty years. The idea of getting a license to fish would've seemed preposterous to the framers of the U.S. Constitution when it was ratified in 1787, and if they'd known horse drawn buggies (automobiles of today) would require a license from the government, they'd probably think it was a joke.

>> ^blankfist:
dgandhi: "This man signed a contract when he applied for a license"
What choice does a citizen have? It's either sign the contract or go to jail if you decide to exercise your right to free mobility and drive a car. You're paying for the roads regardless, so shouldn't you have the right to drive on them without being coerced into signing a contract you cannot negotiate?


That's what you said.

>> ^blankfist:
@gwiz: I said right to free mobility, not a right to drive. It's a right to free movement. Ever heard of it? No? It's a Supreme Court recognized US constitutional right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement#United_States
By restricting it to a licensed driver, you're effectively limiting that right.


The law is about crossing state lines and according to wikipedia "With the advent of the automobile, however, courts began upholding laws and regulations requiring licenses to operate vehicles on roadways."
You can walk, can't you? You're not allowed to exercise your right to free mobility in a airplane without a license.

Yes, and we should have a government option for all forms of insurance. Our government should also offer public options for all current privately created goods and services. Free electric automobiles and food for all taxpayers. It's the minimum any government should offer their citizens. Sigh.

A long, long, long, long time ago
Before the wind, before the snow
Lived a man, lived a man I know
Lived a freak of nature named Sir Psycho

Sir Psycho Sexy that is me
Sometimes I find I need to scream

He's a freak of nature
But we love him so
He's a freak of nature
But we let him go

Deep inside the garden of Eden
Standing there with my hard on bleedin'
Theres a devil in my dick and some demons in my semen
Good God no that would be treason
Believe me Eve she gave good reason
Botty looking too good not to be squeezin'
Creamy beaver hotter than a fever
I'm a givin' 'cause she's the reciever
I won't and I don't hang up until I please her
Makin' her feel like an over achiever
I take it away for a minute just to tease her
Then I give it back a little bit deeper

He's a freak of nature
But we love him so
He's a freak of nature
But we let him go

I got stopped by a lady cop
In my automobile
She said get out and spead your legs
And then she tried to cop a feel
That cop she was all dressed in blue
Was she pretty? Boy I'm tellin' you
She stuck my butt with her big black stick
I said "what's up?" now suck my dick
Like a ram getting ready to jam the lamb
She whimpered just a little when she felt my hand
On her crotch so very warm
I could feel her getting wet through her uniform
Proppin' her up on the black and white
Unzipped and slipped "ooo that's tight"
I swatted her like no swat team can
Turned a cherry pie right into jam

(chorus)

Hello young woman that I love
Pretty punk rock mamma that I'm thinking of
Hold me naked if you will
In your arms in your legs in your pussy I'd kill
To be with you, to kiss with you, I do miss you
I love you

Lay me down...
Descending waves of graceful pleasure
For your love there is no measure
Her curves they bend with subtle splendor

Now I lay me down to sleep
I pray the funk will make me freak
If I should die before I waked
Allow me Lord to rock out naked
Bored by the ordinary time to take a trip
Calling up a little girl with a bull whip
Lickety split go snap "snap"
Girl gettin' off all in my lap
The tallest tree the sweetest sap
Blowin' my ass right off the map
Ooo and it's nice out here
I think I'll stay for a while

And he died at 59?! 59! That's very young. Very sad. Planes, Trains and Automobiles is a brilliant film. I watch it once a year, typically. Still holds up.

And, Sarzy, the word is favorite not favouritieurueueurueuuuuuute, you big letter U using Commie.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Why stop with "free" health care? Doesn't everyone deserves a free home, food and automobile (plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?


While sweeping floors is unskilled labour, I think I'd be affected more by having nobody clean the areas around where I lived than if the brain surgeons stopped their work. Without anyone removing rubbish all the time, the rat infestations and associated disease would probably harm and kill more people than brain surgeons save.

Don't underestimate the importance of core workforce like cleaners.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.
I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.


Bingo!

You treat the constitution like others (you perhaps also?) treat the bible... your one stop shop for everything. Everything begins and ends with one document and you'll be damned if any further discussion will be had because apparently that document is perfect. (Let's ignore the raft of amendments... they... um... just fine tuning and already perfect document aren't they?)



Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?
How does that work?


Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

No one is saying that the US system is GOOD now at all. But what you DO have is the situation where private health companies are consulted BEFORE you get treatment to see if you will be covered for that treatment. THAT is absolutely insane. Look, here in Australia we have public and private... public health guarantees you all the necessary health care you need, and you pay a levee on that in your taxes (Medicare levee), if you take out Private health care (as most do), then you don't have to pay that levee as you are paying your own way via the private insurer. You don't suddenly stop getting public health, just the hospitals get paid by the private insurer rather than the government. Also, private health care gives you elective benefits and better rooms in hospitals etc. (ie. your own room rather than shared). The deal is, you can get better 'extras' etc. surrounding core health care by being on private, but you never miss out on the necessary care by not being able to afford it... and that's the way it should be.


And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...
I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Wah? Huh? I don't get the point of this comment at all. If you're going down that religious path of 'well, I have this book that tells me my morals, and what is right and wrong... you must have no morals and not know what's right and wrong because you don't have a book', then sorry, but that's an insanely stupid tree to be barking up. If you truly believe that you would do 'bad things' if you didn't have the fear of god punishing you for breaking his commandments for doing so then you are a 'bad person'. Most of us don't do 'bad things' because we don't want to hurt other people or make life worse off for others, not due to some selfish fear for ourselves.


Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.
I'd friggen love it.
Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

I didn't wish harm on you. I wished destitution on you (which doesn't have to physically harm you at all, just take your ego down a few notches). I wished that you ended up with no money and therefore be reliant on the very things that you think shouldn't exist, because apparently you lack a iota of empathy and are incapable of ever seeing how someone could end up poor and without help and need some help to get back on track. Sometimes, for some people such as yourself, the only way to get through that 'it's other people' mentality is for it to affect you directly.


You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?


No, and no one is suggesting that the government should provide everyone with free everything. What we're saying is access to healthcare should not be dictated by your bank balance. I, because I earn a good wage, should not be able to get a heart replacement if I need it, but let someone else die because they couldn't afford the operation. That just isn't right, and nowhere in the bible does it say anything about looking after only those who can afford it. In fact, I'm pretty sure it talks about taking care of the weak and needy.


automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.
I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.
No, people who have no access to their own transport through not being able to afford it, despite their best efforts, should be able to use public transport to get around. If you deny people the ability to get around, how are they ever going to get to the jobs to make the money to be able to pay for these things themselves?



(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?
Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?
You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.
And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.
It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.
Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Um... you're several trillion dollars in debt for many, many reasons, not least of which is the trillions of dollars you spend on your damn military. You can't take anything you don't agree with and try to suggest THAT is why you're in debt... sorry, doesn't work.

And in regards to those that would have made it one way or another... not necessarily so at all, although you'd LOVE to think so, because that's the right wing brain. "Successful people will always be successful with no help from anyone else". Which is a load of crap. SOME people pick themselves up completely independently and become successful with no external help, but ALMOST ALL have support from many places. A particular case I'm thinking of (a friend), spent years being horrendously insecure in themselves and doing f-all for his career and being effectively 'a drain' on society as you would say. But now he earns a good wage and is giving back to society through his taxes, so therefore paying back for his time. He needed that time being supported to get out of that rut. If there was no support... well, I don't know what would have happened to him, but it wouldn't have been nice.


Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.
If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.
If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.
A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."


Huh? You've given up again... you've obviously got some hardwired words in your brain that are 'bad':
'Socialism' = bad
'Big Government' = bad
without really thinking through what you're saying.

Saying that a government can turn around and deny care is, well ridiculous when you're comparing it to private companies that do it ROUTINELY. If government does it (please do give me examples where they have... hmmm? I can pull out stupendous amounts of private health examples), then they have public outcry from the country to contend with because it's health care that WE are all paying for. If a private company denies treatment then you'd just say 'Well... it's a free market, go with another provider'.

I really think that you've been taught to believe these right wing mantras but, like most right wingers, you haven't thought through the consequences of those actions AT ALL... You run on an endless loop of 'hard work will get you what you need', whereas we run on one that says 'a fair go for everyone'. Your loop ignores how people get started in the first place, how people need help to get up from being poor and uneducated and pull themselves up to be really productive members of your country. You think that anyone who can't afford to go to university or get healthcare or have a car only lacks those things purely through their own laziness. We think that maybe you help people to have the opportunity to become educated and not be sick, and maybe that gives them a better chance to spend time learning a trade and becoming skilled and earning a great wage and getting their family moving on and up rather than staying poor and a drain on society for ever.

You amaze me with your complete lack of looking into ANYTHING QM.

I don't need to look much beyond the Constitution, which says nothing about 'free' healthcare for all or robbing one group of people who worked hard to pay off others who didn't.

Have bothered AT ALL to look at other countries that do healthcare a SHITELOAD better than the US? How do you not think it's fair to provide necessary healthcare to everyone in your country? Under what warped logic do you think that only those that can afford it should be able to live, while those that can't die?

How does that work?

Life isn't fair and no amount of government force will make it fair. I wonder if you lefties even know what's going on in America. Socialized medicine practically exists NOW. WTF is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security? S-Chip? You'd have to work pretty hard to not get the care you need, especialy if 20 million Mexican illegals are getting it.

And your intro also speaks of being simple minded also:
Doesn't everyone deserves a free home
There is such a thing as government housing, and it's used by people who have fallen on hard times until they can afford something better. The houses are never fantastic, and you wouldn't want to stay in them, but they provide shelter while you try to pick yourself up... Of course you rally against such ideas and think they'll only be populated by the lazy, and how dare they get a roof over their head when you work for all you have...

I don't object to safety nets, but you know and I know that's not what we're talking about here. Also, with the Christianity bashing that goes on here at liberalsift, I wonder where the morality of the left exists on its own merit? Was every atheist born knowing 'the right thing to do'?

Um... ok, if you don't think there's a need for 'soup kitchens' and other such ways for people who have become destitute, then I would LOOOOOVE for you to end up jobless sometime and not have any family support, and then you can say there should be nowhere for those without money to be able to find shelter and food.

I'd friggen love it.

Well that's just fucking wonderful. With all the shit you've been through, you'd rather just wish harm on others that disagree with you, eh?

You're making shit up that has nothing to do with my argument, so here it is again worded slightly different: is it the government's obligation to provide "free" basic everything ALL the time the way they claim to want to do with healthcare?

automobile No, but free/heavily subsidized public transport works wonders for actually being able to get to... oh, I dunno... jobs.

I'm not against local public transportation. In some places it works, in others it's been an expensive disaster. And it's not my point. But if you think people with no car have a right to a "free" bus, so be it.

(plus for kicks a high-paying job that pays the same whether you're a brain surgeon or sweep floors)?

Now you're just being a douche. You've got no concept of how any of this works do you? You think that those at or under the poverty line just LOVE living in government housing and surviving on handouts... hell, why bother working when life is so grand hey?

You're an idiot. People don't want to remain like that, people never want to GET like that, but some people do, some through no real fault of their own (some by their own fault, but so what). The idea is, you give them a hand through those times until they can once again become a constructive member of society. And people WANT to get a good job and be able to buy their own home/car and feel like they've been productive. I don't know anyone who enjoys relying on the handouts. But I sure as fuck know people who HAVE HAD to at one time or another and are bloody glad those things were in place to catch them during the tough times.

And some of these people now work for multinational companies in technical roles and are doing very well for themselves... because they were helped during the rough patches.

It ends up costing LESS in the long run you know.

Yeah, that's why we're several trillion dollars in debt. I have another theory about those success stories: those people might have made it whether there was government aid available or not.

Also... it'd be friggen hilarious if you got some illness that cost an enormous amount of money to treat, and your private health care provider decided that it wasn't covered (as they like to do)... then you'll be bleating that there should be public health.

If an American with a serious illness that requires expensive treatment knocks on Canada's door seeking asylum, do they let him in? Any Canadian sifters, let me know.

If you take nothing else away from this: I don't pretend to have all the answers, while Big Government tyrants do. I oppose socialism in general and in particular this health scam the Obamunists are trying to pass as quickly as possible before the people realize what they thought were brownies are really dog turds.

A government big enough to pay for your kid's "free" health care is also big enough to say, "You're over the limit for treatment costs. Back of the line."