61
The Lounge / Re: Random Religious Comic Thread
« on: February 09, 2010, 08:02:30 PM »ITT: We photoshop opposing opinions to match our caracticures of them.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Petition against Apple's use of DRM
« on: February 05, 2010, 10:05:27 AM ».docx is as "open" or "free" as .odf is.The average user however, even with Windows can very easily avoid Microsoft even within the OS. I know I don't use any default programs anymore.
At the moment, yes. If you keep feeding them money and going deeper into the hole they're digging for you, when they decide to lock you into their brand you'll be too dependent on it to choose an alternative. They're already pushing their own proprietary document standard over the existing free one; companies which adopt it are locking themselves into whatever Microsoft has up their sleeve in coming years.
63
Technology, Science & Alt Science / Re: Petition against Apple's use of DRM
« on: January 29, 2010, 12:46:42 AM »The average user however, even with Windows can very easily avoid Microsoft even within the OS. I know I don't use any default programs anymore.Explorer?
65
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Mass Effect 2
« on: January 25, 2010, 07:36:45 PM »No spoilers plz. I won't be able to get it for a while, but I definitely plan on getting it ASAP. Playing through the first one again in order to get my level up so I have a good save file to transfer to the new game!The final battle if fought against a homosexual Gordie La Forge using quicktime events.
PC gaming is for people who hate life.
66
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: OBAMACARE
« on: January 24, 2010, 02:28:56 AM »
Medicare does not force a consumer to purchase a product.
67
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: OBAMACARE
« on: January 24, 2010, 12:12:59 AM »
Try this:
Quote
Of course, what Congress is contemplating with regard to a health care mandate is even less defensible under a Commerce Clause analysis than what it sought to do in the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 or the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, both of which, after all, purported to regulate non-economic activities that were nevertheless freely engaged in by individuals. By contrast, the health care mandate would not regulate any “activity” at all. Rather, it features an affirmative federal command that parties engage in a particular commercial activity—i.e., a purchase of insurance. It is imposed not because an individual engaged in any particular profession or employment, even so much as growing pot in the bathroom. This regulation would apply to every American simply because they exist.
Significantly, even the Congressional Research Service (CRS), an entity that traditionally and institutionally takes the most permissive view of Article I powers, when asked by the Senate Finance Committee to opine on whether the Constitution allows Congress to impose this type of a mandate, came up with the most lukewarm of answers, indicating that “[w]hether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.” Cong. Research Serv., Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis 3 (2009), available at http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40725_20090724.pdf. While we have never worked for the CRS, we know from experience in the Executive Branch, both at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House Counsel’s Office, that when the Office of Legal Counsel, a highly respected DOJ component, in response to the question of whether or not a given approach is constitutional, tells you that it is a novel issue, it sure is not a green light.
Of course, like Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen insisting that some hills could be valleys, Congress has attempted to avoid this inevitable conclusion by framing its mandate as a “tax,” such that anyone who is not enrolled in an acceptable insurance plan must pay a penalty to the IRS. One amusing detail is worth mentioning here—President Obama, in a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, heatedly denied that the healthcare mandate is enforced through a tax mechanism, calling it merely a “fine.” In any case, whether one calls the payment mechanism contained in the Finance Committee bill a tax or a fine, Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional proscriptions on its power. Otherwise, it could evade all of the constitutional limits on its authority by simply imposing “taxes” whenever any individual or entity fails to follow a prescribed course of action.
Significantly, the Supreme Court has rejected such bald-face congressional expedients in the past. In one early leading case, Child Labor Tax Case (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.), 259 U.S. 20 (1922), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not impose a “tax” in order to penalize conduct (the utilization of child labor) that it could not regulate under the Commerce Clause.
you have done nothing but blabber and fail to provide which section of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force a consumer to purchase a product.
68
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: OBAMACARE
« on: January 23, 2010, 03:51:36 AM »There still isn't an issue here. Unless you want there to be. But you'd have to imply it.Try going over thsi and see ifyou can put 2 and 2 togeather: http://www.pennumbra.com/debates/debate.php?did=23
Hmmm...Oh that's right, Republicans used to be liberals In Lincoln's day.Liberal=/=Democrat
69
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: OBAMACARE
« on: January 22, 2010, 03:08:50 PM »Because the constitution has no direct language saying Congress or the President can not do that. They can use implied powers to imply, then, that it is constitutional. It's not much different from forcing people to buy land (land that was already occupied by many Native Americans BTW).Try the tenth amendment.
70
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Souls"
« on: January 22, 2010, 02:58:58 AM »
Can a caps lock key have a soul?
71
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Souls"
« on: January 22, 2010, 02:31:08 AM »
Aristotle believed there were threee types of souls; nutritive, sensitive, and perception. Plants possesed only the first, animals possesed all of them, humans also had reason as part of the perceptive soul.
72
The Lounge / Re: Canadian 2010 Seal Hunt
« on: January 22, 2010, 01:16:17 AM »
Seals had been eating cod in Canada for millions of years before large-scale human fishing started there, and there were far more many fish then in any european seas.
73
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: OBAMACARE
« on: January 22, 2010, 01:12:07 AM »When the civil rights act was trying to be passed it was filibustered for 54 days before a replacement bill was offered. But currently senators don't have to talk. They just say the filibuster is on and it stays on until 60 votes come in.You may not have meant to imply this, but the man who filibustered that was a Democrat and the civil rights act and most other civil right legislation was passed by republicans: http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/
Everyone is unhealthy by degrees, the sicker you are the higher your premium will be. Thus profit can be made at any level, although those (very) sick and also (very) poor may not be able to afford it.It doesn't just step over a line, it's unconstitutional.
Your lack of understanding of the issue seems pretty evident, so let me break it down for you:
In a capitalist system, companies are motivated by profit. If you don't understand this, study some Adam Smith.
so-
Providing health insurance for mostly healthy people = big profit
Providing health insurance for mostly sick people = negative profit
Providing health insurance to all people, both healthy AND sick people = reasonable profit
Now right off the bat, it is apparent that denying coverage to sick people and only providing coverage to healthy people will make the maximum profit, and is therefor the optimum goal.
There are many ways to combat this problem, but this is how the government is doing it in this current bill:And the government will reimburse the respective companies to the tune of tens of billions per year.
-If someone requests insurance, they insurance companies MUST insure that person, regardless of whether or not they have a pre-existing condition.
-The problem with this being, every healthy person could drop their insurance and just wait until they got sick to ask for insurance. So to prevent people from doing this, everyone needs to either get insurance or pay a fine, simple as that.Unless the fine is high enough it will still be cheaper to not buy health insurance, and without the public option this also punishes the poor.
It was justified by invoking implied powers, what implies the power to force citizens to buy a product?It doesn't just step over a line, it's unconstitutional.The acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase was not justified by the language of the constitution. You don't show proper understanding of how the constitution works and why there is checks and balances. For that matter you are completely ignorant of how the government works in general. People on this board also recognize this and don't take what you have to say seriously.
74
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: "Souls"
« on: January 22, 2010, 12:51:59 AM »
Ship of Theseus, more a matter of individual character rather then the spiritual soul.
75
The Lounge / Re: Canadian 2010 Seal Hunt
« on: January 21, 2010, 04:13:19 PM »Thus making it perfectly acceptableWhat a heartless cowardly thing to do. Beating a creature to death with a piece of wood and calling it sport? And here was me thinking we lived in the 21st centuryYou kill it in one blow by smacking it in the head.
76
The Lounge / Re: Canadian 2010 Seal Hunt
« on: January 21, 2010, 04:07:35 PM »What a heartless cowardly thing to do. Beating a creature to death with a piece of wood and calling it sport? And here was me thinking we lived in the 21st centuryYou kill it in one blow by smacking it in the head.
78
Arts & Entertainment / Re: I just saw James Cameron's Avatar.
« on: January 20, 2010, 01:26:56 AM »I personally think that Colonel Quaritch and his douchebaggery towards the end ruins the feel of the movie.He was the best part of the movie. Total badass.
80
The Lounge / Re: Netflix and Linux
« on: January 16, 2010, 02:49:50 AM »
I bought movies this week. True story.
81
The Lounge / Re: Random Political Comic thread
« on: January 16, 2010, 02:23:01 AM »How would you feel if you were Obama and the Chinese ambassador came and bowed before you? Now try vice versa, but with shaking hands.http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2009/11/president-obama-vs-rest-of-world.html
Leaders of Israel, Morocco, South Korea and India did not bow to the Japanese Emperor, Obama did. How international of him.
82
The Lounge / Re: First Person Tetris
« on: January 15, 2010, 04:19:41 PM »Quote
S: (n) person (a grammatical category used in the classification of pronouns, possessive determiners, and verb forms according to whether they indicate the speaker, the addressee, or a third party) "stop talking about yourself in the third person"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=person
83
The Lounge / Re: Ubuntu and CompizConfig
« on: January 15, 2010, 04:16:13 PM »http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=opera&rls=en&q=%22year+of+the+linux+desktop%222010 year of the spinning cube desktop.
More like 06 but ok.
84
The Lounge / Re: First Person Tetris
« on: January 15, 2010, 04:14:50 PM »
'Person' is used as a gramatical category in this instance.
86
The Lounge / Re: First Person Tetris
« on: January 15, 2010, 03:45:16 PM »They are subjects of observation.In this case the tetrominoe block and the block dispenser.
Those are not people.
87
The Lounge / Re: First Person Tetris
« on: January 15, 2010, 02:23:56 AM »
In this case the tetrominoe block and the block dispenser.
90
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Lyric Discussion
« on: January 15, 2010, 01:10:26 AM »
Agoraphobic Nosebleed – Razor Blades Under the Dashboard
You fucking killed yourself
Slit your wrists with my fucking car
I hope you felt real fuckin' stupid
I hope you felt real fuckin' stupid
On the way to the emergency room
I had to fix the window you smashed
But I'll never wash the bloodstains from the floor mats
Fucking dead queer
I hope you feel real fucking dumb
You fucking killed yourself
Slit your wrists with my fucking car
I hope you felt real fuckin' stupid
I hope you felt real fuckin' stupid
On the way to the emergency room
I had to fix the window you smashed
But I'll never wash the bloodstains from the floor mats
Fucking dead queer
I hope you feel real fucking dumb