A public school manages children, not adults, and has a duty to ensure they learn first.
And banning 7 up t-shirts (like my junior high did) was idiotic and in violation of constitutional rights
The illegality of threats? Surely there can be a better argument. It is necessary to take threats seriously, if only for the safety of the threatened. Hell, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to threaten to hurt you, and you're not a public figure.
Different from making threats illegal.
And if they use private medium(Satellite frequencies, cable, etc), they can say whatever they want. The airwaves of broadcast TV are legally public domain
Miss the point where I argue that they shouldnt be?
Then you admit you simply lied and portrayed guns as illegal. This intellectual dishonesty is frankly hypocritical.
You are very good at twisting things. I made an argument that A) Guns should not be made illegal and B) That gun con trol in its present form is bad.
Nice strawman, would you like to borrow some kerosine and a match?
Then the correct answer is to improve scanning methods to prevent them from being brought on planes. Indeed, this is quite dishonest in and of itself: A plane is not a public forum but a privately owned vehicle. The owner can ban you from carrying a weapon on the premises of a business, and that would include a plane. To ban a weapon which could easily knock a plane out of a sky if used is not unreasonable. Also, it does not support the militia-based origins of the 2nd Amendment to allow guns on planes.
If it were a private company saying "no guns on the plane" I would not have an issue with it. Instead, it is the government saying it. It is a legistlated issue, meaning it is a federal mandate.
Also, do you intentionally misread the words of that amendment. The two halves are seperate statements. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" Massive comma seperating any form of militia or organized force "the right of The People" meaning ordinary citizens under time of peace "to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged"
Do the words "shall not be infringed' mean anything to you? it is a fairly unambigious statement. If you want though i can pull the ninth amendment out of my ass
The problem is, a criminal will ALWAYS find a way to defeat scanning technology. So planes and other such places will NEVER be safe from them. Be it because they pay off a guard, or use materials that dont show up on scanners'
It's not about fairness. Do not throw around such strawmen if you claim to intend 'civil' debate; it is the height of insult to any thinking man to dress up his argument and assault that instead of his own claims. It is about not endangering all onboard should you discharge a firearm. Have you considered for a moment what happens when that happens on a plane, or are we now in the stage of blind ideals?
Notice that A) I was being quasi-fascetious and B) I addressed that by saying that regardless of whether you intended fairness or not, overkill is still everyone's friend
There remain legal barriers in the way of the nonsense of 'disappearing' people or declaring someone combatant off the cuff. Cite your precedent, but it better be relevent.
Do you honestly think that a power-hungry individual is going to pay atention to the law? The law that they are bound to enforce If the person responsible for enforcing the law and chooses to ignore it, who is going to stop them? The courts?
As for precedent regarding the slow creeping destruction of liberty, I point yo toward nazi germany. FIrst it started as little yelow starts, then curfews. Before long, people were being placed in camps. All it takes, is one evil bastard.
That you fail to see is perhaps part of the problem. The frequencies by which broadcast TV have been declared public domain and therefore can be regulated. Signal strength is part and parcel of this; it acts as a safeguard against allowing higher strength signals from drowning out smaller competitors.
How is that relevant in regard to free speech? So Signal strength gets regulated. Ok, I can understand that, but that doesnt give them the right to curtail speech. Hell if anything it gives them less authority to do so, because doing as such is expressely forbidden in the bill of rights.
This myth again. I await your objective evidence. Or I would, except I've seen you fake your way through this debate before and you know this evidence doesn't exist. This is quite dishonest and insulting, Ben.
First off, even if a person does no get sick, they must still pay for that insurance. And they pay with a vengeance. Because the canadian sytem is a legistlated monopoly (unless things have changed very recently), they cannot legally get health insurance that satisfies their specific needs, they cannot get a price that is more in line with what they are willing to pay for(and even if they could, they will be paing twice). Thus they spend more than tey have to. Especially because they have to shoulder the burden of those who cannot afford to pay the taxes that pay for said Canadian monopoly health Coverage.
Of course, if you want to go strictly by the numbers it costs 1,200 dollars for each ciizen of say... quebec to pay for their health benefits. This means that a four person family pays over 5000 in taxes on that. Which is more expensive than private insurance by a significan margin.
Also, due to lack of entrepreneurship, costs are up, an their health care syem is slower to adapt to new technology than say, an american hospital. Also day clinics and home care are underdeveloped.
Now, basic economics tells us that when prices are zero (more specifically, up front costs that people dont notice) quantify demanded increases past what the supplier can supply, and a shortage develops.
Because of this, costs soar out of control, and with taxes in canada already high, the government can only keep down costs. In quebec, again, hospitals are facing budget cuts both in operating expenes and in capital expenditures (such as digital imaging equipment, which, despite a high initial cost, pays for themelves) and the number of general hospital beds has dropped by 21 percent from 1972 to 1980. While, by comparison, space in US hospitals continues to expand. For example and entire wing is bein added onto the Banner baywood heart Hospital down the street from me
Also, labor costs are also under strict ontrol. he government has put a cap on certain types of income: forexample, any fees earned by a general practitioner greater thanf $164,108 (Canadian) a year are payed at a rate of only 25% (combine that with canadian tax rates and presumably ma;practice insurance and those doctors dont make shit... nice incentive to work hard right? Hell, it sure as fuck is a good amount of compensation for spending a minimum of seven years of one's life at school and providing a vital service to one's fellow man under high stress condidtons and long work days... oh yeah... so nice)
Speaking of incentives, the first year of that income cieling, back in '77, GPs rduced their average work year by 2 and a half weeks. IE they take off pretty much all of december.
Government controls caue misalocation of resouces. Such as penalizing doctors who begin their careers in urban areas, where hospital beds are scarce per-capita.
When u-front price is zero, demand exceeds supply. when that happens... lines, oh glorious lines. In Montreal, people often wait for ays, because they think they will be seen faster in the emergency room. Surgury candidates face long waiting lists and people die on the waiting lists for heart surgury. But you get what you pay for...
Of course, this system penalizes the productuve individual because waiting that long takes time and resources that a sucessfulperson coulod be using to make money. So this system needlessly costs those individual more money. as a percentage of their income, than a poor person. Which is why they come to the US to have their work done.
Of course, we will never agree on which system is more moral, because we operate on a different set of premisis, so we will skip over that part.
What happens when a litle girl has a rare form of leukemia wo can be treated only in wisconsin for 350k? This family does exist and had to appeal to charity.
With a polulation that is aging (yay baby boomers become old and infirm) those problems will only increase
Source:
http://www.theadvocates.org/freeman/8903lemi.html
Here is a bit more for you.
A July 2004 study by the Vancouver-based Fraser Institute, Paying, More, Getting Less, concluded that after years of government control, the Canadian medical system is badly injured and bleeding citizens' hard-earned tax dollars. The institute compared health care systems in the industrialized countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and found Canada currently spends the most, yet ranks among the lowest on such indicators as access to physicians, quality of medical equipment, and key health outcomes.
In 1999, Dr. Richard F. Davies, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and professor of medicine at the University of Ottawa, described in remarks for the Canadian Institute for Health Information how delays affected Ontario heart patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In a single year, for this one operation, the doctor said, "71 Ontario patients died before surgery, 121 were removed from the list permanently because they had become medically unfit for surgery," and 44 left the province to have the surgery, many having gone to the United States for the operation. (According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, 33 Canadian hospitals performed approximately 22,500 bypass surgeries in 1998-99.)
In other words, 192 people either died or became too sick to have surgery before they could work their way to the front of the line.
In a May/June 2004 article in the journal Health Affairs, researcher Robert Blendon and colleagues described the results of a survey of hospital administrators in Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States, and Canada. Fifty percent of the Canadian hospital administrators said the average waiting time for a 65-year-old man requiring a routine hip replacement was more than six months. Not one American hospital administrator reported waiting periods that long. Eighty-six percent of American hospital administrators said the average waiting time was shorter than three weeks; only 3 percent of Canadian hospital administrators said their patients had this brief a wait.
Source:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15524
As for Welfare dependant towns...
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators03/
This has a list of graphs, charts and data tables illustrating that in a 10 year period, over half of Welfare/Foostamp recipients were dependant on such, meaning that it made up more than 50% of their income for at leat a year. And 14 percent were dependant on such programs for a period over 5 years.
There is no excuse for being dependant on public programs that long. In that time, one can do this wonderful thing called getting an associates degree going to night classes at a communiy college. Hell, fill out a FAFSA and go to a college or university on grants, with all expenses paid for four years and get a damn degree. Then get a job in real estate or something. All of that cold be done in a span of less than 5 years. Hell, the university will use your kids as lab rats for their elementary education majors, and take care of child care for next to nothing. And if you endeer yourself to a professor, you can work on campus for spending money.
And how do you pay rent with this, Ben? That's right, you can't
Lets see, assuming a family of four living in a two bedroom apartment (kids, dont need their own rooms) say.. average in my area is 700 a month with most utilities included.
Assume Federal min wage of 5.15 per our. 40 hours a week... yes, yes you can pay for rent. So long as you work at a McDonalds for min wage. All you need to do with their turnover rates is apply and do a decent job, and avoid getting fired. Food is taken care of, and if you work even a hair above min wage.. say... as a courtesy clerk at a grocery store for 6 dollars an hour...
Charities are a grain in the sands of Mars compared to Welfare.
Save that the idea that people will starve is insane. Those soup kitchens and food banks are open every day, practically all day. There are also plenty of them. SOmetimes the value of charity cant be measured in the dollars tossed around, but rather in the service they provide.
It is morally reprehensible not to obtain what is needed from those who can afford to give things up, as opposed to those who can't. It is laughable to try and turn this into discrimination when, as cited above, the rich are able to get away with declaring no taxable income at all, even when making alot of money.
In order to do that, they have to essentially throw money at charity :) And I know damn well that they cant declare no taxable income. They can get themselves a couple brackets down, but there are limits as to what they can do with creative accountants.