A Belated Happy Anniversary

[Dan]

you really need to learn to read

No I don't.

then read the constitution

I did, nancy teabagger.

you are ... misinformed on what is says!!

No I'm not.

in ARTICLE 1, RIGHT IN THE BEGINNING, SECTION 8, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT CONGRESS AND FUNDING.

Yes I know.  You must have a different Constitution than I have because my Constitution doesn't say anything about MANDATING Congress spend money on welfare projects.  It says Congress has the power to spend money if it chooses.  Congress MAY spend money, not MUST.

[KensanIV]

Okay Loser, You win!!  I meant to say TAXPAYERS picking up the cost of sidewalk cuts...not home owners.  Please remember anything the government gives away was collected from the taxpayers who pay taxes... or borrowed from future taxpayers to pay back.  And most of them are probably homeowners.

Ain't nothing free except free advice... And that isn't worth much.

Are you painting Teabaggers with that broad brush jerkface? 

[Jw2]

oh my goodness...
 
I asked chuck:
 
Would you be kind enough to identify one or two of the most hideous aspects of the ADA that bother you?
 
 
pretty straightford question.
 
could you come up with a straightforward answer?
 
so far....
 
 
 
the Afghan and Iraq wars have created thousands of disabled GI veterans, who served bravely in a war you were all in favor of.
 
are you saying it's too much for society to pay to accomidate them as equal members in our society?
 
our representatives in the Congress made a promise to those disabled veterans in your name.
 
are you disowning the contract that our government - representing you - made with those individuals?
 
 
 

[chuck_curtis]

Would you be kind enough to identify one or two of the most hideous aspects of the ADA that bother you?
pretty straightford question.
could you come up with a straightforward answer?

It's coercion and collective plunder wrapped in compassion for a special class as justification for it.  You can hardly say that's not a straight forward answer.  It's cuts clear through the fog of sympathy bias, right down to what it really is.

[Jw2]

chuck, apparently, you don't get the core of the question.
 
It's coercion - def:
the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats


 

What, specifically, is being coerced that you object to?
 
 
collective plunder
 
What is being plundered that you are concerned about?
 
 
wrapped in compassion
 
are you saying you object to human compassion on a societial level?
 
 
for a special class
 
I don't know how you consider being confined to a wheel chair as a special class.
Do you envy cripples?
 
 
justification for it.
 
Are you stating that the government is using disabled people to extend its power over you, by using the disabled?
 
I can hardly say you are unclear with your answer.
 
It's cuts clear through the fog of sympathy bias, right down to what it really is.
 
- are you suggesting there is a conspiracy of some sort?
 
 

[chuck_curtis]

I get the core of the question, and I got right down to the basic, bare bones answer to it.   If there is something about the answer that is incorrect, let me know what you think that is.  Show me any part of the ADA that is not coercion and/or plunder.  Show me how everyone benefits, and not a special class.  You can't, because there isn't any.  It's nothing but, in essence, "you had better do this, or that, or we will punish you".

[Jw2]

I don't see anything that's unreasonable.
 
An example cited earlier:  a 2 story building that had to add access to the 2nd floor.
 
(first, let me say, I've heard Rand Paul use this very same "example" that he "knew of", so I'm suspicious.)
 
I know of an Oriental restaurant client of mine on a 2nd floor.  Totally unaccessable to my wheel-chair bound friends.
Old builing.  There was no coercion exercised on them to make their restaurant accessable.
 
until...
 
they had a fire and with the remodeling of the building, they were required to make the restaurant accessable and had to put in an elevator.
 
now, it's not cheap to put in the elevator.  but, to be a business "open to the public" a new build, remodeled or renovated construction now requires accessability. 
 
the restaurant owner sees hundreds of people a week use his elevator.  not just for people in wheel chairs, but also for the elderly (and some really fat people I've observed).
 
His "early bird" dining business has grown 30% vs. pre-fire days.
 
Prior to the remodeling and inclusion of an elevator...many disabled GI's would never have dined there.
 
Don't you support our diabled GI's?
 
 

[sweetwater5s9]

All other entitlement programs should take a financial backseat to our disabled veterans.   And it should be law.   Call or email your congressmen today and demand it.

[Byteryder]

Don't you support our diabled <sic> GI's?

Of course we support disabed Vet's.  We are obligated to, by law, with penalties for non-compliance.



That is chucks point I believe.

[Jw2]

so sweetiepie...you want the gubberment to pick winners and losers?
 
 
byte:  neither you or chuck have deliniated what those "penalties" are or why you object to them.
 
chuck provides a broad talking point, but lacks specifics.
 
how about you?
 
have you never used one of those automatic door opening pads while going in or out of a building?

[chuck_curtis]

That's admirable attempt to justify the ADA.   However, what the ADA really is, remains as I stated.  You're impying in your last post that the ends justify the means, and I say they don't because the means are morally wrong.   


Don't you support our diabled GI's?

Off topic, but to answer, yes, a few of them.  For the most part they participated in political wars that were detrimental to our best interests that I would have no part of, and did not have any part of, whatsoever.

[Byteryder]

have you never used one of those automatic door opening pads while going in or out of a building?

Now that you mention it, no, I do not ever recall using those pads.


As for penalties, are you meaning to imply there are no penalties?  You must be, otherwise why would you challenge my statement to that effect?