Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: STOP HR 1161!

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    419

    STOP HR 1161!

    For all wine lovers. Should HR 1161 pass, it will essentially give States the power to follow the wise words of alcohol wholesalers and deny wine lovers from purchasing imported wines, wines through clubs, rare wines and auctioned wines. This is done by putting in place bans on shipments of wine from out of state retailers. No surprise this is is coming from those prudes in Utah

  2. #2
    States rights.

    Don't like it, move to a State that doesn't impose such bans.

    Wine is for pussies anyway.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,562
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4025850]States rights.
    [/QUOTE]

    slavery. racist.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4025850]
    Wine is for pussies anyway.[/QUOTE]

    sexist


    Just trying to preempt this one, to save some time. ;)

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,274
    And this is why I am a Libertarian rather than a Replublican. What possible place does government have to dictate this crap in our country while we have SO many other issues. Government is way to big and its main job is to get bigger at our expense.

  5. #5
    Lobbyists run this country and who cares, I drink beer. :P

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,528
    [QUOTE=drunk kid catholic;4025821]For all wine lovers. Should HR 1161 pass, it will essentially give States the power to follow the wise words of alcohol wholesalers and deny wine lovers from purchasing imported wines, wines through clubs, rare wines and auctioned wines. This is done by putting in place bans on shipments of wine from out of state retailers. No surprise this is is coming from those prudes in Utah[/QUOTE]

    it has a lot of support in NY: they also don't want you buying wine in a supermarket because it will ruin their profit margins.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4025850]States rights.

    Don't like it, move to a State that doesn't impose such bans.

    [B]Wine is for pussies anyway.[/B][/QUOTE]

    [URL=http://img18.imageshack.us/i/stonecoldsteveaustinfli.jpg/][IMG]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1125/stonecoldsteveaustinfli.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    [QUOTE=cr726;4025896]Lobbyists run this country and who cares, I drink beer. :P[/QUOTE]

    Homemade Oktoberfest :yes:
    [IMG]http://crookedtailbrewing.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gemewtlichkeit.jpg[/IMG]

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    As a true libertarian, I believe that neither the state nor the federal government should come between me and my Chateau Lafitte.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    419
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4025850]States rights.

    Don't like it, move to a State that doesn't impose such bans.

    Wine is for pussies anyway.[/QUOTE]

    so if a state tried to ban beer you would okay with that

    state rights and all :rolleyes:

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    419
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4026248]As a true libertarian, I believe that neither the state nor the federal government should come between me and my Chateau Lafitte.[/QUOTE]

    Af---ingMen

  12. #12
    [QUOTE=drunk kid catholic;4026254]so if a state tried to ban beer you would okay with that

    state rights and all :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    If they tried to ban imported beer, sure, I'll bite.

    Yes. If I disagreed with it, I'd fight it with my local congressman and if it passed and I was that deadset on drinking imported beer, I'd move to a state that didn't lose the good fight.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=drunk kid catholic;4026256]Af---ingMen[/QUOTE]

    This is an interstate/foreign commerce issue and should reside with the Federal government, not the states. Besides which I always side with individual citizens' rights over the rights of states:

    [B]Section 8 - Powers of Congress[/B]

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=drunk kid catholic;4026254]so if a state tried to ban beer you would okay with that

    state rights and all :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

    Depends, do I live there?

    If yes, I might care. If not, no, don't give a ****.

    If I did care, I'd vote against it (ref.) or vote against those who vote for it. You know, Represent and Vote.

    I'm forced to wonder, how do you feel about a similar States Rights issue, Vermont and it's State Run Single-Payor Health Care System? Is that ok? Or New Yorks banning of certain food additives (salt, for example) in Restaurants?

    Cause if thats ok (and to me it is), this must also be ok. Both address the same issue, States Right to pass and enforce laws over it's citizenry, as long as the law is not Federally or State Unconstitutional. Banning Out of State Wine is clearly not unconstituional (unless you agree with LiL's Commerce Clause Catchall argument, the most flexable part fo the Constitution for the Tyrants amongst us).

    For the record, I do not support than ban of much. Want out of state wine, I'm all for it.

    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4026270]Besides which I always side with individual citizens' rights over the rights of states[/QUOTE]

    Really? So you're against all State-Run Health Care Mandates as an issue of Individual > State?
    Last edited by Warfish; 05-11-2011 at 03:46 PM.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4026278]Depends, do I live there?

    If yes, I might care. If not, no, don't give a ****.

    If I did care, I'd vote against it (ref.) or vote against those who vote for it. You know, Represent and Vote.

    I'm forced to wonder, how do you feel about a similar States Rights issue, Vermont and it's State Run Single-Payor Health Care System? Is that ok? Or New Yorks banning of certain food additives (salt, for example) in Restaurants?

    Cause if thats ok (and to me it is), this must also be ok. Both address the same issue, States Right to pass and enforce laws over it's citizenry, as long as the law is not Federally or State Unconstitutional. Banning Out of State Wine is clearly not unconstituional (unless you agree with LiL's Commerce Clause Catchall argument, the most flexable part fo the Constitution for the Tyrants amongst us).

    For the record, I do not support than ban of much. Want out of state wine, I'm all for it.



    Really? So you're against all State-Run Health Care Mandates as an issue of Individual > State?[/QUOTE]

    Nah, when it comes to healthcare, I see that as something everybody uses at some point, so all should pay. Why let some people be exempt who will end up costing other taxpayers for their health issues. Might as well make em pay. Sort of like those who oppose illegals getting free services.

    Some issues are not properly framed as individual vs. state. On the other hand, I want my booze unfettered by the grimy mitts of lobbying middlemen who are trying to squeeze the consumer through state regs.

    And the commerce clause was put there precisely to avoid the egregious abuses that occurred under the Confederation. Equal playing field and avoidance of tariffs between states was essential to a functioning nation.

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=long island leprechaun;4026407]Nah, when it comes to healthcare, I see that as something everybody uses at some point, so all should pay.[/quote]

    By that logic, why is food and housing not "Single Payer" under a Govt. System? Everyone needs food and housing more than healthcare, why the difference and logicla inconsistency?

    If the barrier for Nationalization/Govt. Control is "everyone uses", there are a litany of things that should qualify, right?

    [QUOTE]Why let some people be exempt who will end up costing other taxpayers for their health issues. Might as well make em pay.[/QUOTE]

    In a Single-pay system, the taxpayers (i.e. 50% of us) pay for all of us (100%). How is that "make them pay"? More like "make some pay for all, and 50% get their healthcare tax and responsabillity free, while the rest of us get worse healthcare that we coulkd have bought otherwise on our own".

    [QUOTE]Sort of like those who oppose illegals getting free services.[/QUOTE]

    I'm curious, does the Commerce Clause also validate Maryland providing superior rights to illegal aliens vs. American Citizens from other States too?

    [QUOTE]Some issues are not properly framed as individual vs. state[/QUOTE]

    Guess it's easy to say anything you like (like "I side with the individual vs. the State"), if you simply "frame the issue" to suit your the party line. Personal choice over healthcare isn't an individual issue, it' a State issue.....unless it's a woman having a "choice", then it's an individual isue again. So confusing the logic you use. Consistent inconsitency.

    [quote]And the commerce clause was put there precisely to avoid the egregious abuses that occurred under the Confederation. Equal playing field and avoidance of tariffs between states was essential to a functioning nation.[/QUOTE]

    So again, by the same logic you're using here, Health Insurance Providers from other states should be "unfettered" in being sold in all States as well?

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,169
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4026439]By that logic, why is food and housing not "Single Payer" under a Govt. System? Everyone needs food and housing more than healthcare, why the difference and logicla inconsistency?

    Food and housing can take many forms, whereas healthcare is governed by a fairly consistent delivery system based on a largely agreed upon theory of disease/care. Again, as much as you don't like it, you can't use the same yardstick for every scenario. I would agree that basic housing and sufficient food to avoid starvation or malnutrition should be supported by the government. That's why government exists -- to promote the general welfare.

    If the barrier for Nationalization/Govt. Control is "everyone uses", there are a litany of things that should qualify, right?

    No, I didn't say "everyone uses" is the criterion. You're extrapolating that and distorting my point. Some things that everyone uses are essential to sustaining life, most are not.

    In a Single-pay system, the taxpayers (i.e. 50% of us) pay for all of us (100%). How is that "make them pay"? More like "make some pay for all, and 50% get their healthcare tax and responsabillity free, while the rest of us get worse healthcare that we coulkd have bought otherwise on our own".

    See the bailout thread. As I stated to CPA, I'd be perfectly comfortable with a tax system that requires everyone to pay something and that eliminates promotion of marriage and children through the tax code. In this case, who pays taxes is a bit less relevant, since everyone who is employed is required to contribute to their own healthcare. Doesn't mean you can't pick your plan, or decide to have a premium plan or a basic one.

    Guess it's easy to say anything you like (like "I side with the individual vs. the State"), if you simply "frame the issue" to suit your the party line. Personal choice over healthcare isn't an individual issue, it' a State issue.....unless it's a woman having a "choice", then it's an individual isue again. So confusing the logic you use. Consistent inconsitency.

    Why must personal choice over healthcare be a State issue? It certainly doesn't have to be. I would prefer a level federal system that manages private insurance options and has full portability. You're the one who is being inconsistent by insisting that the State has to manage healthcare, as well as meddle in interstate commerce. Why is the State inherently better at this than the federal government?

    So again, by the same logic you're using here, Health Insurance Providers from other states should be "unfettered" in being sold in all States as well?[/QUOTE]

    On the last point, you're mixing what could be with what currently exists. As I said before, I'd prefer that healthcare be managed at the federal level. If the federal government established policy and procedure requirements, I'd be okay with the states managing the details, which might work better from a scale perspective. But I personally don't see the advantage of 50 states producing 50 different plans that don't port.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us