I have a question, if anyone knows the answer: is there anything that happens (in legal terms, I mean) if the president doesn't uphold the constitution? Is there any precedent? This is just something that I have been wondering about lately.
Damn that was a depressing read. I came here from England to escape this crap, only to find it followed me. Like you pointed out, there's nowhere else to go. Dammit, can't we just have one country on this planet where a man can be free? Can these people not see the failures elsewhere, everywhere this tripe has been tried? I fear that humanity is heading into a long dark night. I'm appalled at what my children will have to face.
They don't consider the failures elsewhere to be failures, but rather experimental trials on the best methods of ruling. They won't go down the road of Communism (true Communism) as it's been proven a failure, but they regard the "successes" of Europe as a viable, attractive option. Their goal is to rule. Howthey achieve that goal is immaterial to them. So long as they have free reign to do as they please while giving life-or-death orders to other people, they will consider their goals met. They desire the power of Caesar.
My opinion on the matter is that we were doomed when we gave away the power to hang-traitors-by-the-neck-until-dead to the State. Why would the State hang its own? This nation is riddled with Treason, but only the "Proper Authority" can make that decision, and they will never make the decision to hang themselves.
Q ? : What's the difference between a courtesan, a call-girl, a whore and Congress ?
A : a Courtesan purrs "Was it as good for you as it was for me ?"
a call-girl asks "was it good for you ? "
a whore says " 20 bucks !"
Congress says " go fuck yerselves"
This was just posted on my blog and it really applies to your ridiculous assertion that we now have a fascist government.
If conservatives like Glenn Beck were just complaining about the merits of legislation that would be one thing. But they go on and on comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin with totally preposterous claims. When you compare someone to a monster, you are essentially saying that they should meet the same fate as that monster.
These are exactly the same tactics that Hitler used against the Jews: name-calling, the Big Lie and false comparisons. Note that I didn't call Beck a Nazi. He's just using the same disreputable tactics that the Nazis used. He's not a Nazi: he's a delusional libertarian whose policies would result in a corporate (domestic and foreign) takeover of American government that would revoke most of the protections American citizens enjoy.
Is this what you are advocating, Kevin? It seems to me that you are but I could be wrong. I think you might want to think long and hard about this one.
It would also weaken us militarily as more foreign corporations infiltrate their tendrils into our government by buying their own judges and politicians. And don't say that there'd be laws to stop that: the small government that Beck envisions wouldn't have the wherewithal to defend itself against well-funded corporate invasions (especially the Chinese, who already owns all the means of production in the tech sector -- they make ALL the computers and electronics these days, and will soon own all the design and patents. Next they're working on securing more oil and then a permanent foothold in space). And how will a small, bathtub-drownable US government be able to defend itself from 1.5 billion highly-trained Chinese with nuclear weapons in space? The corporations certainly won't help: they'll all have been bought out by the Chinese.
The title is "The Democrats' Hypocrisy is Staggering".
Yup, it is.
It's short enough that I'll quote the whole thing [emphasis added]:
"Our public servants must to be governed by the same rules that the rest of us mere mortals have to obey.
"With legislation encompassing almost 3,000 pages, it will take time to find out exactly what the mandates in the newly passed health care law mean for America. After all, it wasn’t until the end of last week that the reconciliation bill was even made public. But here's something we already have uncovered. And it's shocking. -- In addition to all the special favors doled out to various congressional districts, it turns out that the congressional staff who wrote the health care bill put in special favors for themselves, too.
"While everyone else in the United States -- from the top corporate executives to the grocery store checkout clerk -- will be forced to buy their insurance through heavily regulated state-run exchanges, the health care bill excludes one group: the leadership and committee staff. Yes, that’s right. The very people who wrote up this bill are refusing to be included themselves. Given the narrow definition of “congressional staff” on page 158 of the health care bill, the Congressional Research Service memo believes that courts will not require “professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices” to go through the exchanges. President Obama and his family are also exempt from the law.
"Insurance plans will only be allowed in these exchanges if they meet rules governing benefit packages, quality standards and measures of uniformity of enrollment procedures. And it doesn't stop there they must also meet the rules about provider networks, the right kind of rating system, outreach, reinsurance and risk adjustment, and a variety of other federally determined processes. If these regulations are so wonderful, Americans have a simple question: what is it that Democrats know about the state-run insurance exchanges that make them want to avoid them?
"The answer seems obvious. These regulations will raise costs, not lower them as the president promised, and lower the quality of medicine that policyholders receive.
"Jim Manley, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman tried to put the best spin on this by telling Politico that they didn’t want language that would have required “people like legislative counsel, Architect of the Capitol, etc.” to be included in the exchanges. Though he made it sound like this was a matter of technical language, there remains the fundamental question of why anyone, especially somebody putting together and advocating this very bill, should be exempt in the first place. These public servants must to be governed by the same rules that the rest of us mere mortals have to obey.
"Democrats have no obvious explanation about why this provision was quietly inserted into the health care bill. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) warned that he and other Republican Senators tried to fix the problem of staff being excluded from the rules. “I tried to fix this inequity along with senators Grassley, Burr and Vitter, but Majority Leader [Harry] Reid obstructed our effort,” Senator Coburn said.
"Obviously, the Democratic leadership knew full well that the bill they passed on Sunday with such fanfare is going to make things worse for the vast majority of those who are already insured. There is no other reason why the staff that wrote this bill would exempt themselves. The anger over the Democrats’ hypocrisy should be deafening."
It's not about health care. It's about control.
"Everything for the state. Nothing above the state. Nothing against the state." -- Benito Mussolini
"Is this what you are advocating, Kevin? It seems to me that you are but I could be wrong. I think you might want to think long and hard about this one."
Yet again, cult boy, we see your Standard Response #6, in which you lay on yet another straw man. In terms of missing the point, you couldn't hit the ground with a dud. Same old shit, different day.
Quote: What is happening now – and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article – is an expansion of the state's role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it's very "European," and some of the Europeans even call it "social democracy," but it isn't.
It's fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name, for two basic reasons: first, because "fascism" has long since lost its actual, historical, content; it's been a pure epithet for many decades. Lots of the people writing about current events like what Obama et. al. are doing, and wouldn't want to stigmatize it with that "f" epithet.
Second, not one person in a thousand knows what fascist political economy was. Yet during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a "third way" between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded.
End quote. No comparison to Hitler or Stalin or even Mussolini - just a simple definition of a word that has a SPECIFIC MEANING but AS NOTED has become an epithet. It's the "third way"! It's "good capitalism"! People get to keep their property. Just the government tells them how much they can charge, where they have to spend their money, and how much of their money they can keep.
First Al Sharpton says that we shouldn't be surprised at this lurch towards Socialism, then John Dingell explains it by telling us that "The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
Freudian slip my ass.
I didn't call Obama Mussolini, I just accurately described what his "fundamental change" of this nation IS. And I illustrated that he is, without a doubt, in violation of his oath of office.
Got anything to say about THAT?
Here's a question for you, Markadelphia - if health care is a right, why does this law empower the .gov to FINE YOU for NOT GETTING INSURANCE? Under that model, they ought to be able to fine you for not buying a gun, should they not?
Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point. Why is auto insurance mandatory? Because it protects other people. Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown. Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates.
It's terribly difficult to talk to you about stuff like this because I know I'm just going to end up bouncing off the cocoon. When the government mandates anything, it's armageddon. When a private company mandates something, it's just fine. Why? Because you live in a fantasy world in which you have led yourself to believe that we have choices when we honestly don't. You would see this if you weren't so set in your ways against government. If insurance companies and the health care industry hadn't behaved in the way they have for the last 40 years, the goverment would not have had to step in. Remember, WE are the government. So, if you don't like it, get involved and elect candidates that can put your ideas into action.
Kevin, the Newswseek article was written specifially to sell loads of copies--to people like you and the other posters here. Don't you see that?
A central tenet of fascism is that economic classes are not capable of running a nation. They believe that an elite aristocracy comprised of military leaders can rule more effectively than democratically elected individuals. They are decidely anti-Marxist and view liberalism as anathema to their ideology. In fact, any notion of gender, race or sexual equality is abhorant to the fascist. I think you will agree that is not President Obama. You throw these words around--"fascism" "Marxism" "Socialsim" like they all mean the same thing. They don't.
I just accurately described what his "fundamental change" of this nation IS
No, you didn't. It was an extremly warped view of what you think it might be.
And I illustrated that he is, without a doubt, in violation of his oath of office.
No, you didn't. Kevin, I know this might be somewhat of shock to you but just because you say something, doesn't mean that it's true. Your interpretation of the Constitution betrays a bias that is so great I don't think it's possible for you to think critically about it all. President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and you are an engineer. And you know more than he does about the Constitution? By that logic, I know more than you do about engineering.
So, I guess I'm wondering, if you think that he is in violation of his oath, does that mean we should impeach him? Weren't you railing against those who wanted to impeach Bush? Or are you suggesting something else?
President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and you are an engineer. And you know more than he does about the Constitution? By that logic, I know more than you do about engineering.
I was about to call this the ultimate infinite regress of self-beclowning...
...but I bet he can top it, if we give him enough time and rope.
It isn't. What is mandatory is that you demonstrate financial responsibility before you operate a motor vehicle on a public road. You can do that by posting a bond or having proof of insurance. If you own a vehicle that you don't drive on public roads you have NO obligation to insure it. Why, WHY are you so frakkin' stupid?
"Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown. Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates."
You conflate auto insurance, not with health insurance, but with health care. You demonstrate that you do not understand the fundamental difference, and you do not understand why the comparison fails.
Auto insurance pays only when: 1) you damage your vehicle in an accident, which is comprehensive coverage for a catastrophe; 2) you damage someone else's property with your vehicle, which is liability coverage for a catastrophe; or, 3) your vehicle is stolen, which is comprehensive coverage for a catastrophe.
Do you notice that word "catastrophe"? It is critical to an understanding of auto insurance. The key concept is that auto insurance pays only when a catastrophe happens, which is a relatively rare occurrence and is something people try like hell to avoid, in general. Auto insurance does not pay for routine maintenance or repair, such as changing the oil and filter, replacing worn tires, or aligning the wheels.
Health care includes everything from bandaids to cardiac bypass surgery. It is something that damned nearly everyone needs several times a year in one way or another. The health care that Obamateur just signed into law will cover, not just catastrophic events, but what amounts to routine maintenance.
Auto insurance is about sharing the risk for something that happens relatively rarely and to relatively few people, while universal health care is about having someone else pay for something that happens relatively often to damned nearly everyone. Comparing the former to the latter is like comparing apples to haggis, and you do not understand that.
"It's terribly difficult to talk to you about stuff like this because I know I'm just going to end up bouncing off the cocoon."
It's terribly difficult for you to talk with us about stuff like this because you are so fundamentally dishonest.
"Kevin, the Newswseek article was written specifially to sell loads of copies--to people like you and the other posters here. Don't you see that?"
Goddamn, what a straw man. Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6.
"Kevin, I know this might be somewhat of shock to you but just because you say something, doesn't mean that it's true. Your interpretation of the Constitution betrays a bias that is so great I don't think it's possible for you to think critically about it all."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #9, the The "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. Yet again, you simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like being accused of.
"President Obama is a Constitutional scholar ..."
No, he is NOT a Constitutional scholar, and never has been. He has demonstrated a remarkable lack of familiarity with the plain wording of the Constitution simply by misstating what it plainly says. He was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor, he was a guest lecturer. Go read
Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates.
And why is it set up that way? Because someone considered it an imperative that anyone who goes to the doctor recieves care, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it. There's a reason why I'm willing to bet liberal Democrats came up with that one, although I'll admit I'm too lazy to check. It's an imperative because of "being, you know, HUMAN", as I've seen someone say recently.
It could have been addressed by starting a charity, but no, that's not enough. Instead, a moral imperative must be made into the law of the land. And now it's costing you extra because of your own moral imperative that you demanded be made into a legal obligation.
Waah.
But that's not enough, that leaves you having to pay for your own vices, that obviously won't do. So now you demand that everyone in the country be required to follow the perceived moral obligation of the ruling class, to be enforced by violence if necessary.
Auto insurance isn't mandatory. If you don't own a car, no one will force you to buy auto insurance. The strongest automotive insurance regulations in this nation will not require you to buy auto insurance if you don't own a car.
Actually, in North Carolina you are required to have insurance just to have a driver's license.
But, you aren't required to have a driver's license either, so it's just semantics.
"...he's a delusional libertarian whose policies would result in a corporate (domestic and foreign) takeover of American government that would revoke most of the protections American citizens enjoy."
Explain in detail how this takeover of government would occur, and what mechanisms of coercion these domestic and foreign corporations would employ.
While you're pondering that, I have a simpler question: Under conditions of voluntary exchange, who decides the price of a good or service?
Why should anyone talk to you Marxy? You STILL haven't shown that what the Federal government just passed is one of it's enumerated powers in the Constitution and not a violation of the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What point is there in discussing a flatly ILLEGAL law?!?
Scrolling through these comments just now made me think of the recent firing of David Frum. Bruce Bartlett, a senior advisor to Ronald Reagan, had this to say on the subject.
Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
Yep, it has already. Love the words in the link, btw.
Oh, and if you really want to have your heads explode, check this out:
Unlike most here, Bartlett actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to the economy. He sums up in one line what I think when I read most (but not all) comments here.
It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality.
BTW, interesting wording in that 10th Amendment: "Delegated to"
That means that the powers the Federal Government exercises do not inherently belong to it. They're given the authority to exercise them On Someone Else's Behalf. Now WHO does that power Actually Belong To?
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ed. When you say that the government has "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies? Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves? Or is it something in between?
"Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ed. When you say that the government has "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies? Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
"Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves? Or is it something in between?"
Let me see if I understand you correctly, cult boy. When you imply that the government has NOT "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US President has just passed into law a multi-thousand page bill, to be administered by the goddamned Infernal Revenue Service, that will have no influence whatever on any health insurance company, HMO, hospital, pharmaceutical company, or health care device company? Are all those provisions of that new law which specify new taxes, new rules, new requirements, and new federal bureaucracies just so much meaningless and ineffectual ink on paper? Did the Dimocrat Party work for a goddamned YEAR to pass a single bill because it does NOTHING?
Or does it mandate a whole list of brand-new federal bureacracies, each run as its own petty little kingdom, each of which will demonstrate quite clearly that the gubmint cannot leave one sixth of the economy to run itself? Or is it something in between?
Perhaps you are right, DJ. According to Michelle Bachmann, the US government now controls 51 percent of the economy. Before Sept 2008, it was 100 percent private. Now, they have TAKEN OVER!!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!
Let's see that would be David Frum, former speechwriter and still head cheerleader for TEAM W. Considering what W did to the Repub Party I WOULD expect the Party to reject just about anything Frum has to say. Considering how much you despised Bush it is disingenuous in the extreme to treat Frum as the loyal opposition.
As for Bartlett, he whines that he can't get a job - in the punditocracy. Boo fucking hoo - he can go try working in the real world.
No wonder you love these Repubs - they're bigger fucking losers than yourself.
Actually, juris, I think Frum has finally seen the light and has been de-programmed. If people at AEI think that the health care bill is the best thing for us, where does that leave conservatives?They can't support a center right bill when all they have been doing for the last year is saying that it is socialism. Or fascism. Or...oh, heck, I don't know what it is the Cult is saying these days. It's so hard to keep track.
Bartlett, another de-programee, has been writing books and doing just quite fine on his own. In fact, his recent book, The New American Economy, shows a man who is willing to admit fault (gasp!). Interestingly, he now embraces Keynesian economics, given the times, and has quite a number of scathing things to say about the "Gods" like Hayek that are oft quoted here. I haven't read it all yet but it is quite fascinating.
So, you have yet another word to define. It's not in The Free Dictionary online, teacher boy. What's it mean?
"Or fascism. Or...oh, heck, I don't know what it is the Cult is saying these days."
Still won't define that word either, will you, cult boy?
"In fact, his recent book, The New American Economy, shows a man who is willing to admit fault (gasp!)."
But you aren't (gasp!), are you, liar boy? Goddamn, but your hypocrisy is boundless, ain't it?
Wrong. Frum has not repudiated the Bush policy - he is still defending it and chastising Republicans for abandoning it. His claim is that neo-conservatism and Bushism is still a winning ticket. How fucking stupid can you get?
You should admit what is obvious to all, including me - a person that has no interest in the "success" of the Republican Party - you love these two NOW because they are such losers even the Repubs don't want anything to do with them.
It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality.
I can't say that surprises me at all, coming from you.
After all, you're the one who touts racist remarks at Dem Congressmen recently as "reality", despite the fact that there is a standing offer of $10,000 for anyone who can document such accusations, and no takers.... in this economy. Think about that one.
You're the one who considers "the Census worker murdered by Tea Partiers" to be "reality", despite the investigation which showed that it was a premeditated combination of suicide and scam.
I could go on, but there's no point. Everyone but you can think of plenty more examples, and you've already proven yourself unable to perceive such examples, so posting more of them would just be more things to vanish into your blind spot.
Put simply, the explanation for "this divergence between perception and reality" is that the "reality" you perceive doesn't exist outside of your own head.
"What mandatory auto insurance laws exist in the state of Oklahoma?
" * In the state of Oklahoma, all drivers must carry at least the minimum liability coverage of $25,000 for injury or death of one person, $50,000 for injury or death of two or more persons, and $25,000 for property damage
" * When operating a motor vehicle in the state of Oklahoma, you must carry proof of insurance at all times.
" * If you are caught driving without insurance, you may be fined up to $250 or you may be sentenced to thirty days in jail, or both. You also face suspension of your driver's license and vehicle registration if you fail to comply with Oklahoma minimum insurance law or if you fail to produce proof of insurance to a police officer or public safety representative upon request."
Did you read it carefully, cult boy? In Oklahoma, if you drive a vehicle, you must have liability insurance. This does not cover damage to your vehicle, rather it covers damage that you cause or inflict on other people or other peoples' property. In Oklahoma, you are not required to have insurance which covers damage to yourself or to your own vehicle. Of course, you can get such insurance (I have it), but you are not required to have it.
To continue with your statement:
"Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown. Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates."
Do you see your conflation of two wildly dissimilar concepts here, teacher boy? You conflate liability coverage for damage you might do to someone else with comprehensive coverage for what you need done to your own body. You claim that because the former is mandatory, the latter ought to be mandatory also.
Yet again, your (ahem) thinking is revealed as being as shallow as dew on a pile of bullshit.
"Put simply, the explanation for "this divergence between perception and reality" is that the "reality" you perceive doesn't exist outside of your own head."
Apparently Marxaphasia hasn't realized that the reason he keeps "bouncing off the cocoon" no matter which way he turns is because he's inside of it. Nor does he realize that cocoons are built by their occupant.
GOF, am I to understand that it is your assertion that Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver are all liars? If I had a videotape or a recording of this, I don't think I would come forward at all.Take a listen to the voice mail that Rep Harry Mitchell received.
I guess that makes me "obviously a fucking racist", since I neglected to make sure a politician was a conservative white male before calling him a liar.
Might as well go for broke. Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of shit as well. Presumably that makes me sexist too.
It doesn't make you a racist, GOF. It does make you blind to the obvious racism that was behind much of the protests. Of course, accusing anyone on the right of being racist these days carries with it consequences. These usually begin with hyper-angry counter claims of racism followed by the playing of the victim card. At that point, a scapegoat on the left is selected and "proven" to be racist themselves. Essentially, it's one giant batch of denial combined with the classic Rove tactic of attacking one's oppenent based on the attacker's obvious weakness...in this case bigotry.
So, the party that trumpets individual responsibility claims none of it (in this situation or others). Complete. Bullshit. I'd like to see the GOP own their fault in all of this. But we all know they never fucking will. Just as hirabi leaders stoke angry masses, so do people like John "Armageddon" Boehner.This is what happens when you approach serious issues with the intellectural and emotional maturity of an eight year old complete with foot stomping temper tantrum.
It does make you blind to the obvious racism that was behind much of the protests.
Gotcha. In other words, you're saying it's okay to assume racism on the part of conservatives based on nothing but the word of politicians, in other words based on the class of people most likely in the country to be lying on any given subject.No evidence required.
But of course, the fact that even an offer of ten thousand dollars can't produce one single piece of video, audio, or even witness evidence to say that it actually happened... from a crowd of thousands, many of whom had cell phones with cameras, being covered by the news media...
...that means nothing, nothing at all.
In short, it had to have been racism because you say so.
This kind of blatant logic-free, honesty-free "critical thinking" is why I don't post on your blog anymore. It's also why every single person here who in your own opinion possesses any "critical thinking skills" has given up on you.
If anyone does have any evidence, GOF, I doubt they would come forward with it. Between the voice mails, vandalism, and various other threats, no amount of money is worth fearing for your life for the rest of your life. None of this makes any difference, though.
You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Even if such information was brought to light, you still would believe that it was doctored/evil lies by the left/taken out of context etc. Until the right owns the clear and abundant racism in its base, they are completely full of shit on all matters of taking individual responsibilty.
And your points below are ridiculous. I have stated many times on here that the Democrats have a much longer history of racism than the Republicans. This is an indisuputable fact. These same Democrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 and now make up the base. Are they all racist? Of course not. But many are and it was more than just Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver that heard the word "nigger" being shouted at them as they walked into the Capital. Don't take their word for it. Don't take my word for it. Call up the Capital police Dept and ask them.
If you get lucky, one of them will tell you what they heard. It will help if you know someone who works there.
If anyone does have any evidence, GOF, I doubt they would come forward with it. Between the voice mails, vandalism, and various other threats, no amount of money is worth fearing for your life for the rest of your life.
Why? Did they witness the event? They haven't corroborated this story, and you know it's bullshit that no one would step forward with evidence if they had it. If nothing else someone would want to collect that $10grand off Breitbart.
Even if such information was brought to light, you still would believe that it was doctored/evil lies by the left/taken out of context etc.
You mean the way you reacted when unequivocal video evidence was presented of ACORN members giving advice on how to run a taxpayer supported child prosttution ring?
And your points below are ridiculous. I have stated many times on here that the Democrats have a much longer history of racism than the Republicans. This is an indisuputable fact.
Yes, you have. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the points below are ridiculous, because the points below are direct representations of your views, taken from your words.
In fact I agree, they are ridiculous. But not because of what I've said.
"Meantime, put down your wallet and back away slowly, especially those of you who put people to work. An analysis of the House Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) by the Heritage Foundation shows it to be as much of a job-killer (except for those 17,000 new IRS agents) as the Senate bill President Obama signed into law.
"HR 4872, Heritage reports, would "force companies to pay a tax penalty if that business employs 50 or more workers as soon as one worker qualifies for, and opts to accept, a health insurance premium subsidy."
"That $3,000 penalty is on top of the $2,000-per-worker penalty for all workers beyond the first 30 for such companies not offering a "qualified" health plan or paying 60% of employee health premiums. Such companies would be faced with a $3,000 penalty for hiring a single parent, the very kind of person desperately in need of employment.
"Here's where it gets even more bizarre. According to Heritage, under the reconciliation bill, if Company A lays off an employee with a working spouse, this could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse's employer, unless Company B also lays off the other spouse.
"We're not making this up. This byzantine legislation is a job-killer that will destroy small business, the major creator of new jobs. Some 77,000 businesses in the U.S. have 50 to 200 workers that could face the $2,000-per-employee tax penalty. An additional 116,000 businesses have 35 to 49 workers.
"This nonsense will stunt economic growth and worsen the economic downturn by actually providing financial incentives to not hire people. It's not worth the trouble. Businesses that might have expanded will stop at 49 employees. Those already considered a "large" business will face a minefield of taxes and penalties due in some cases to events beyond their control.
"The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy. As we have said, this is not about health care. This is about power and the redistribution of wealth. And the IRS will be making a list and checking it twice to see who's being naughty and who's being nice."
-----
It's not about providing health insurance. It's about behavior modification through direct gubmint control of one sixth of the economy and indirect control of much of the rest through the associated tax policy. It's about socialism.
Saw some troll on the idiot box this morning doing his best to look like a servile bitch (I think he'd actually like that label) on The Today Show, talking about how great the new food adn restaurant standards will be for everyone.
I'd really like to have that Force-choke thing down cold. It would have been useful, there.
"Where is my country, and what have they done to it?"
We were unable to hold on to a Republic, so we are going back to what has been the standard living conditions for most of mankind's history: slavery under a ruling class. Welcome to the lowest common denominator government: might makes right.
As another blogger is fond of remarking, let's see if they're willing to fight to the last bureaucrat or Congressman. We won't bother with the foot soldiers.
Not sure. It's about still having the option at this point. As long as we have the guns, we retain the ability to reroll....which I am well aware is about the riskiest thing ever. Historically I think when we talk about violent uprisings, and there have been many, there's only one that had a good result overall. Of course, that one was also led by Americans. We are an exceptional people. It's a last resort, but it is on the table.
Our guns only provide a pause, what will stop them from passing an anti gun bill? Or an amendment to the Health Care monster? Or by withholding health care to force people to turn in guns and ammo? Or just to rat out others?
(testing the email reply capability)
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:19 PM, JS-Kit.com Comments
wrote:
But, but, but, he's a PRO GUN PRESIDENT.
You need only refer to our very own Constitutional Expert! (The
President is in charge of the Federal Government and tells the States
what to Do!)
"Where is my country, and what have they done to it?" I and others were asking that question 15 years ago. Some were asking it in the 1930s before my parents were born. But that's not the question anymore, or rather, it's not the operative question. The question is; how do we get our country back? Let’s stop acting confused and bewildered, stop asking where the country went, and start planning solutions. The country went to the dogs and it no longer matters much how or when. What matters is how we're going to fix it.
Where is your country and what have they done with it?
It is located within the maximum effective range of your battle rifle, as modified by the limits of your marksmanship and teh accuracy of your zero. Defined as such, they have done nothing to it.
Freeedom is never granted by a government - it is seized and defended.
Well, looky, looky who's congratulating Obama on passing the Socialist Healthcare Takeover: Castro:
"Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."
…
And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.
"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote."
Perfect! Now we can have health care Just Like Cuba's! Oh goody! *DONT_KNOW*
President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and you are an engineer.
That does not preclude Kevin from being a Constitutional Scholar.
It doesn't preclude Obama from being one (Though he was merely a lecturer, immediately after graduating law school, with no experience.) In other words, he was basically a senior, lecturing freshman.
But that, by itself, does not disqualify Obama.
Except to you, because you insist on accreditation only when you think you can score points with it, the formal "scholarship" is not a defining characteristic. Shit, most of those at the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION weren't LAWYERS.
So the question is, who has a better grasp of the material?
And who is fit to judge?
You, who claimed, before running away in ignominious (and ubiquitous) defeat : "the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues."
You proved with that that you're not fit to judge a 9th grade debate on the Constitution.
And you know more than he does about the Constitution? By that logic, I know more than you do about engineering.
BY THAT "LOGIC", yes.
But, you see, that's not truely logic. As usual, you know not what the hell you spew.
By real logic - let's see you demonstrate knowledge of engineering.
It's not really HARD TO DEMONSTRATE. If you, in fact, understand it.
ECHO IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT EVER WRITTEN. MARK COULD WRITE A BETTER COMMENTING SYSTEM - AND HE'S AN IDIOT.
////
(I filed a bug report. They reported it as "answered". DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A MAJOR BUG IN THEIR "COUNTING".)
Prior to this rant? 3287 characters. In total. In this text. Echo thinks it's over 5000. Because they're fucking idiots who can't program, but want to make it rich.)
Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point.
Only if you don't understand the issues. To us, it's the defining point.
This demonstrates that you in fact cannot begin to understand our objections, our concerns, and you're lying when you say you understand.
No natural right places an obligation on anyone else. We've discussed this before. Many times.
Why is auto insurance mandatory?
It's not. There is no requirement for you to purchase auto insurance.
Because it protects other people. Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown.
Back this up. With verifiable facts. (And in case you didn't notice, at 42, you're in a different actuarial pool than you are at 18. How much is someone willing to bet me Mark doesn't understand that?)
You're not old enough to have driven before mandatory insurance, unless you can prove that up there it wasn't required until a few years ago. I'm only a couple of years younger than you, and my insurance has only dropped when my pool changed to a lower risk one.
Oh, and if I go get 10 DUIs, and wreck my car a bunch, I don't have a right to auto insurance, and if I can find it at all, it will be very expensive. (You call this "unfair".)
(And in case you didn't notice, at 42, you're in a different actuarial pool than you are at 18. How much is someone willing to bet me Mark doesn't understand that?)
(after the 2nd half - 2014 characters, Echo thinks it's more than 5000 and disallows.)
(Fucking idiots.)
Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates.
Only if he doesn't pay his bills.
I've had times when I had no health insurance, got sick, and had to pay for it.
Many people have. You're presuming that Joe Smith (presumably, (D)), will abscond on his bills.
It's terribly difficult to talk to you about stuff like this because I know I'm just going to end up bouncing off the cocoon.
"The cocoon"? That's what you're calling you lack of grounding in reality, history, economics, the English language, the US Government?
When a private company mandates something, it's just fine. Why? Because you live in a fantasy world in which you have led yourself to believe that we have choices when we honestly don't.
Because the private company CANNOT MANDATE SOMETHING.
Unless they're given that power BY THE GOVERNMENT.
This isn't the first time that's been explained to you - and your slack-jawed grinning about your power company UNDER A DIRECT FEDERAL LAW (aimed to protect you) inspecting your equipment doesn't prove you right. You never, not once, dealt with the fact that your great stroke to prove us wrong, proved you were a idiot.
You would see this if you weren't so set in your ways against government.
It's not government we're against, Mark. You have to have government. This why we created a government that was LIMITED IN WHAT POWERS IT HAD.
We're set in our ways, because slack-jawed grinning fools like you ignore all the proof, the history, and HUMAN FUCKING NATURE (Which the Constitutional Conventioners understood very clearly) and insist on giving them powers they are specifically disallowed.
If insurance companies and the health care industry hadn't behaved in the way they have for the last 40 years, the goverment would not have had to step in.
Behaved.. How? Providing you lifesaving measures, drugs, therapies? Yeah, Those fucking bastards.
Health care industry != health insurance != health care. None of those things are equivalent. In what bleeping part of the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can muck around with any of that?
Marxy, go away. I'm too sick about this mess to have to deal with your troll droppings too.
Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
As is usual for you, you mistake factual correctness for "conformity".
And us for "conservatives", but that's hopeless for you.
You might want to (*HA*) Keep reading into the comments. A quick scan of your link doesn't explode my head - or my concept of your thought process.
To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income.Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to the IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669.But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further.According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%.Even though the tea partiers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it's possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.
I can assure you, my tax burden is MUCH higher than 5 fucking percent, Mark.
I think it's entirely possible those Tea Partiers KNEW HOW MUCH THEY WERE PAYING. Which your correspondent did not. Notice he didn't ask for THEIR tax status - he asked for "averages" and "guesses".
I've got *my* W-2 right here that ridicules your ridicule. Quick math shows I'm paying well above 20%. And no, I don't make that "much money".
But then, that's reality.
This comedy is almost diagnostic. Marxy holds Obama's tenuous credentials as a "constitutional scholar" to have more authority than engaging in a simple ninth grade civics exercise in reading and reason for himself.
And yet, when it comes to Constitutional analysis, he's the one capable of "critical thought", and we're the ones "too biased" to "think critically at all".
The Biggest Lie of our age is that many of the powers the Federal Government routinely wields are consistent with our Lockean Constitutional scheme of finite, enumerated Powers to be wielded for specific purpose.
Rejecting that premise doesn't take great mental gymnastics. What it takes is a slight dose of 5th/9th grade civics, (what used to pass for) standard reading comprehension, a basic ability to reason, evaluating statements and comparing one for consistency with another, and a healthy serving of intellectual integrity and courage to accept the results.
Big Lies take root when a significant portion of the populace no longer perform these required acts for themselves.
21st century America has proven a fertile garden for Big Lies.
Something about that... reminded me of the Reformation. If you'll forgive the simplified summary, the Reformation formed after various Christians held the notion that the Pope did not have more authority over the Bible and Christianity than those who simply read the Bible for themselves.
Why, it's almost like arguments between those who respect authority over reason and those who respect reason over authority are a natural part of humanity. But of course, if that were so, we would be flawed, with no hope of reaching perfection.
I think I've heard that argument somewhere before as well. It's almost like the same things keep happening over and over. Repeating, you could say.
"The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it is tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday."
Now, what is the word for control of the economy by gubmint? Oh, yeah: Socialism.
Now, who is gonna do more of such control? Oh, yeah: Obamateur.
"...Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point. Why is auto insurance mandatory? Because it protects other people. Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory?..."
1) No, it's not moot.
2) Auto insurance is mandatory because the Government got its nose in on something it shouldn't have. Get it right, assclown! 3) No, I don't...but you take a substantial risk of having your life owned by someone else if you fuck up. Again, assclown, get your shit straight.
You have no idea the extent of this. My wife is working right now on this Mortgage program and she is dumbfounded at what irresponsible people are getting. Not responsible people, mind you, but people who just decide they don't want to pay any more or feel like gaming the dupes in Washington.
One guy stopped paying his mortgage two years ago because his house was worth less than he paid. He now is getting the government to force the banks to wipe out 30% of his principal, lower the interest rates to a floor of 2%, and/or extend the payments out to 40 years all mandated by the government to keep people in their house. This is one example of hundreds, if not thousands of examples of taxpayers and private companies being forced into servitude of the irresponsible and ignorant.
What about those that pay on time, every month, and keep the banks solvent? NOTHING but HIGHER TAXES. !#$%
You are learning from Obama. When he says "Let me be clear" - he's about to lie.
When you say "Let me see if I understand you correctly", you're about to -intentionally- misinterpret the facts and set a strawman on fire.
Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies?
Strawman, and we've explained this to you before - when Obama took over GM and Chrysler, shafting the creditors and enriching the unions.
Why are you incapable of learning from your previous mistakes?
Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
Yes. They do. They've done so for quite some time. They did so before this bill, and they do so even more now.
Go try and make some aspirin and sell it. Or morphine. Yes, they control production and they control distribution. They have many laws and regulations already.
But even that stupidity of yours aside, the bill in theory was about insurance. Paying for the healthcare. Did you forget that?
Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves?
Demonstrated this how? Please illustrate this "quite clearly".
You know...two quotes always spring into my head when I see Markadelphia appear in a thread (hey that ryhmes!)
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.-Ronald Reagan“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”-Winston Churchill
"When you say that the government has "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies? Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves? Or is it something in between?"
Nope, not gonna answer your straw man questions. (See also the Plurium Interrogationum fallacy.) At least, not until you answer MY single question which you have been avoiding:
WHERE is the power "delegated to" the Federal Government (10th Amendment) to take over health care enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?
For purposes of answering this question, you may limit yourself to the better known portions of the law:
- The requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance.
- The takeover of student loans (except for the Ben Nelson carveout).
- Telling insurance companies who they must cover.
- Telling insurance companies how much they can charge.
- Whatever the $930 BILLION (or more) is to be spent on.
I don't agree with your logic in the question, Ed. The government hasn't "taken over" health care. It illustrates and actively encourages a warped view of our government that lends itself to overly emotional and midly to extreme paranoid thought.
Now, if the government had signed a bill that said that the US government was now going to own all stakes in all insurance agencies, HMOs, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical device companies then we would be able to talk about where this is detailed in the Constitution or is not.
Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind. Actually, Ed's interpretation of the Constitution begs a question:
Why is that the same people that misinterpret the Constitution completely fail at interpreting the Bible?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, ImpostsExcises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and Post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Rather than "interpreting the Constitution", why don't you just detail which of the "three sentences" of "Section 8" (by which I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8) that are causing so much concern.
It can't be "Regulation of Commerce"; Insurance doesn't cross State lines.
While you're at it, highlight the line that gives Congress the power to mandate insurance.
"I don't agree with your logic in the question, Ed. The government hasn't "taken over" health care."
I SAID you could stick to the better known provisions in answering my question. Whether it was total ownership or just simply telling everyone what they can or cannot do is irrelevant to the question at hand. (And if you insist on your rabbit trail, what area of health care does the federal government NOT tell people what to do?)
"Why is that the same people that misinterpret the Constitution completely fail at interpreting the Bible?"
Says the guy who made the ridiculous claim that the Bible doesn't condemn pre-marital sex. Says the guy who can't even correctly interpret what we write, even when we try to correct his misreading. (See the first part of my reply for a perfect example.) Says the guy who doesn't even know the meanings of simple words like verbatim, cult, fallacy, etc.
"I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
Again, I marvel at the irony of the guy with the Ultimate Blind Spot For Facts He Doesn't Like accusing ME of ignoring things! Ever heard of Psychological Projection, Vizzini?
Three sentences?!? Now I'm really curious. I knew you would claim the same phrase you leftists have been abusing for decades. But even after a close rereading of Section 8, I still don't see another two sentences that come anywhere close to giving the federal government the powers they just claimed in this bill.
But let's take at the main sentence I presume you're talking about from section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
(BTW… Despite your wild-eyed claim that I've redacted this sentence from my mind, only 4 frikkin' days agoI replied to a comment by Unix-Jedi where he pointed out that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers (D) had misquoted this sentence. My response included this full and correct quote, as well as the quotation I'm about to slap you with. IF I had actually "redacted" this sentence from my mind, how would that be possible???)
Now, if you could, could you explain exactly HOW this sentence gives an unlisted power to the federal government? And while you're doing so, keep this quotation in mind:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison
BTW, Oh Redacted One, I KNOW you've seen this quotation before, because I've. Posted. It. In. The. Comments. Of. Your. Own. Frikkin'. BLOG!!!
"The "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafting many basic laws, and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution (said to be based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights) and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights"."
Hmmm… do you suppose the "principle author" of the Constitution knows a thing or two about what it might mean?
Speaking of the Bill of Rights, they are also part of the Constitution and may not be legitimately ignored:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
—10th Amendment to the Constitution
So, where, EXACTLY, are the powers claimed in this health care, um, Thing "delegated to the United States by the Constitution"? What sentence(s)? Verbatim? And WHY do they apply?
No, it hasn't "taken over health care". It will not provide health care, rather it will regulate, tax, and penalize those who provide health care.
What the feddle gubmint has done is pass a bill that gives the feddle gubmint a huge degree of control over the health care industry. It will exercise this control by requiring health care providers to comply with new rules, new regulations, and the decrees of new bureaucracies. It will enforce this control over health care providers via levying taxes and assessing penalties thereon. This does not provide care for anyone, but it requires that any care that is provided comply with the feddle gubmints new authority.
Teacher boy, for a long time, you have been championing the cause of what the feddle gubmint has now done. Why do you, yet again, raise up a straw man to argue that it hasn't done what it has done?Why are you not telling us what a good thing you think this is instead of telling us that it isn't what it isn't?
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
… "I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point.
Waitwaitwaitwait..... are you actually trying to tell me that whether or not one citizen has the "right" to demand access to the knowledge and labor of another, even if he cannot (or simply refuses to) compensate him/her for the use of said knowledge and labor, is a moot point?
"Waitwaitwaitwait..... are you actually trying to tell me that whether or not one citizen has the "right" to demand access to the knowledge and labor of another, even if he cannot (or simply refuses to) compensate him/her for the use of said knowledge and labor, is a moot point?"
Why, sure it's moot, Grumpy, IF the gubmint controls access to the knowledge and labor of another, y'know, the economy. What's the word for that again?
Whatever it is, it's not "fascism." Marxaphasia said so!
Wait! What are you doing? No, don't check the dictionary! It's wrong! Marxy is the one who's right! Marxy is always right! What do you mean the dictionary disagrees? Who are you going to believe? Marxy? Or the dictionary?
Wait! Where are you going? Don't leave! Come back!
Waitwaitwaitwait..... are you actually trying to tell me that whether or not one citizen has the "right" to demand access to the knowledge and labor of another, even if he cannot (or simply refuses to) compensate him/her for the use of said knowledge and labor, is a moot point?
Grumpy: don't try and do that. Remember, he's defeated all of us, including LabRat, and proven that mortgage and jobs are _slavery_.
Don't try and revisit that again. It's mooted. He said so.
"Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
Classic, Mark.
You *could* explain what you mean. Be clear, concise, and define what you mean.
But you won't. On purpose. You'll sneer, and throw something around, "I suggest you review.." and then run away.
Because when you try, you know you fail. Like your callout on corporations - where you cited their horrible abuse - *at the behest of the government*. And claimed it proved your point, not ours, about government power.
You stick to glittering generalities, because you know you don't have the facts. You don't the honesty. Just like as above, you can demonstrate competence and understanding in Engineering. Even you. If you do it. But you can't say "refer to static load bearing..." or "refer to a chapter on resistance..."
The government hasn't "taken over" health care.
They've levied massive new taxes on health care items. They've mandated procedures, payments - and yes, via payments, they *have* "taken over". In large extent. Possibly, not totally - but that doesn't support what serves you for "logic".
US government was now going to own all stakes in all insurance agencies, HMOs, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical device companies then we would be able to talk about where this is detailed in the Constitution or is not.
Did you duck when that went over your head? We could have the "detailed in the Constitution" - which you're ducking - no matter what.
You don't get to choose what's legitimate to discuss or debate, especially when you've got the track record of dishonesty that you do.
But even then, it's very telling that according to you, ONLY 100% GOVERNMENT CONFISCATION IS REVIEWABLE...
(and you'd move the goalposts even if that happened.)
Why is that the same people that misinterpret the Constitution completely fail at interpreting the Bible?
I don't know - why do you? You're the one who's been spanked Biblically here more than once - and then came back and repeated the argument that you had previously admitted had been totally incorrect.
You're the one who's claimed the President is "in charge of the Federal Government" and "lets the states" do or not do things.
To be fair, Marxy hasn't reasserted the claim that he admitted was wrong about. At least, not that I know of. He has made additional wild claims, but not that one.
He did make a comment recently which sort of implied that he still thinks there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, but (apparently) he no longer claims the Bible agrees with him on this point.
I'll defer to your interpretation, then, I'd understood that you'd called him out for that.
That being said and corrected, I'll still assert that he's by no means demonstrated an ability to interpret the Bible canonically and use it in argument. And even if he didn't, his statement would still indict him more strongly than anybody else.
That he made the claim in the first place and then argued so vociferously against it is what "indict[s] him more strongly than anybody else." Heck, even you heathen ;) didn't have any problem understanding the concept of "there's a list of sins; it's on the list". You just disagree that the Bible is authoritative, which is far more reasonable than denying what's in clear language in writing. So yes, I was referring to that because I'm hoping that because of that particular instance (misreading something which was crystal clear, seeing how he imposed his own desires, and can now see that he had), he'll more clearly understand why his credibility on this issue is non-existent and do something about it.
I just don't want to beat him up for doing the right thing in admitting his error, because that was progress, and I don't want to be the reason why he doesn't make any more improvements.
...he'll more clearly understand why his credibility on this issue is non-existent and do something about it.
And tomorrow morning I shall dine on juicy, crispy bacon that is as light as a feather because it came from my herd of flying pigs. It will be healthy too!
I just don't want to beat him up for doing the right thing in admitting his error, because that was progress, and I don't want to be the reason why he doesn't make any more improvements.
A fine sentiment. But you know better.
Heck, even you heathen
Wait, does that toss me out of "The Base?" I forget what's Marky's "definition" this week....
Here's a nice, short piece. It only took me an extra three seconds to find it. A quick summary:
Federalist No. 84, written by Alexander Hamilton and the second to last essay, is significant for mentioning a common issue dredged up by Anti Federalists -- there wasn't a Bill of Rights. Publius (who in this essay was Hamilton) wrote that a Bill of Rights really was unnecessary. He worried that if a Bill of Rights was written it would be perceived to be the ONLY rights people had where in actuality they would have much more. This worry was assuaged with the ninth amendment, which means that any right not explained in the Constitution is still a right of the people.
Unless I'm mistaken, #84 points out the importance of the 9th Amendment, and the limitations placed on the Federal Government, stating that the Feds have only the powers that they've been allowed to have.
So, how does that "beat thoroughly" a claim that the general welfare clause does not allow Congress to do anything it wants?
What I have learned about racism from Markadelphia:
1. If a white conservative says anything unpleasant about a nonwhite liberal, it's racism. And thus it is front page news and should be shouted from the housetops. This remains true no matter whether it was both completely justified and has nothing to do with race at all (Joe Wilson calling someone a liar when he caught him in a lie), has no slightest bit of independent evidence to back up the accusation (racist remarks at Congressmen, despite an offer of $10,000 for such evidence), or even if it was proven to be a complete and utter fabrication (the census worker "murdered because of hatred of a black President, the "armed white racist" at an Arizona town hall meeting.)
2. Liberals are never racist, or if they are it's not important enough to matter. This holds true even if there is unequivocal evidence of them refusing to obey the law when it conflicts with their racial preferences (Sonia Sotomayor, Eric Holder, ACORN) or fabricating from whole cloth an accusation for the specific purpose of fomenting racial hatred (the census worker "murdered because of hatred of a black President, the "armed white racist" at an Arizona town hall meeting.)
3. If it is at all possible for it to be taken as an epithet, it is racist for a white conservative to call a nonwhite liberal something, even if their friends, supporters and allies call them that, and even if they refer to themselves by the same label. Thus it is okay for Van Jones to call himself a communist, but it is racist for a white conservative to call him one. It is okay for Al Sharpton to call Obama a socialist, but it is racist for a white conservative to call him one.
4. If the liberal in question is white (or if remarks about "playing the race card" make it unadvisable), substitute "hate speech" or "fearmongering" for "racism" and all else remains the same. Thus for William Ayers to call himself a communist is courageous, but for a conservative to call him one is hate speech. For Barack Obama to call himself a supporter of single-payer is good, but for a conservative to call him a supporter of single-payer is fearmongering.
5. Racism in liberals, assuming you can get an admission of its existence at all, is unimportant because "everyone is racist". However, while "everyone is racist" is sufficient excuse for any liberal, even at the highest levels of government, it is not sufficient excuse for a random allegedly conservative voice in a crowd that cannot even be verified as other than purely fictional.
Thank you, Mark. I think I can say with complete honesty and sincerity that I don't think I would have learned these things from anyone else I know.
6. If a conservative sees racism in a liberal and calls it what it is, that is a "Rovian tactic". In other words, it is an indictment of the conservative, not the racist.
I bet you got some serious warm fuzzies when you thought that one up, Mark.
The background is that AT&T announced, after the bill was signed into law, that it will record a $1 BILLION non-cash expense in the first quarter to begin complying with the new law and "will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company."
The Dimocrats who passed the health care bill apparently don't like those who have to comply with it saying bad things about it. For example, Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak have sent a letter to the Chairman of AT&T. The letter speaks for itself. You can find both pages of it at:
"The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that companies that insure more than 50 employees would see a decrease of up to 3% in average premium costs by 2016. The Business Roundable, an associationi of chief executive officers from leading U.S. companies, asserted in November 2009 that health care reform could reduce predicted health insurance costs for business by more than $3,000 per employee over the next ten years.
"The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on April 21, 1010, at 10:00 in Room 2113 of the Rayburn House Office Building to examine the impact of the new law on AT&% and other large employers. We request your personal testimony at this hearing.
"To assist the Committee with its preparations for the hearing, we request that you provide the following documents ..."
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "What? You congressweasels didn't consider the impact of the proposed new law on large employers before voting on it?"
No, of course they didn't. Said impact was of no concern. In the beginning, the idea was to pass it without having any time to read it, and this mindset continued all through the process. Y'see, it didn't matter what was in it.
This letter to AT&T can be translated as:
"You claim that reality differs from our predictions. You will hand over everything you have which documents this claim, then you will appear before the committee and justify it."
The presumption is that the predictions of the Dimocrats are correct and reality is not. The fallacy is plain to see.
The heavy hand of gubmint is thus being felt already. Watch the hearings when they happen, and then read the MSM coverage about it. See if the meeting is about "examine the impact of the new law on ... large employers" or about squashing dissent.
"You claim that reality differs from our predictions. You will hand over everything you have which documents this claim, then you will appear before the committee and justify it."
That's not really what it's saying. it's more basic than that. "You shalt not embarrass us by publicly detailing how much this will cost before the 2010 elections. Come forward and be caned."
They didn't expect it to lower costs, not a single congressweasel did. They just expected that they'd have time to cement it into law and hire all the bureaucracy before the true costs were discovered. This is an attempt to browbeat everybody else into being quiet about it.
See, AT&T and Caterpiller and all, CANNOT NOT REPORT THIS. It is ILLEGAL FOR THEM NOT TO.
This is where Mark's mind shuts down, and cannot understand - it's fine to set up conflicting laws, and then subjectively enforce them. Report it as required by law? Persecute. Don't report it? Prosecute. Prosecute based on politics? Fine and dandy.
The Democrats didn't really think this would save money. They just really thought they'd have more time to cement it in place like the other entitlements.
If anyone does have any evidence, GOF, I doubt they would come forward with it.
... Amazing, it really is.
So if they could prove their assertions, they'd not.
You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe.
I'll stick to believing in factual information, instead of inconsistent, incoherent thoughts from someone who has repeatedly dodged hard proof to his claims.
Even if such information was brought to light, you still would believe that it was doctored/evil lies by the left/taken out of context etc.
You've been incorrect every time you've tried to characterize us. Why would you say that we would do that?
Oh, that's right. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME, and you're projecting onto us.
Until the right owns the clear and abundant racism in its base, they are completely full of shit on all matters of taking individual responsibilty.
Clear and abundant. But you can't point to any. Just wave your arms and say "It's all racism! Stop pointing to other facts! RACISTS!" You can only throw shit about individual responsibility (another concept you can't define correctly), just like on your last spew about "gay marriage" (whilst ignoring that what you were attacking was Barry Obama's stance.) And your points below are ridiculous. I have stated many times on here that the Democrats have a much longer history of racism than the Republicans. This is an indisuputable fact.
You have.
And then you always say: These same Democrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 and now make up the base.
Which is demonstrably bullshit. So you still fail.
Are they all racist? Of course not. But many are and it was more than just Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver that heard the word "nigger" being shouted at them as they walked into the Capital. Don't take their word for it. Don't take my word for it. Call up the Capital police Dept and ask them.
Most of those walking HAD VIDEO CAMERAS (in the hopes of catching a single racial epithet or something that could be construed as one). Yet they couldn't. Not one. Not. One.
Shorter Markadelphia:
"Even if I did, you wouldn't believe it, but it's true, and I can prove it, but I won't, and you wouldn't believe it anyway, and you won't listen to proof."
TSM Base:
"So, you don't have it?"
Markadelphia:
"RACISTS!"
TSM Base:
Where's the proof of that?
Markadelphia:
"It's self-evident, and I've got it, but you wouldn't believe it, but it's true, and I can prove it, but I won't, and you wouldn't believe it anyway, and you won't listen to proof."
TSM Base:"Did you see all that undercover ACORN footage?
Markadelphia:"RACISTS! THEY EDITED IT, IT'S NOT PROOF! You can't prove anything!"
TSM Base:"It's on tape. Right there. Tada."
Markadelphia:"Wat"
TSM Base:"The man said 'Tada'"
1) Marxy hasn't listed which 3 sentences from the Constitution delegate the powers to the FedGov which they just claimed last week. A simple enough question to answer (if true). Yet he found time to post about a much more difficult subject. Is Brave Sir Robin running away again?
2) His claim that liberals were too "scared" to produce evidence is undermined by two very simple facts:
Fact 1: Marxaphasia wasn't too scared to post video of wrongdoing by tea partiers over at his own blog. If fear was the REAL reason, he would have been too afraid to post video of such obvious misbehavior.
Fact 2: The left has NEVER been afraid to spead video of anything they've thought could make the right look bad, even if they had to distort or fake it to do so. (Michael Moore, call your office.)
1) Marxy hasn't listed which 3 sentences from the Constitution delegate the powers to the FedGov which they just claimed last week. A simple enough question to answer (if true). Yet he found time to post about a much more difficult subject. Is Brave Sir Robin running away again?
Silly Ed, facts are for stupid people!
You'd just deny those sentences if he did, you racist.
You know what, it looks like I forgot about sucking on Glenn Beck's big left toe and Rush Limbaugh's vacuum cleaner while exhibiting extreme paranoia in that label. It's just getting too hard to keep track of it all.
BTW, It's not like there's no video from that supposed incident that Marxy keeps referring to. For example, here's one. Nope, didn't hear "nigger" or "faggot" in this one. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it is some evidence that it probably didn't, as compared to zero evidence that it did.
Guess where I found this video? From a link posted in the comments section of Marxy's Own Blog! The Great Redacted One is apparently still ignoring what he doesn't like.
"Or someone could beat you thoroughly with #84, geek. We can go down that path if you like…"
Oh, please! Go for it! Please!!! This should be fascinating.
C'mon Marxaphasia! You've been talking big about what the Constitution and authors of the Constitution actually say, but I have YET to see you even summarize what they said that supports your claims, nevermind quoting anything… Verbatim.
I just came across this posting, and thought it was too good not to share with you guys:
"Now comes a rather dysfunctional, simplistic, blame-Americans-first counterattack: Racism, racism, racism, racism, and oh by the way, racism. Please.
"Racism" is just another word for nothing else to say.
It's a scare word employed not to communicate but to silence.
It's the reactionary recourse of minds that are empty, power that is threatened, and fear that is palpable.
It's the watchword of dysfunctional demagogues. The voice of impaired ideology. The vein-popping snarl of barking, firehose tyranny.
Those capable of shame will be ashamed of this tactic and flush it down the political toilet. Those not will continue to stink their own house and pollute the community. A course in political-cultural hygiene may be in order.
The rest of us will question authority, maintain a necessary critical distance, evaluate political propositions, and call for a revival of public service on the basis of those Constitutional-Declarational norms and content that form the rulebook of human freedom and dignity.
I am going to respond down here because I think we can all agree that this threading is crazy.
Before we go any further with debate on the Constitution, I want to make a point. One of the things that I have noticed about this blog (and the right in general) is that there is a collective assumption that many of you know more about the Constitution than...well...everyone. It's my understanding that many of you are engineers and not Constitutional scholars. If there are any Constitutional scholars, please come forward and let us know who you are. Although I have spent a fair part of my life studying the Constitution, I am decidely not a scholar of it. The reason why I bring all of this up is to set the scene that this is essentially an amateur debate.
In order to fully understand what I consider to be the greatest document ever written next to the Bible, years of study are required. To attempt to set oneself up as an "expert" on the Constitution simply because one says they are is an attitude loaded with arrogance and pure hubris. I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude. I will engage in a debate with anyone who uses critical thought when it comes to the Constitution and is able to have the same width of vision that the people that wrote it had.
So when we talk about the Federalist Papers, for example, we must also look at the view that the people that wrote them saw no need for a Bill of Rights...the second of which is a foundation of this blog. Of course, this does not mean that Hamilton didn't want people to have rights. His concern was if such a list were made that these would be the ONLY rights people had or would have. In addition, he wanted to limit the Constitution exclusively to the role of government and leave the rest up to the states. Jefferson countered some of this by stating that the Bill of Rights should not be exhaustive and there were many concerns that without a Bill of Rights, our government could become tyrannical.
In sum, I'll be happy to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the Constitution as long as we recognize that this is a document that has been heavily debated by scholars for years. We aren't those scholars and if this discussion is going to devolve into confirmation bias via the Constitution, then I'll have no part of it.
Longwinded Reponse #11 The "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response, wherin he sets up the following outcomes:
A) If we prove our case, we're engaging in "confirmation bias". (He keeps using those words. I do no think they mean what he thinks they mean...)
B) No matter what we come up with, we're merely dabblers, for the True Intprepretation of the Constitution can Only Be Known by the Annointed Scholars, presumably like Barack.
It's also a #4, "Hey Look! A Pony!", because he still hasn't laid out his 3 line sources of authority from Section 8.
Elsewhere, he also foolishly threatens me with Federalist #84, failing to comprehend that its essence undermines his case, and supports ours.
Why do we keep gladly suffering fools?
>> I'll be happy to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the Constitution as long as we recognize that this is a document that has been heavily debated by scholars for years.
In other words, Marxy would have us subscribe to circular reasoning: Clearly, the guardianship of the Annointed Scholars would have prevented an unjust outcome that included Usurpation of Powers, therefore, despite the fevered wishes of you rabble of armchair constitutionalists, the current situation, whatever it might be, is fully correct and justified.
No, sir, they are not. 1+2= 3, and that is the number of lines we're still waiting for, and the party unfit for discussion is not found on this side of the fence.
No, geek, I never said that any of you were not smart enough to converse with me. I made it a point of stating that I am not a Constitutional scholar. Neither are any of you which, for reasons that are quite obvious, is not acceptable. As I suspected, you do not wish to engage in any serious or critical debate regarding the Constitution. Neither is anyone else as seen below. You are interested only in "proving your case." You also tell half the story...not including Jefferson's views on the Federalist Papers nor his view that the Bill of Rights were not the ONLY rights that people should have or possibly could have. Then, of course, there are the Anti-Federalist Papers which one should also consider.
Your lack of width in your vision is made quite plain in your interpretation of health care via the Constitution. At the time it was written, if someone was sick they would go to a doctor and pay them a fee. Now, it is, indeed, commerce. Before you blow a bowel, consider the vehement statements made on this blog that health care is not a right but something that should be paid for with funds. One needs to buy all sorts of things in relation to health care and these things do indeed fall under "regulate commerce among the states." This includes insurance which is purchased across state lines if one's corporation is in another state. This would also include medical devices, prescription drugs, and a whole host of services that can be categorized as interstate commerce.
Ironic that all in the various screeds on here regarding health care being something that should be "For Profit" you have proved the recent health care bill as being Constitutionally valid. It's regulating commerce and not, contrary to paranoid visions of doom, a government takeover. The commerce line would be one of the lines that Ed has redacted from his mind.
The other two being "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes" and "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States" which are objectionable, not only for health care, but for pretty much everything else that is non-military. Virtually every time I post something here, someone brings up taxes and how "the gubmint threatens me with a gun to collect taxes." And yet it is quite clear that Congress has the power to do that. They also have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States...something else that has sparked many a fire on here.
Of course, I'm sure there must be something wrong with my eyes...similar to the "fault" that I have when I read the Bible and see that Jesus Christ wants us to help the sick and poor--going as far to say that that is how we will be judged in God's eyes...so please continue with the various personal attacks, obssessive references to my standard responses, and the pitifully sad, Rovian technique of attacking me with what is, in fact, your greatest weaknesses.
Wow. How do you live with yourself? Are you seeing a therapist? Do you have IBS? Do you smoke pot nightly? There must be some outward expression of your problem. You can't even acknowledge the words other people use. Do you have migraines? There must be something. Your brain couldn't possibly be that broken. Doublethink causes brain damage. Do you practice a religion that eulogizes the positive benefits of lying?
You have me wrong sir! I'm concerned for you. Anyone willing to lie to oneself with such fervor cannot be in good health. I reiterate my question: what is the outward expression of your inward trauma?
"This includes insurance which is purchased across state lines if one's corporation is in another state."
No, you blithering idiot, it doesn't. Read up on it carefully. Federal law prohibits purchasing health insurance across state lines. That's why I had to change insurance companies when I moved from New Mexico to Oklahoma.
You've been told this before, and you continue to ignore it.
The hypocrisy by such as Pelosi is extreme; they use the justification of regulating interstate commerce to regulate commerce that federal law requires to not be interstate.
Now, before you cry foul, I suggest you learn something about corporate structure, finance, and law. See what bizarre structures large insurance providers (Blue Cross, for example) have to set up to be able to offer health insurance in multiple states and still comply with this statute.
Teacher boy, I suggest you Google "purchase health insurance across state lines". You'll get "about 1,590,000 hits". Read into them, and then tell us how you can purchase health insurance across state lines.
See what bizarre structures large insurance providers (Blue Cross, for example) have to set up to be able to offer health insurance in multiple states and still comply with this statute.
So, I'm a blithering idiot because federal law prohibits purchasing insurance across state lines and yet you say the above. Wow. The last week and a half has really been tough on you guys, hasn't it?
"So, I'm a blithering idiot because federal law prohibits purchasing insurance across state lines and yet you say the above."
No, you're a blithering idiot because you care more for the quick response than you do for the truth. Of course, you didn't learn about the subject before mouthing off. That is precisely what I expected.
Each such insurance company sets up a separate, independent corporation in each state in which it does business, of which the parent is simply a "holding company". By law and by practice, such companies are independent and do not do business across state lines. Thus, they comply with federal law.
The whole goddamned internet is at your fingertips and you just won't use it. I even pointed the way.
My sister-in-law works for such a company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma. It does business ONLY in Oklahoma, thus complying with Federal law.
Try another Google search, teacher boy. Type in "Blue Cross Blue Shield of" and watch as Google's type-ahead give you a choice of all the states in which there is such a company. Search for "Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma", and then choose this web site:
http://www.bcbsok.com
Click on "Comnpany Information". You'll find this, verbatim (emphasis added):
"Company Information
"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, a division of Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association"
Do you get it, teacher boy?
The page continues:
"Throughout its nearly 70-year history, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma (BCBSOK) has been committed to meeting the health care financing needs of Oklahomans. As the state's oldest and largest private health insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma and related subsidiaries in Oklahoma provide benefit plans for more than 600,000 Oklahomans."
Do your homework, teacher boy. You'll find such a site in every state in which Blue Cross Blue Shield does business. Each is independent of the others. Each works in only one state and does not sell health insurance across state lines. It's against federal law to do so, and they don't.
I never said that those rights listed in the Bill of Rights were the only rights the people had. I have always firmly stated that our political milleau is one of a government of finite, enumerated powers, and our people of expansive rights, both enumerated and not.
The existence of unenumerated rights is insufficient to demonstrate that one has a right to draw on public funds for health care.
So, as to Marxy's three lines:
1) The Commerce Clause: Fail, fail, fail. Why and how the Commerce Clause was abused via FDR's court and Wickard v. Filburn to include any topic that could possibly be deemed "interstate commerce" is discussed at length elsewhere, I'm not rehashing all that. The premise is false, a modern invention of statists, serving statist schemes. Furthermore, "to regulate" means to make regular, as in form or structure. It does not mean, "to dictate the terms and parties of a transaction".
2) "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes" and 3) "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"
It's interesting that Marxy groups these together, but the long and the short of it is that both of these powers are provided so that the fedgov may pursue those purposes enumerated elsewhere in the document, for example the running of the postal and patent system. It is not carte blanche for the government to raise taxes or borrow money for any damned thing they please, or to invent new powers for themselves. If we accept the premise that lines 2 & 3 form the basis of legitimacy for the invention of new powers, then perhaps it would be feasible to use an exercise in majoritarian democracy to justify taxes for public funding for personal (and mandatory!) yachts.
In that view, this transaction would be valid:
I want a yacht. It's my (unenumerated) right to have a yacht. And if I can convince 50%+1 of my polity to vote thusly, it would be just hunky dory to use the power of government to fleece the productive members of my society for the purpose of providing me with a yacht.
1) The Commerce Clause: Fail, fail, fail. Why and how the Commerce Clause was abused via FDR's court and Wickard v. Filburn to include any topic that could possibly be deemed "interstate commerce" is discussed at length elsewhere, I'm not rehashing all that. The premise is false, a modern invention of statists, serving statist schemes.
Indeed. To paraphrase Alan Gura: The State States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.
The Court may have ruled otherwise; the Court was out to lunch. QED (based on the original public meaning of the words).
Furthermore, "to regulate" means to make regular, as in form or structure.
Again, exactly. In addition, Randy Barnett (who is a Constitutional scholar, by profession as well as by interest) has demonstrated that the publicly understood meaning of the term "commerce" at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution did not encompass agriculture, mining, or manufactures. Commerce is trade, and trade alone.
Likewise, the commerce clause cannot legitimately be contorted to encompass insurance services on the grounds that insurance is not agriculture, mining, or manufacturing. Professional services (such as law) were not unknown in the Founders' time; had they intended Congress to have the power to micromanage the content of professional services, they would have enumerated a power to do so.
The Constitution of the United States is a breathtakingly simple document. It is a simple listing of the powers entrusted to the federal government. It was designed to be read and understood by everyone, which was one of the revolutionary things about the American Revolution: not only would the rules be written down, but they would be simple enough that everyone could read them and understand them.
This "you're a peasant, you couldn't possibly understand it, leave it to the experts" attitude, that is what you will burn in %Negative Afterlife Location for teaching our children Mark. America was always about the assumption that every man was capable of living his life, that every man was competent. See our gracious hosts own piece "That Sumbitch Hasn't Been Born". I have no master, I don't want one, and I'm not impressed by Constitutional scholars whose idea of scholarship is making up things that aren't there.
Were you thinking of this verse, cause you sure reminded me of it!
"He said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”"
(Luke 17:1–2 NAS95)
"One of the things that I have noticed about this blog (and the right in general) is that there is a collective assumption that many of you know more about the Constitution than...well...everyone."
What you should have noticed is that we actually READ the Constitution, and that we point out to you where the plain language of the Constitution flatly contradicts your statements.
What we have here is your Standard Response #4, the "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response, and your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, and your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response.
"Although I have spent a fair part of my life studying the Constitution, ..."
You're a liar, sack boy. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you flatly do not know what it plainly says.
"... I am decidely not a scholar of it."
You're right, you are not a scholar of it. But, that means any study you have made of it was all for nought, right? Some teacher you are.
Tell us again, liar boy, is the President still in charge of the feddle gubmint?
"To attempt to set oneself up as an "expert" on the Constitution simply because one says they are is an attitude loaded with arrogance and pure hubris."
Let's examine one other recent statement of yours, shall we, hypocrisy boy?
"Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
I presume from this that you mean Section 8 of Article I, which describes the powers and such of Congress. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because Article I is the only Article that has a Section 8.
You've been asked repeatedly to state just which "three sentences" of that Section your statement refers to, but, of course, you have ignored these requests.
What we have here is your Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response.
I suggest that YOU read Section 8 of Article I very carefully, teacher boy. If you do, and if you know a few things about the English language, then you'll see that Article 8, Section I, is a single sentence. It's a long one, but it's only one.
Helps to actually read it, doesn't it? Helps to understand the language, doesn't it? Studied it, did you?
"I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude."
You are someone who exemplifies this attitude, despite your claim of the opposite. Does that mean you are finally going to shut up?
"I will engage in a debate with anyone who uses critical thought when it comes to the Constitution and is able to have the same width of vision that the people that wrote it had."
Which, of course, you would be the judge of. Odd that, given you have demonstrated for three years that you are not capable of critical thought. Does this mean you are finally going to shut up?
Oh, it's gonna be on an "amateur debate". Does this mean that it's to be a debate between people, such as you, per your standards, who do not know what they are talking about?
Paint, meet corner. Corner, paint.
"We aren't those scholars and if this discussion is going to devolve into confirmation bias via the Constitution, then I'll have no part of it."
What we have here is your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
Does this mean you are finally going to shut up?
Sack boy, I've told you many times. You are dealing with grownups here, and you're not up to it. You fool no one.
The more I think about this, the more I laugh about it.
Your argument can be summarized as:
"I will not discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who cannot show himself to be a scholar thereof, but I will discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who will agree that he is not capable of doing so except at whatever level of expertise (ignorance?) I care to show personally."
You can say what you want about it. This is what it amounts to.
The sports metaphor which describes it is:
"I want desperately to be in the big leagues but I do not have sufficient ability, so I will play only with those players who agree that they are not capable of playing except, not simply T-ball, but T-ball at whatever level I care to play it personally."
Golly. What a whiny, wimpy-assed, pathetic little pissant you show yourself to be.
You have demonstrated a Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. Is this the first appearance of a Standard Response #12, the "You're not Dumb Enough for Me To Converse With" response? Are you going to whine this response some more?
Of course scholars have debated it for years! Is there anything which has not been debated (by scholars and otherwise), sometimes for the sole purpose of trying to deny what's actually there? Would you agree that people often read their biases into a text, sometimes to a degree that they conclude something precisely opposite of what the writer intended?
The solution to this problem is simple: Reading. For. Comprehension. Or in formal terms, Hermeneutics is "the study of the interpretation of written texts." Would you agree that if someone get the interpretation of the text wrong, then it doesn't matter how many letters are behind their name, they're still wrong about what it means?
So get on with it! (Think of the crowds of people at the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Get on with it!")
Before we go any further with debate on the Constitution,
Technically, we've not gone anywhere. As is your wont, you made a bunch of assertions, ignored specific claims for explanation, including direct links and pastes of the relevant material.
That's not a "debate". That's one guy being a dumbass. Which, speaking of..
I want to make a point.
We'll come back to this.
One of the things that I have noticed about this blog (and the right in general) is that there is a collective assumption that many of you know more about the Constitution than...well...everyone.
OK, that's your point? OK.
The reason why I bring all of this up is to set the scene that this is essentially an amateur debate.
So? This doesn't add to, or subtract from, or in any way refer to your point. You throw words out without any comprehension of what your point *is*. And if you don't know your point how in the hell can anyone else?
In fact, above, you claim we cannot debate the Constitution because we are not "Constitutional scholars' (and then hold up someone who's never made that claim as one.)
But yes, it is an amateur debate. We're not getting paid.
In order to fully understand what I consider to be the greatest document ever written next to the Bible, years of study are required.
No. There are the words. You can debate them without any fucking years of study. (And I say this as someone who has spent some years studying, and debating Constitutional matters.)
You cannot debate them, because you DO NOT KNOW THEM. Don't tell me you've spent years, and value the Constitution, when you describe the office of the President as "in charge of the Federal Government" and that he "lets States" decide.
Because that's laughable.
(Which is par for the course for you.)
Right there. we don't need "years of study" to say "That's bullshit". You're ducking and running because you KNOW you've been full of shit and you're about to go Brave Sir Aphasic on us and run away for a week or three.
I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude.
Because it's the same as your own? And massively hypocritical, you have no problem whatsoever lecturing anybody anywhere in issues that you blatantly don't understand. You cite (incorrectly) "Primary Sources" - except when they're all arrayed against you, then you won't listen to them at all. You've made massive mistakes in this thread alone, along with hundreds of others that demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
But Ed's laid a very simple challenge out to you. SHOW US WE'RE WRONG. You claimed three sentances. So, nut up, sack boy. It's Verbatim Time.
Or at least have the bare, simple decency to man up, and admit you were running your mouth without engaging your brain. (It's painfully obvious that was the case, no matter what you'll refuse to admit.)
Prediction: Marxaphasia will not "bring it on" because he already knows that the plain meanings of the words in the Constitution and written by its authors about what it means go against him. He has already set up his excuses ("Bias!" "Ignorant!") in his last comment. In other words, he has already started to pull out Standard Response #11. ("The "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.")
C'mon, Marxy. Do you have the cojones to actually try to show us ignorant right-wingers where the Constitution says the Health Bill is legal? Or is it just false bravado as usual?
So, let me see if I get this straight. Marxy asserts that there are "at least three sentences" in "Section 8" which shows that Ed's mindset "actively encourages a warped view of our government that lends itself to overly emotional and midly to extreme paranoid thought."
When asked, several times, to show which three sentences, his response was "Or someone could beat you thoroughly with #84, geek. We can go down that path if you like but something tells me that you won't like it all that much."
And after many clamoring to see Marxy make good on this, his counter? "I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude."
Riiiight.
Logical arguments are immune to attitude. The attitude is there for fun, and free of charge.
To attempt to set oneself up as an "expert" on the Constitution simply because one says they are is an attitude loaded with arrogance and pure hubris. I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude.
Quite commendable, at least in the words. Here's where the problem arises. Perhaps you missed it when Ed posted it earlier:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison
Shouldn't you disqualify yourself from debate, under your own standards? I mean, you've just set yourself up as having a greater knowledge of the Constitution than freaking James Madison, have you not?
"I learned to play 'Stairway to Heaven' when I was twelve years old. Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was twenty-one...I think that says quite a lot." (Vim Fuego, Bad News)
Spending time with construction workers is interesting. While they're rarely diplomatic, they can be quite eloquent in their own way.
A better educated person might point out that purple shirted SEIU thugs yelling "nigger" at Kenneth Gladney and beating him, caught live on video, somehow didn't rate even half the outrage as completely unverified reports of slurs at Congressman.
The construction worker used fewer words, but it cut more:
"Does the name Ken Gladney ring a bell? You're the ones who made it hard, you can damn well suck on it, bitches."
Duh, it's a Congressman's feelings versus a peasant's actual body.
See, basically the 30% in 1776 who were Royalists, they're all Democrats today. Some people have a hunger to be ruled. It used to be kings and princes, nowadays they want academics to tell them the right opinions to hold, they want the experts in charge. Mark is a perfect example. He craves to be treated like a child, it's why he quotes other sources based not on the merit of their ideas, or the soundness of their logic, but on if their views align with the prevailing vision. I'm of course hijacking Thomas Sowell rather brutally when I talk about visions, but the man is dead on.
Some people do want to be managed, and when the sheep see the goats refusing to do what the shepherd tells them to do, they get very nervous "He's the shepherd! He's in charge! You can't disobey him!". It is their duty to squash the recalcitrant refuseniks, to restore order to the world. Because the way it works is that the sheep get 40% of what the goats make, and the goats should be happy with the 60% because after all the shepherd isn't taking all of it. Not even most of it. That's fair, and the goats should stop whining. They don't know what it's like to be a sheep, it's oh so very hard, the shepherd says so every day.
Ughh I need to go to bed....I know I'm tired when I run a metaphor for more then 3 sentences.
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
—U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7
Marxy himself gleefully pointed out that the CBO said this monstrosity would cost $930 Billion, but that it was deficit neutral because it provided enough funds, partially through raising taxes. (New taxes on tanning salons. Taxes on those who refuse to buy insurance. Taxes on so-called "Cadillac insurance plans". Taxes on companies with so many people on the payroll. Etc., etc., etc.) In fact, one of the claims I heard in passing was that what makes this monster "legal" is that it's essentially a tax bill.
So which house did the version they passed originate in?
Are you TRYING to impersonate a Constitutional Scholar, AGAIN?
Marky's laid it down, it's very plain, only years of study (except by Obama, who was hired as a lecturer straight out of law school, or, in other words, without any years of study) can make that claim. Stop trying to interpret the Constitution, it's beyond you. You know, it's like the Bible, before Martin Luther. Only the anointed few are allowed to tell you what it means.
I just saw this article which describes a lawsuit filed by a physicians group over The Monstrosity. I thought this part was interesting:
"The law requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. The AAPS says insurance-company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another."
This sounds strange to me, so I decided to take another look at the 5th Amendment to see where they got this idea.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
—U.S. Constitution, Amendment V
As best I can tell, they were probably thinking of the last clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Traditionally, this clause has been thought to apply to physical property, such as land, not to money. After all, the Constitution does authorize the collection of taxes to pay for the government's authorized functions. On the other hand, there does seem to be reasonable argument there that money is private property (no problem with that premise), and that the legitimate exercise of delegated government powers is "just compensation" for the taxes taken to fund them. So would money (private property) taken to "spread the wealth around" (welfare, health care, etc.) constitute "public use"? That it's taken without "just compensation" is obvious.
*snickering*
Gee, more people in the cult/base of verbatim:
There are absolute morons in certain majors (like elementary education, "angry studies", some of the social/therapy areas and others).
I have met people in elementary education, in particular, who were stupid beyond belief, and they easily got a degree. "Angry studies" people mask their stupidity with in-your-face anger and an ability to repeat phrases like "Studies suggest that ..." (and then they just make up whatever they want), but they are still stupid.
And a bit farther down: Back to universities, though: What would happen if they lower the salary of a women's studies professor? Would she take a job in private industry bitching at men?
So, let me see if I have this correct. I have been told by several of you that you all think for yourselves and have no allegiance to people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (even though you repeat much of what they say here...sometimes verbatim ;) ). I have been assured up and down that you take your cues from within and not without.
as well as a simple inquiry to to law enforcement officials regarding the faxes that were received by many in Congress, including James Clyburn, with nooses. We also have Amy Kremer, of the Tea Party Express, admitting that the slurs did occur and calling them "isolated incidents." This, of course, is in addition to the journalists who reported on the incidents as they heard them.
Not that I expect any of this to break the cocoon but I thought I'd give it a shot.
You don't. Anytime you start to say that, you're about to demonstrate that you don't have a clue.
even though you repeat much of what they say here...sometimes verbatim .
You're projecting. You look for - and cut and paste - from others, without understanding, and think we do the same. There's a quick way to find out which is the case.
Ask us why. Ask us to explain.
We can. You can't.
You cannot escape from your folly by heaping on more of it.
Like your "3 sentences" bullshit, or your Federalist paper pap. You can't back it up with any explanation. (So now you're trying to stumble away and yelling that, well, you might not be a scholar, but neither are we.)
But, hey, by all means, hitch your wagon to her star! Let me know how it all works out.
I don't know who Michell Bachmann is, other than you hate her. I don't care what she says.
But I can tell you - there's no evidence to back the claims that have been made, and there was a LOT of video shot that day.
I don't care who agrees with me on that - it's the case. It's the correct supposition. It's the factual base.
Anybody who disagrees now, well, there's something interesting.
But in several almost identical situations - you refused to admit even after the evidence was out. (For 2, the ACORN videos - which we haven't seen all of, and the ACORN convictions on vote fraud.) You've insisted that it never, ever, ever happened, despite hard proof.
But we're the ones "delusional". Despite the proof that's been demonstrated, we're crazy for believing the video, for having the belief that HAD there been a single epithet or anything close to it, the media would have been all over it, you insist that they MUST BE BELIEVED, despite the evidence not being there.
The cocoon is surrounding you, but I don't expect you to break out of it, much less be transformed. You prefer the larval stage, and actively seek it out.
Otherwise, you might back up some of your mis-statements. Such as the role of the president. FP #84. the "Three sentences".
There's a reason we sieze upon your idiocy of the day - and you rarely disappoint.
You don't understand what you're pasting, verbatim. You don't know enough to man up, grab your sack, nut up, and admit it. And it's rather obvious to anybody who does understand critical thought.
Every time you post, you leave more and more threads unanswered, more problems with your thoughts exposed. And then insist that it's not you who doesn't understand, it's us.
Like I told you when you made your ludicrous engineering claim. It's very simple to win an engineering argument with one of us. Just demonstrate where we're in error. It's quite simple, if you understand the material, no matter if you've studied engineering for 50 years or 5 minutes. Knowledge matters. Not time. This isn't the tenured system you're trying to get into. Time and experience only matter if you're correct.
Something I just saw over at Dr. Sanity's reminds me of our resident "Education Expert".
Over a 20-year span beginning in the early 1970s, the average SAT score fell by 35 points. But in that same period, the contingent of college-bound seniors who boasted an A or B average jumped from 28% to an astonishing 83%, as teachers felt increasing pressure to adopt more "supportive" grading policies. Tellingly, in a 1989 study of comparative math skills among students in eight nations, Americans ranked lowest in overall competence, Koreans highest — but when researchers asked the students how good they thought they were at math, the results were exactly opposite: Americans highest, Koreans lowest. Meanwhile, data from 1999's omnibus Third International Mathematics and Science Study, ranking 12th-graders from 23 nations, put U.S. students in 20th place, besting only South Africa, Lithuania and Cyprus.
Still, the U.S. keeps dressing its young in their emperors' new egos, passing them on to the next set of empowering curricula. If you teach at the college level, as I do, at some point you will be confronted with a student seeking redress over the grade you gave him because "I'm pre-med!" Not until such students reach med school do they encounter truly inelastic standards: a comeuppance for them but a reprieve for those who otherwise might find ourselves anesthetized beneath their second-rate scalpel.
...For many on the left side of the political spectrum, the concept of "personal responsibility" is inextricably linked to conservative moral principles; to business success and capitalism; and--the bugaboo of collectivists everywhere-- individualism. It is no secret that the political left has idealized certain social and political systems because they suppressed the individual and elevated the state, insisting that individuals have no right to exist for their own selves, but only to serve others....Dalrymple correctly notes that, "Self-respect requires fortitude, one of the cardinal virtues; self-esteem encourages emotional incontinence that, while not actually itself a cardinal sin, is certainly a vice, and a very unattractive one. Self-respect and self-esteem are as different as depth and shallowness." Or as different as achieving maturity versus remaining childish.Dr Sanity
And something I sent to Kevin a minute ago also bears noting in the context of our "Academic Superior"Liberalism is not about people; it is about loving ideas more than people. When liberal policies fail, good liberals do not go back to the drawing board. They see themselves challenged to produce a logical contortion that explains why they are not at fault.
Most of us will know this, of course, by "Try it again, only HARDER!"http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2010/03/liberal-intolerance.html
...and have no allegiance to people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (even though you repeat much of what they say here...sometimes verbatim ;) ). I have been assured up and down that you take your cues from within and not without.
The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.” Doug Ross reported this and more:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”):
The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.
Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.
See, funny thing, Mark. I'm not surprised or shocked. Because I can read the Constitution. With comprehension. And I can compare that to Barry's statements about that, law, oaths, and requirements. (Or watch you flounder when you actually try and give details. I'm still waiting on an explanation for your description of the President's duties and abilities. I suspect, like most of your other failures, you're going to fail to learn from it as well.)
There's a very simple story with your Messiah - he was seen as a figurehead long ago by some people, including real terrorists who killed people. (For all your talk about the "right wing terror" you keep not wanting to talk about the actual BOMBS AYERS BUILT.) They had money, and power, and used it. And he's been advanced far past his real competence. But just as you can't see how incompetent you are, he doesn't know how out of his element he is. Yet.
And Michelle -who was "legal counsel" - with huge pay raises for the Hospital she worked for (but who didn't feel the need to fill the vitally important position when Michelle moved to the White House) - hadn't had a license to practice law since '93?
To give credit where it's due, ya gotta admire a guy who can out-Clinton the Clintons, the people who required us to define what the meaning of "is" is.
Marxy isn't the only one who can't show where the Constitution gives the authority to pass this monstrosity. Congressman Phil Hare doesn't even care that they're breaking the law!
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/03/none-of-this-should-be-surprise.html (180 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The proposed retirement system would be operated under the following parameters:
• Benefits that move with you, even if you change jobs
I don't suppose that the SEIU has ever heard of Individual Retirement Accounts? /rhetorical
I have a question, if anyone knows the answer: is there anything that happens (in legal terms, I mean) if the president doesn't uphold the constitution? Is there any precedent? This is just something that I have been wondering about lately.
He can be impeached in the House and tried in the Senate. Obviously that isn't going to happen any time soon.
January, 2011
Far too late by then.
Damn that was a depressing read. I came here from England to escape this crap, only to find it followed me. Like you pointed out, there's nowhere else to go. Dammit, can't we just have one country on this planet where a man can be free? Can these people not see the failures elsewhere, everywhere this tripe has been tried? I fear that humanity is heading into a long dark night. I'm appalled at what my children will have to face.
They don't consider the failures elsewhere to be failures, but rather experimental trials on the best methods of ruling. They won't go down the road of Communism (true Communism) as it's been proven a failure, but they regard the "successes" of Europe as a viable, attractive option. Their goal is to rule. How they achieve that goal is immaterial to them. So long as they have free reign to do as they please while giving life-or-death orders to other people, they will consider their goals met. They desire the power of Caesar.
My opinion on the matter is that we were doomed when we gave away the power to hang-traitors-by-the-neck-until-dead to the State. Why would the State hang its own? This nation is riddled with Treason, but only the "Proper Authority" can make that decision, and they will never make the decision to hang themselves.
Q ? : What's the difference between a courtesan, a call-girl, a whore and Congress ?
A : a Courtesan purrs "Was it as good for you as it was for me ?"
a call-girl asks "was it good for you ? "
a whore says " 20 bucks !"
Congress says " go fuck yerselves"
Well, I guess the answer to this is YES.
Change "communism" to "fascism" and you'd be right.
Now go away.
This was just posted on my blog and it really applies to your ridiculous assertion that we now have a fascist government.
If conservatives like Glenn Beck were just complaining about the merits of legislation that would be one thing. But they go on and on comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin with totally preposterous claims. When you compare someone to a monster, you are essentially saying that they should meet the same fate as that monster.
These are exactly the same tactics that Hitler used against the Jews: name-calling, the Big Lie and false comparisons. Note that I didn't call Beck a Nazi. He's just using the same disreputable tactics that the Nazis used. He's not a Nazi: he's a delusional libertarian whose policies would result in a corporate (domestic and foreign) takeover of American government that would revoke most of the protections American citizens enjoy.
Is this what you are advocating, Kevin? It seems to me that you are but I could be wrong. I think you might want to think long and hard about this one.
It would also weaken us militarily as more foreign corporations infiltrate their tendrils into our government by buying their own judges and politicians. And don't say that there'd be laws to stop that: the small government that Beck envisions wouldn't have the wherewithal to defend itself against well-funded corporate invasions (especially the Chinese, who already owns all the means of production in the tech sector -- they make ALL the computers and electronics these days, and will soon own all the design and patents. Next they're working on securing more oil and then a permanent foothold in space). And how will a small, bathtub-drownable US government be able to defend itself from 1.5 billion highly-trained Chinese with nuclear weapons in space? The corporations certainly won't help: they'll all have been bought out by the Chinese.
Indeed.
Well, now that we can actually read what's in this new law, what's telling is what's in this new law. Go see:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/24/john-lott-democrats-hypocrisy-health-care-law-insurance-harry-reid-coburn/
The title is "The Democrats' Hypocrisy is Staggering".
Yup, it is.
It's short enough that I'll quote the whole thing [emphasis added]:
"Our public servants must to be governed by the same rules that the rest of us mere mortals have to obey.
"With legislation encompassing almost 3,000 pages, it will take time to find out exactly what the mandates in the newly passed health care law mean for America. After all, it wasn’t until the end of last week that the reconciliation bill was even made public. But here's something we already have uncovered. And it's shocking. -- In addition to all the special favors doled out to various congressional districts, it turns out that the congressional staff who wrote the health care bill put in special favors for themselves, too.
"While everyone else in the United States -- from the top corporate executives to the grocery store checkout clerk -- will be forced to buy their insurance through heavily regulated state-run exchanges, the health care bill excludes one group: the leadership and committee staff. Yes, that’s right. The very people who wrote up this bill are refusing to be included themselves. Given the narrow definition of “congressional staff” on page 158 of the health care bill, the Congressional Research Service memo believes that courts will not require “professional committee staff, joint committee staff, some shared staff, as well as potentially those staff employed by leadership offices” to go through the exchanges. President Obama and his family are also exempt from the law.
"Insurance plans will only be allowed in these exchanges if they meet rules governing benefit packages, quality standards and measures of uniformity of enrollment procedures. And it doesn't stop there they must also meet the rules about provider networks, the right kind of rating system, outreach, reinsurance and risk adjustment, and a variety of other federally determined processes. If these regulations are so wonderful, Americans have a simple question: what is it that Democrats know about the state-run insurance exchanges that make them want to avoid them?
"The answer seems obvious. These regulations will raise costs, not lower them as the president promised, and lower the quality of medicine that policyholders receive.
"Jim Manley, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman tried to put the best spin on this by telling Politico that they didn’t want language that would have required “people like legislative counsel, Architect of the Capitol, etc.” to be included in the exchanges. Though he made it sound like this was a matter of technical language, there remains the fundamental question of why anyone, especially somebody putting together and advocating this very bill, should be exempt in the first place. These public servants must to be governed by the same rules that the rest of us mere mortals have to obey.
"Democrats have no obvious explanation about why this provision was quietly inserted into the health care bill. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) warned that he and other Republican Senators tried to fix the problem of staff being excluded from the rules. “I tried to fix this inequity along with senators Grassley, Burr and Vitter, but Majority Leader [Harry] Reid obstructed our effort,” Senator Coburn said.
"Obviously, the Democratic leadership knew full well that the bill they passed on Sunday with such fanfare is going to make things worse for the vast majority of those who are already insured. There is no other reason why the staff that wrote this bill would exempt themselves. The anger over the Democrats’ hypocrisy should be deafening."
It's not about health care. It's about control.
"Everything for the state. Nothing above the state. Nothing against the state." -- Benito Mussolini
You don't matter. The goddamned state matters.
"Is this what you are advocating, Kevin? It seems to me that you are but I could be wrong. I think you might want to think long and hard about this one."
Yet again, cult boy, we see your Standard Response #6, in which you lay on yet another straw man. In terms of missing the point, you couldn't hit the ground with a dud. Same old shit, different day.
Once again, you FAIL READING COMPREHENSION.
Quote: What is happening now – and Newsweek is honest enough to say so down in the body of the article – is an expansion of the state's role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business. Yes, it's very "European," and some of the Europeans even call it "social democracy," but it isn't.
It's fascism. Nobody calls it by its proper name, for two basic reasons: first, because "fascism" has long since lost its actual, historical, content; it's been a pure epithet for many decades. Lots of the people writing about current events like what Obama et. al. are doing, and wouldn't want to stigmatize it with that "f" epithet.
Second, not one person in a thousand knows what fascist political economy was. Yet during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a "third way" between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded.
End quote. No comparison to Hitler or Stalin or even Mussolini - just a simple definition of a word that has a SPECIFIC MEANING but AS NOTED has become an epithet. It's the "third way"! It's "good capitalism"! People get to keep their property. Just the government tells them how much they can charge, where they have to spend their money, and how much of their money they can keep.
First Al Sharpton says that we shouldn't be surprised at this lurch towards Socialism, then John Dingell explains it by telling us that "The harsh fact of the matter is when you're going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people."
Freudian slip my ass.
I didn't call Obama Mussolini, I just accurately described what his "fundamental change" of this nation IS. And I illustrated that he is, without a doubt, in violation of his oath of office.
Got anything to say about THAT?
Here's a question for you, Markadelphia - if health care is a right, why does this law empower the .gov to FINE YOU for NOT GETTING INSURANCE? Under that model, they ought to be able to fine you for not buying a gun, should they not?
Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point. Why is auto insurance mandatory? Because it protects other people. Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown. Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates.
It's terribly difficult to talk to you about stuff like this because I know I'm just going to end up bouncing off the cocoon. When the government mandates anything, it's armageddon. When a private company mandates something, it's just fine. Why? Because you live in a fantasy world in which you have led yourself to believe that we have choices when we honestly don't. You would see this if you weren't so set in your ways against government. If insurance companies and the health care industry hadn't behaved in the way they have for the last 40 years, the goverment would not have had to step in. Remember, WE are the government. So, if you don't like it, get involved and elect candidates that can put your ideas into action.
Kevin, the Newswseek article was written specifially to sell loads of copies--to people like you and the other posters here. Don't you see that?
A central tenet of fascism is that economic classes are not capable of running a nation. They believe that an elite aristocracy comprised of military leaders can rule more effectively than democratically elected individuals. They are decidely anti-Marxist and view liberalism as anathema to their ideology. In fact, any notion of gender, race or sexual equality is abhorant to the fascist. I think you will agree that is not President Obama. You throw these words around--"fascism" "Marxism" "Socialsim" like they all mean the same thing. They don't.
I just accurately described what his "fundamental change" of this nation IS
No, you didn't. It was an extremly warped view of what you think it might be.
And I illustrated that he is, without a doubt, in violation of his oath of office.
No, you didn't. Kevin, I know this might be somewhat of shock to you but just because you say something, doesn't mean that it's true. Your interpretation of the Constitution betrays a bias that is so great I don't think it's possible for you to think critically about it all. President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and you are an engineer. And you know more than he does about the Constitution? By that logic, I know more than you do about engineering.
So, I guess I'm wondering, if you think that he is in violation of his oath, does that mean we should impeach him? Weren't you railing against those who wanted to impeach Bush? Or are you suggesting something else?
President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and you are an engineer. And you know more than he does about the Constitution? By that logic, I know more than you do about engineering.
I was about to call this the ultimate infinite regress of self-beclowning...
...but I bet he can top it, if we give him enough time and rope.
Why is auto insurance mandatory?
It isn't. What is mandatory is that you demonstrate financial responsibility before you operate a motor vehicle on a public road. You can do that by posting a bond or having proof of insurance. If you own a vehicle that you don't drive on public roads you have NO obligation to insure it. Why, WHY are you so frakkin' stupid?
"Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown. Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates."
You conflate auto insurance, not with health insurance, but with health care. You demonstrate that you do not understand the fundamental difference, and you do not understand why the comparison fails.
Auto insurance pays only when: 1) you damage your vehicle in an accident, which is comprehensive coverage for a catastrophe; 2) you damage someone else's property with your vehicle, which is liability coverage for a catastrophe; or, 3) your vehicle is stolen, which is comprehensive coverage for a catastrophe.
Do you notice that word "catastrophe"? It is critical to an understanding of auto insurance. The key concept is that auto insurance pays only when a catastrophe happens, which is a relatively rare occurrence and is something people try like hell to avoid, in general. Auto insurance does not pay for routine maintenance or repair, such as changing the oil and filter, replacing worn tires, or aligning the wheels.
Health care includes everything from bandaids to cardiac bypass surgery. It is something that damned nearly everyone needs several times a year in one way or another. The health care that Obamateur just signed into law will cover, not just catastrophic events, but what amounts to routine maintenance.
Auto insurance is about sharing the risk for something that happens relatively rarely and to relatively few people, while universal health care is about having someone else pay for something that happens relatively often to damned nearly everyone. Comparing the former to the latter is like comparing apples to haggis, and you do not understand that.
"It's terribly difficult to talk to you about stuff like this because I know I'm just going to end up bouncing off the cocoon."
It's terribly difficult for you to talk with us about stuff like this because you are so fundamentally dishonest.
"Kevin, the Newswseek article was written specifially to sell loads of copies--to people like you and the other posters here. Don't you see that?"
Goddamn, what a straw man. Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6.
"Kevin, I know this might be somewhat of shock to you but just because you say something, doesn't mean that it's true. Your interpretation of the Constitution betrays a bias that is so great I don't think it's possible for you to think critically about it all."
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #9, the The "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. Yet again, you simply assert that the other guy is what you don't like being accused of.
"President Obama is a Constitutional scholar ..."
No, he is NOT a Constitutional scholar, and never has been. He has demonstrated a remarkable lack of familiarity with the plain wording of the Constitution simply by misstating what it plainly says. He was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor, he was a guest lecturer. Go read
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307
and laugh a bit. Note the source, too.
You fool no one, cult boy.
Note the polls, whydon'tcha? The whole goddamned country is wising up to what they voted for. When are you?
Okay, let me see if I have this straight:
Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates.
And why is it set up that way? Because someone considered it an imperative that anyone who goes to the doctor recieves care, regardless of whether or not they can pay for it. There's a reason why I'm willing to bet liberal Democrats came up with that one, although I'll admit I'm too lazy to check. It's an imperative because of "being, you know, HUMAN", as I've seen someone say recently.
It could have been addressed by starting a charity, but no, that's not enough. Instead, a moral imperative must be made into the law of the land. And now it's costing you extra because of your own moral imperative that you demanded be made into a legal obligation.
Waah.
But that's not enough, that leaves you having to pay for your own vices, that obviously won't do. So now you demand that everyone in the country be required to follow the perceived moral obligation of the ruling class, to be enforced by violence if necessary.
Okay, I'll concede the point, it's not fascism.
It's theocracy.
Auto insurance isn't mandatory. If you don't own a car, no one will force you to buy auto insurance. The strongest automotive insurance regulations in this nation will not require you to buy auto insurance if you don't own a car.
Actually, in North Carolina you are required to have insurance just to have a driver's license.
But, you aren't required to have a driver's license either, so it's just semantics.
"...he's a delusional libertarian whose policies would result in a corporate (domestic and foreign) takeover of American government that would revoke most of the protections American citizens enjoy."
Explain in detail how this takeover of government would occur, and what mechanisms of coercion these domestic and foreign corporations would employ.
While you're pondering that, I have a simpler question: Under conditions of voluntary exchange, who decides the price of a good or service?
Why should anyone talk to you Marxy? You STILL haven't shown that what the Federal government just passed is one of it's enumerated powers in the Constitution and not a violation of the 10th Amendment:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
What point is there in discussing a flatly ILLEGAL law?!?
Scrolling through these comments just now made me think of the recent firing of David Frum. Bruce Bartlett, a senior advisor to Ronald Reagan, had this to say on the subject.
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1601/groupthink-right-would-make-stalin-proud
Since, he is no longer affiliated with AEI, I feel free to say publicly something he told me in private a few months ago. He asked if I had noticed any comments by AEI "scholars" on the subject of health care reform. I said no and he said that was because they had been ordered not to speak to the media because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.
It saddened me to hear this. I have always hoped that my experience was unique. But now I see that I was just the first to suffer from a closing of the conservative mind. Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
Yep, it has already. Love the words in the link, btw.
Oh, and if you really want to have your heads explode, check this out:
http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1592/ignorance-bliss-tea-party-crowd
Unlike most here, Bartlett actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to the economy. He sums up in one line what I think when I read most (but not all) comments here.
It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality.
I'll ask again because you seem to have trouble seeing this:
WHERE is the power "delegated to" the Federal Government to take over health care enumerated in the U.S. Constitution ?
BTW, interesting wording in that 10th Amendment: "Delegated to"
That means that the powers the Federal Government exercises do not inherently belong to it. They're given the authority to exercise them On Someone Else's Behalf. Now WHO does that power Actually Belong To?
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ed. When you say that the government has "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies? Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves? Or is it something in between?
"Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ed. When you say that the government has "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies? Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
"Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves? Or is it something in between?"
Let me see if I understand you correctly, cult boy. When you imply that the government has NOT "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US President has just passed into law a multi-thousand page bill, to be administered by the goddamned Infernal Revenue Service, that will have no influence whatever on any health insurance company, HMO, hospital, pharmaceutical company, or health care device company? Are all those provisions of that new law which specify new taxes, new rules, new requirements, and new federal bureaucracies just so much meaningless and ineffectual ink on paper? Did the Dimocrat Party work for a goddamned YEAR to pass a single bill because it does NOTHING?
Or does it mandate a whole list of brand-new federal bureacracies, each run as its own petty little kingdom, each of which will demonstrate quite clearly that the gubmint cannot leave one sixth of the economy to run itself? Or is it something in between?
Perhaps you are right, DJ. According to Michelle Bachmann, the US government now controls 51 percent of the economy. Before Sept 2008, it was 100 percent private. Now, they have TAKEN OVER!!!!! AHHHHH!!!!!!! RUN!!!!!!!
Still can't avoid hyperbole, can you, teacher boy?
Let's see that would be David Frum, former speechwriter and still head cheerleader for TEAM W. Considering what W did to the Repub Party I WOULD expect the Party to reject just about anything Frum has to say. Considering how much you despised Bush it is disingenuous in the extreme to treat Frum as the loyal opposition.
As for Bartlett, he whines that he can't get a job - in the punditocracy. Boo fucking hoo - he can go try working in the real world.
No wonder you love these Repubs - they're bigger fucking losers than yourself.
Actually, juris, I think Frum has finally seen the light and has been de-programmed. If people at AEI think that the health care bill is the best thing for us, where does that leave conservatives?They can't support a center right bill when all they have been doing for the last year is saying that it is socialism. Or fascism. Or...oh, heck, I don't know what it is the Cult is saying these days. It's so hard to keep track.
Bartlett, another de-programee, has been writing books and doing just quite fine on his own. In fact, his recent book, The New American Economy, shows a man who is willing to admit fault (gasp!). Interestingly, he now embraces Keynesian economics, given the times, and has quite a number of scathing things to say about the "Gods" like Hayek that are oft quoted here. I haven't read it all yet but it is quite fascinating.
"de-programmed"
So, you have yet another word to define. It's not in The Free Dictionary online, teacher boy. What's it mean?
"Or fascism. Or...oh, heck, I don't know what it is the Cult is saying these days."
Still won't define that word either, will you, cult boy?
"In fact, his recent book, The New American Economy, shows a man who is willing to admit fault (gasp!)."
But you aren't (gasp!), are you, liar boy? Goddamn, but your hypocrisy is boundless, ain't it?
Wrong. Frum has not repudiated the Bush policy - he is still defending it and chastising Republicans for abandoning it. His claim is that neo-conservatism and Bushism is still a winning ticket. How fucking stupid can you get?
You should admit what is obvious to all, including me - a person that has no interest in the "success" of the Republican Party - you love these two NOW because they are such losers even the Repubs don't want anything to do with them.
It's hard to explain this divergence between perception and reality.
I can't say that surprises me at all, coming from you.
After all, you're the one who touts racist remarks at Dem Congressmen recently as "reality", despite the fact that there is a standing offer of $10,000 for anyone who can document such accusations, and no takers.... in this economy. Think about that one.
You're the one who considers "the Census worker murdered by Tea Partiers" to be "reality", despite the investigation which showed that it was a premeditated combination of suicide and scam.
I could go on, but there's no point. Everyone but you can think of plenty more examples, and you've already proven yourself unable to perceive such examples, so posting more of them would just be more things to vanish into your blind spot.
Put simply, the explanation for "this divergence between perception and reality" is that the "reality" you perceive doesn't exist outside of your own head.
"Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is ..."
Go see:
http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/oklahoma-auto-insurance-laws-minimums-requirements
where you'll find this, verbatim:
"What mandatory auto insurance laws exist in the state of Oklahoma?
" * In the state of Oklahoma, all drivers must carry at least the minimum liability coverage of $25,000 for injury or death of one person, $50,000 for injury or death of two or more persons, and $25,000 for property damage
" * When operating a motor vehicle in the state of Oklahoma, you must carry proof of insurance at all times.
" * If you are caught driving without insurance, you may be fined up to $250 or you may be sentenced to thirty days in jail, or both. You also face suspension of your driver's license and vehicle registration if you fail to comply with Oklahoma minimum insurance law or if you fail to produce proof of insurance to a police officer or public safety representative upon request."
Did you read it carefully, cult boy? In Oklahoma, if you drive a vehicle, you must have liability insurance. This does not cover damage to your vehicle, rather it covers damage that you cause or inflict on other people or other peoples' property. In Oklahoma, you are not required to have insurance which covers damage to yourself or to your own vehicle. Of course, you can get such insurance (I have it), but you are not required to have it.
To continue with your statement:
"Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown. Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates."
Do you see your conflation of two wildly dissimilar concepts here, teacher boy? You conflate liability coverage for damage you might do to someone else with comprehensive coverage for what you need done to your own body. You claim that because the former is mandatory, the latter ought to be mandatory also.
Yet again, your (ahem) thinking is revealed as being as shallow as dew on a pile of bullshit.
"Put simply, the explanation for "this divergence between perception and reality" is that the "reality" you perceive doesn't exist outside of your own head."
Apparently Marxaphasia hasn't realized that the reason he keeps "bouncing off the cocoon" no matter which way he turns is because he's inside of it. Nor does he realize that cocoons are built by their occupant.
GOF, am I to understand that it is your assertion that Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver are all liars? If I had a videotape or a recording of this, I don't think I would come forward at all.Take a listen to the voice mail that Rep Harry Mitchell received.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/03/facts-and-logic.html
No amount of money is worth that.
If I had a videotape or a recording of this, I don't think I would come forward at all.
No, I don't expect you would...but then we've already observed that there is no depth of poltroonery you won't plumb.
GOF, am I to understand that it is your assertion that Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver are all liars?
Absofuckinglutely.
Am I to understand that it is your assertion that there is any national-level politician of either party who is not?
I guess that makes me "obviously a fucking racist", since I neglected to make sure a politician was a conservative white male before calling him a liar.
Might as well go for broke. Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of shit as well. Presumably that makes me sexist too.
It doesn't make you a racist, GOF. It does make you blind to the obvious racism that was behind much of the protests. Of course, accusing anyone on the right of being racist these days carries with it consequences. These usually begin with hyper-angry counter claims of racism followed by the playing of the victim card. At that point, a scapegoat on the left is selected and "proven" to be racist themselves. Essentially, it's one giant batch of denial combined with the classic Rove tactic of attacking one's oppenent based on the attacker's obvious weakness...in this case bigotry.
So, the party that trumpets individual responsibility claims none of it (in this situation or others). Complete. Bullshit. I'd like to see the GOP own their fault in all of this. But we all know they never fucking will. Just as hirabi leaders stoke angry masses, so do people like John "Armageddon" Boehner.This is what happens when you approach serious issues with the intellectural and emotional maturity of an eight year old complete with foot stomping temper tantrum.
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #9 and Standard Response #5.
You remember them, don't you? They're here:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/08/standard-responses-of-markadelphia.html
You fool no one, cult boy.
It does make you blind to the obvious racism that was behind much of the protests.
Gotcha. In other words, you're saying it's okay to assume racism on the part of conservatives based on nothing but the word of politicians, in other words based on the class of people most likely in the country to be lying on any given subject. No evidence required.
But of course, the fact that even an offer of ten thousand dollars can't produce one single piece of video, audio, or even witness evidence to say that it actually happened... from a crowd of thousands, many of whom had cell phones with cameras, being covered by the news media...
...that means nothing, nothing at all.
In short, it had to have been racism because you say so.
This kind of blatant logic-free, honesty-free "critical thinking" is why I don't post on your blog anymore. It's also why every single person here who in your own opinion possesses any "critical thinking skills" has given up on you.
If anyone does have any evidence, GOF, I doubt they would come forward with it. Between the voice mails, vandalism, and various other threats, no amount of money is worth fearing for your life for the rest of your life. None of this makes any difference, though.
You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe. Even if such information was brought to light, you still would believe that it was doctored/evil lies by the left/taken out of context etc. Until the right owns the clear and abundant racism in its base, they are completely full of shit on all matters of taking individual responsibilty.
And your points below are ridiculous. I have stated many times on here that the Democrats have a much longer history of racism than the Republicans. This is an indisuputable fact. These same Democrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 and now make up the base. Are they all racist? Of course not. But many are and it was more than just Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver that heard the word "nigger" being shouted at them as they walked into the Capital. Don't take their word for it. Don't take my word for it. Call up the Capital police Dept and ask them.
If you get lucky, one of them will tell you what they heard. It will help if you know someone who works there.
If anyone does have any evidence, GOF, I doubt they would come forward with it. Between the voice mails, vandalism, and various other threats, no amount of money is worth fearing for your life for the rest of your life.
Still doubling down on yellow, I see.
Call up the Capital police Dept and ask them.
Why? Did they witness the event? They haven't corroborated this story, and you know it's bullshit that no one would step forward with evidence if they had it. If nothing else someone would want to collect that $10grand off Breitbart.
Even if such information was brought to light, you still would believe that it was doctored/evil lies by the left/taken out of context etc.
You mean the way you reacted when unequivocal video evidence was presented of ACORN members giving advice on how to run a taxpayer supported child prosttution ring?
And your points below are ridiculous. I have stated many times on here that the Democrats have a much longer history of racism than the Republicans. This is an indisuputable fact.
Yes, you have. That has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the points below are ridiculous, because the points below are direct representations of your views, taken from your words.
In fact I agree, they are ridiculous. But not because of what I've said.
Take a look at this:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528198
I'll quote the last half of it:
-----
"Meantime, put down your wallet and back away slowly, especially those of you who put people to work. An analysis of the House Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) by the Heritage Foundation shows it to be as much of a job-killer (except for those 17,000 new IRS agents) as the Senate bill President Obama signed into law.
"HR 4872, Heritage reports, would "force companies to pay a tax penalty if that business employs 50 or more workers as soon as one worker qualifies for, and opts to accept, a health insurance premium subsidy."
"That $3,000 penalty is on top of the $2,000-per-worker penalty for all workers beyond the first 30 for such companies not offering a "qualified" health plan or paying 60% of employee health premiums. Such companies would be faced with a $3,000 penalty for hiring a single parent, the very kind of person desperately in need of employment.
"Here's where it gets even more bizarre. According to Heritage, under the reconciliation bill, if Company A lays off an employee with a working spouse, this could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse's employer, unless Company B also lays off the other spouse.
"We're not making this up. This byzantine legislation is a job-killer that will destroy small business, the major creator of new jobs. Some 77,000 businesses in the U.S. have 50 to 200 workers that could face the $2,000-per-employee tax penalty. An additional 116,000 businesses have 35 to 49 workers.
"This nonsense will stunt economic growth and worsen the economic downturn by actually providing financial incentives to not hire people. It's not worth the trouble. Businesses that might have expanded will stop at 49 employees. Those already considered a "large" business will face a minefield of taxes and penalties due in some cases to events beyond their control.
"The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy. As we have said, this is not about health care. This is about power and the redistribution of wealth. And the IRS will be making a list and checking it twice to see who's being naughty and who's being nice."
-----
It's not about providing health insurance. It's about behavior modification through direct gubmint control of one sixth of the economy and indirect control of much of the rest through the associated tax policy. It's about socialism.
Can we get Jimmy Carter back?
Saw some troll on the idiot box this morning doing his best to look like a servile bitch (I think he'd actually like that label) on The Today Show, talking about how great the new food adn restaurant standards will be for everyone.
I'd really like to have that Force-choke thing down cold. It would have been useful, there.
"Where is my country, and what have they done to it?"
We were unable to hold on to a Republic, so we are going back to what has been the standard living conditions for most of mankind's history: slavery under a ruling class. Welcome to the lowest common denominator government: might makes right.
That's why we kept the guns. If it comes to that....let's see how much might the gun owners of America can project.
Against whom to accomplish what?
As another blogger is fond of remarking, let's see if they're willing to fight to the last bureaucrat or Congressman. We won't bother with the foot soldiers.
[snore] more of that brave 3%er talk I guess.
Not sure. It's about still having the option at this point. As long as we have the guns, we retain the ability to reroll....which I am well aware is about the riskiest thing ever. Historically I think when we talk about violent uprisings, and there have been many, there's only one that had a good result overall. Of course, that one was also led by Americans. We are an exceptional people. It's a last resort, but it is on the table.
I know the same war is never fought twice.
Our guns only provide a pause, what will stop them from passing an anti gun bill? Or an amendment to the Health Care monster? Or by withholding health care to force people to turn in guns and ammo? Or just to rat out others?
(testing the email reply capability)
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 11:19 PM, JS-Kit.com Comments
wrote:
But, but, but, he's a PRO GUN PRESIDENT.
You need only refer to our very own Constitutional Expert! (The
President is in charge of the Federal Government and tells the States
what to Do!)
Seven big questions:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/25/jon-kraushar-obamacare-questions-medicare-congress-white-house/
That's comedy gold, that is.
Only Marky would decide that you can "fearmonger" people's positions by quoting them.
"Where is my country, and what have they done to it?"
I and others were asking that question 15 years ago. Some were asking it in the 1930s before my parents were born. But that's not the question anymore, or rather, it's not the operative question. The question is; how do we get our country back? Let’s stop acting confused and bewildered, stop asking where the country went, and start planning solutions. The country went to the dogs and it no longer matters much how or when. What matters is how we're going to fix it.
Where is your country and what have they done with it?
It is located within the maximum effective range of your battle rifle, as modified by the limits of your marksmanship and teh accuracy of your zero. Defined as such, they have done nothing to it.
Freeedom is never granted by a government - it is seized and defended.
Well, looky, looky who's congratulating Obama on passing the Socialist Healthcare Takeover: Castro:
"Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."
…
And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.
"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote."
Perfect! Now we can have health care Just Like Cuba's! Oh goody! *DONT_KNOW*
When the enemies of freedom are celebrating, something is really wrong.
President Obama is a Constitutional scholar and you are an engineer.
That does not preclude Kevin from being a Constitutional Scholar.
It doesn't preclude Obama from being one (Though he was merely a lecturer, immediately after graduating law school, with no experience.) In other words, he was basically a senior, lecturing freshman.
But that, by itself, does not disqualify Obama.
Except to you, because you insist on accreditation only when you think you can score points with it, the formal "scholarship" is not a defining characteristic. Shit, most of those at the CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION weren't LAWYERS.
So the question is, who has a better grasp of the material?
And who is fit to judge?
You, who claimed, before running away in ignominious (and ubiquitous) defeat : "the federal government, of which he is in charge, has let states decide their various gun issues."
You proved with that that you're not fit to judge a 9th grade debate on the Constitution.
And you know more than he does about the Constitution? By that logic, I know more than you do about engineering.
BY THAT "LOGIC", yes.
But, you see, that's not truely logic. As usual, you know not what the hell you spew.
By real logic - let's see you demonstrate knowledge of engineering.
It's not really HARD TO DEMONSTRATE. If you, in fact, understand it.
ECHO IS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF SHIT EVER WRITTEN. MARK COULD WRITE A BETTER COMMENTING SYSTEM - AND HE'S AN IDIOT.
////
(I filed a bug report. They reported it as "answered". DESPITE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A MAJOR BUG IN THEIR "COUNTING".)
Prior to this rant? 3287 characters. In total. In this text. Echo thinks it's over 5000. Because they're fucking idiots who can't program, but want to make it rich.)
Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point.
Only if you don't understand the issues. To us, it's the defining point.
This demonstrates that you in fact cannot begin to understand our objections, our concerns, and you're lying when you say you understand.
No natural right places an obligation on anyone else. We've discussed this before. Many times.
Why is auto insurance mandatory?
It's not. There is no requirement for you to purchase auto insurance.
Because it protects other people. Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory? I remember when it wasn't. Now that it is, I pay about a third of what I used to pay because the pool of risk has now grown.
Back this up. With verifiable facts. (And in case you didn't notice, at 42, you're in a different actuarial pool than you are at 18. How much is someone willing to bet me Mark doesn't understand that?)
You're not old enough to have driven before mandatory insurance, unless you can prove that up there it wasn't required until a few years ago. I'm only a couple of years younger than you, and my insurance has only dropped when my pool changed to a lower risk one.
Oh, and if I go get 10 DUIs, and wreck my car a bunch, I don't have a right to auto insurance, and if I can find it at all, it will be very expensive. (You call this "unfair".)
(And in case you didn't notice, at 42, you're in a different actuarial pool than you are at 18. How much is someone willing to bet me Mark doesn't understand that?)
Well, his boyfriend, the Smartest Constitutional Scholar in the History of All Constitutional Scholarin', apparently by his own admission didn't (and still doesn't) know the difference between liability and collision coverage.
Ken:
Yep, I'd forgotten about that gem.
But I'm sure it just demonstrates how those insurance industry doesn't understand "good capitalism"... rather than a failing of The One.
"MARK COULD WRITE A BETTER COMMENTING SYSTEM - AND HE'S AN IDIOT."
Fascinating.
Programming is an exercise in Applied Logic. Given Marxaphasia's allergy to logic, such software should be
Given Marxaphasia's allergy to logic, such software should be.
Yep. Which is pretty much how things are in the "support forums". Hell, they've outsourced those to *another company with a commenting system*.
I kid you not. Which, by the way, works better.
They have -no- bug reporting mechanism. And keep moving reports of problems into the same few threads (which only keep the last 15 comments).
And when I try and report them they say "The developers might consider implementing that feature...." - which is Marky for "blue is green".
This commenting system sucks. Later on, I'll assert that water is wet.
(after the 2nd half - 2014 characters, Echo thinks it's more than 5000 and disallows.)
(Fucking idiots.)
Even the way the system is set up right now, if Joe Smith doesn't have health insurance, gets sick, and puts a drag on the system, that affects you and I--specifically our rates.
Only if he doesn't pay his bills.
I've had times when I had no health insurance, got sick, and had to pay for it.
Many people have. You're presuming that Joe Smith (presumably, (D)), will abscond on his bills.
It's terribly difficult to talk to you about stuff like this because I know I'm just going to end up bouncing off the cocoon.
"The cocoon"? That's what you're calling you lack of grounding in reality, history, economics, the English language, the US Government?
When a private company mandates something, it's just fine. Why? Because you live in a fantasy world in which you have led yourself to believe that we have choices when we honestly don't.
Because the private company CANNOT MANDATE SOMETHING.
Unless they're given that power BY THE GOVERNMENT.
This isn't the first time that's been explained to you - and your slack-jawed grinning about your power company UNDER A DIRECT FEDERAL LAW (aimed to protect you) inspecting your equipment doesn't prove you right. You never, not once, dealt with the fact that your great stroke to prove us wrong, proved you were a idiot.
You would see this if you weren't so set in your ways against government.
It's not government we're against, Mark. You have to have government. This why we created a government that was LIMITED IN WHAT POWERS IT HAD.
We're set in our ways, because slack-jawed grinning fools like you ignore all the proof, the history, and HUMAN FUCKING NATURE (Which the Constitutional Conventioners understood very clearly) and insist on giving them powers they are specifically disallowed.
If insurance companies and the health care industry hadn't behaved in the way they have for the last 40 years, the goverment would not have had to step in.
Behaved.. How? Providing you lifesaving measures, drugs, therapies? Yeah, Those fucking bastards.
Health care industry != health insurance != health care. None of those things are equivalent. In what bleeping part of the Constitution does it say the Federal Government can muck around with any of that?
Marxy, go away. I'm too sick about this mess to have to deal with your troll droppings too.
Rigid conformity is being enforced, no dissent is allowed, and the conservative brain will slowly shrivel into dementia if it hasn't already.
As is usual for you, you mistake factual correctness for "conformity".
And us for "conservatives", but that's hopeless for you.
You might want to (*HA*) Keep reading into the comments. A quick scan of your link doesn't explode my head - or my concept of your thought process.
To follow up, tea partiers were asked how much they think a typical family making $50,000 per year pays in federal income taxes. The average response was $12,710 and the median was $10,000. In percentage terms, this means a tax burden of between 20% and 25% of income. Of course, it's hard to know what any particular individual or family pays in taxes, but according to the IRS tax tables, a single person with $50,000 in taxable income last year would owe $8,694 in federal income taxes, and a married couple filing jointly would owe $6,669. But these numbers are high because to have a taxable income of $50,000, one's gross income would be higher by at least the personal exemption, which is $3,650, and the standard deduction, which is $5,700 for single people and $11,400 for married couples. Owning a home or having children would reduce one's tax burden further. According to calculations by the Joint Committee on Taxation, a congressional committee, tax filers with adjusted gross incomes between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average federal income tax burden of just 1.7%. Those with adjusted gross incomes between $50,000 and $75,000 have an average burden of 4.2%. Even though the tea partiers were specifically asked about federal income taxes, it's possible that they were thinking about other federal taxes as well, such as payroll and excise taxes. According to the JCT, when all federal taxes are included, those earning between $40,000 and $50,000 have an average tax rate of 12.3%, and those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay a rate of 14.5%.
I can assure you, my tax burden is MUCH higher than 5 fucking percent, Mark.
I think it's entirely possible those Tea Partiers KNEW HOW MUCH THEY WERE PAYING. Which your correspondent did not. Notice he didn't ask for THEIR tax status - he asked for "averages" and "guesses".
I've got *my* W-2 right here that ridicules your ridicule. Quick math shows I'm paying well above 20%. And no, I don't make that "much money".
But then, that's reality.
This comedy is almost diagnostic. Marxy holds Obama's tenuous credentials as a "constitutional scholar" to have more authority than engaging in a simple ninth grade civics exercise in reading and reason for himself.
And yet, when it comes to Constitutional analysis, he's the one capable of "critical thought", and we're the ones "too biased" to "think critically at all".
The Biggest Lie of our age is that many of the powers the Federal Government routinely wields are consistent with our Lockean Constitutional scheme of finite, enumerated Powers to be wielded for specific purpose.
Rejecting that premise doesn't take great mental gymnastics. What it takes is a slight dose of 5th/9th grade civics, (what used to pass for) standard reading comprehension, a basic ability to reason, evaluating statements and comparing one for consistency with another, and a healthy serving of intellectual integrity and courage to accept the results.
Big Lies take root when a significant portion of the populace no longer perform these required acts for themselves.
21st century America has proven a fertile garden for Big Lies.
That is why I'm fixin' to jine up with the secesh....
Markadelphia ... still "Stuck on Stupid".
Y'know, that could imply that he has another setting.
Seg fault?
Something about that... reminded me of the Reformation. If you'll forgive the simplified summary, the Reformation formed after various Christians held the notion that the Pope did not have more authority over the Bible and Christianity than those who simply read the Bible for themselves.
Why, it's almost like arguments between those who respect authority over reason and those who respect reason over authority are a natural part of humanity. But of course, if that were so, we would be flawed, with no hope of reaching perfection.
I think I've heard that argument somewhere before as well. It's almost like the same things keep happening over and over. Repeating, you could say.
21st century America has proven a fertile garden for Big Lies.
Given the amount of, um... "compost" we've gotten, would you expect anything else?
The stupidity continues ...
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/26/obama-to-banks-start-cutting-mortgage-payments-or-else/
"The Obama administration plans to overhaul how it is tackling the foreclosure crisis, in part by requiring lenders to temporarily slash or eliminate monthly mortgage payments for many borrowers who are unemployed, senior officials said Thursday."
Now, what is the word for control of the economy by gubmint? Oh, yeah: Socialism.
Now, who is gonna do more of such control? Oh, yeah: Obamateur.
"...Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point. Why is auto insurance mandatory? Because it protects other people. Do you think that auto insurance should be mandatory?..."
1) No, it's not moot.
2) Auto insurance is mandatory because the Government got its nose in on something it shouldn't have. Get it right, assclown!
3) No, I don't...but you take a substantial risk of having your life owned by someone else if you fuck up. Again, assclown, get your shit straight.
What a dumbfuck!
"The stupidity continues ... "
You have no idea the extent of this. My wife is working right now on this Mortgage program and she is dumbfounded at what irresponsible people are getting. Not responsible people, mind you, but people who just decide they don't want to pay any more or feel like gaming the dupes in Washington.
One guy stopped paying his mortgage two years ago because his house was worth less than he paid. He now is getting the government to force the banks to wipe out 30% of his principal, lower the interest rates to a floor of 2%, and/or extend the payments out to 40 years all mandated by the government to keep people in their house. This is one example of hundreds, if not thousands of examples of taxpayers and private companies being forced into servitude of the irresponsible and ignorant.
What about those that pay on time, every month, and keep the banks solvent? NOTHING but HIGHER TAXES. !#$%
Let me see if I understand you correctly, Ed.
You are learning from Obama. When he says "Let me be clear" - he's about to lie.
When you say "Let me see if I understand you correctly", you're about to -intentionally- misinterpret the facts and set a strawman on fire.
Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies?
Strawman, and we've explained this to you before - when Obama took over GM and Chrysler, shafting the creditors and enriching the unions.
Why are you incapable of learning from your previous mistakes?
Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
Yes. They do. They've done so for quite some time.
They did so before this bill, and they do so even more now.
Go try and make some aspirin and sell it. Or morphine. Yes, they control production and they control distribution. They have many laws and regulations already.
But even that stupidity of yours aside, the bill in theory was about insurance. Paying for the healthcare. Did you forget that?
Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves?
Demonstrated this how? Please illustrate this "quite clearly".
You know...two quotes always spring into my head when I see Markadelphia appear in a thread (hey that ryhmes!)
Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.-Ronald Reagan“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”-Winston Churchill
"When you say that the government has "taken over" health care, what exactly do you mean? Am I to understand that the US government is now the owner of all insurance companies, HMOs, hosptials, Pharmaceuticals, and health care device companies? Are you saying that they now control production and distribution of all of these private industries?
Or are they simply now regulating an industry that has demonstrated quite clearly that they can't regulate themselves? Or is it something in between?"
Nope, not gonna answer your straw man questions. (See also the Plurium Interrogationum fallacy.) At least, not until you answer MY single question which you have been avoiding:
WHERE is the power "delegated to" the Federal Government (10th Amendment) to take over health care enumerated in the U.S. Constitution?
For purposes of answering this question, you may limit yourself to the better known portions of the law:
- The requirement for everyone to purchase health insurance.
- The takeover of student loans (except for the Ben Nelson carveout).
- Telling insurance companies who they must cover.
- Telling insurance companies how much they can charge.
- Whatever the $930 BILLION (or more) is to be spent on.
There's more, but this should do for now.
I don't agree with your logic in the question, Ed. The government hasn't "taken over" health care. It illustrates and actively encourages a warped view of our government that lends itself to overly emotional and midly to extreme paranoid thought.
Now, if the government had signed a bill that said that the US government was now going to own all stakes in all insurance agencies, HMOs, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical device companies then we would be able to talk about where this is detailed in the Constitution or is not.
Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind. Actually, Ed's interpretation of the Constitution begs a question:
Why is that the same people that misinterpret the Constitution completely fail at interpreting the Bible?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, ImpostsExcises shall be uniform throughout the United States; and
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Rather than "interpreting the Constitution", why don't you just detail which of the "three sentences" of "Section 8" (by which I assume you mean Article 1 Section 8) that are causing so much concern.
It can't be "Regulation of Commerce"; Insurance doesn't cross State lines.
While you're at it, highlight the line that gives Congress the power to mandate insurance.
"Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
Which sentences, troll boy? Now, be specific. No one can read your tiny mind.
"I don't agree with your logic in the question, Ed. The government hasn't "taken over" health care."
I SAID you could stick to the better known provisions in answering my question. Whether it was total ownership or just simply telling everyone what they can or cannot do is irrelevant to the question at hand. (And if you insist on your rabbit trail, what area of health care does the federal government NOT tell people what to do?)
"Why is that the same people that misinterpret the Constitution completely fail at interpreting the Bible?"
Says the guy who made the ridiculous claim that the Bible doesn't condemn pre-marital sex. Says the guy who can't even correctly interpret what we write, even when we try to correct his misreading. (See the first part of my reply for a perfect example.) Says the guy who doesn't even know the meanings of simple words like verbatim, cult, fallacy, etc.
"I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
Again, I marvel at the irony of the guy with the Ultimate Blind Spot For Facts He Doesn't Like accusing ME of ignoring things! Ever heard of Psychological Projection, Vizzini?
Three sentences?!? Now I'm really curious. I knew you would claim the same phrase you leftists have been abusing for decades. But even after a close rereading of Section 8, I still don't see another two sentences that come anywhere close to giving the federal government the powers they just claimed in this bill.
But let's take at the main sentence I presume you're talking about from section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
(BTW… Despite your wild-eyed claim that I've redacted this sentence from my mind, only 4 frikkin' days ago I replied to a comment by Unix-Jedi where he pointed out that the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, John Conyers (D) had misquoted this sentence. My response included this full and correct quote, as well as the quotation I'm about to slap you with. IF I had actually "redacted" this sentence from my mind, how would that be possible???)
Now, if you could, could you explain exactly HOW this sentence gives an unlisted power to the federal government? And while you're doing so, keep this quotation in mind:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison
BTW, Oh Redacted One, I KNOW you've seen this quotation before, because I've. Posted. It. In. The. Comments. Of. Your. Own. Frikkin'. BLOG!!!
(frikkin' js-kit counts as well as Marxy!!! continuing on…)
And in case you're having trouble remembering who James Madison is:
"The "Father of the Constitution," he was the principal author of the document. In 1788, he wrote over a third of the Federalist Papers, still the most influential commentary on the Constitution. The first president to have served in the United States Congress, he was a leader in the 1st United States Congress, drafting many basic laws, and was responsible for the first ten amendments to the Constitution (said to be based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights) and thus is also known as the "Father of the Bill of Rights"."
Hmmm… do you suppose the "principle author" of the Constitution knows a thing or two about what it might mean?
Speaking of the Bill of Rights, they are also part of the Constitution and may not be legitimately ignored:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
—10th Amendment to the Constitution
So, where, EXACTLY, are the powers claimed in this health care, um, Thing "delegated to the United States by the Constitution"? What sentence(s)? Verbatim? And WHY do they apply?
"The government hasn't "taken over" health care."
No, it hasn't "taken over health care". It will not provide health care, rather it will regulate, tax, and penalize those who provide health care.
What the feddle gubmint has done is pass a bill that gives the feddle gubmint a huge degree of control over the health care industry. It will exercise this control by requiring health care providers to comply with new rules, new regulations, and the decrees of new bureaucracies. It will enforce this control over health care providers via levying taxes and assessing penalties thereon. This does not provide care for anyone, but it requires that any care that is provided comply with the feddle gubmints new authority.
Teacher boy, for a long time, you have been championing the cause of what the feddle gubmint has now done. Why do you, yet again, raise up a straw man to argue that it hasn't done what it has done? Why are you not telling us what a good thing you think this is instead of telling us that it isn't what it isn't?
You fool no one, cult boy.
Pony!
Come to think of it, why should I answer your questions when there's another one of my questions which you keep ignoring (#1):
"Ed, so what if he wants it?"
Here are your own words:
"But not for the Cult. Oh no. If they say it, then (poof! like magic), it is now true."
…
"I explained to her that there is no public option in the bill. She informed that it's coming next. I reiterated how that it is not in the bill. It didn't matter...it was still coming…"
In other words, you called her crazy for thinking that getting single-payer is one of Obama's goals. I showed you proof that Obama does in fact want a single-payer system.
The "so what" is that she was right and you are wrong! Are you finally willing to admit that?
Whether or not health care is "right" is a moot point.
Waitwaitwaitwait..... are you actually trying to tell me that whether or not one citizen has the "right" to demand access to the knowledge and labor of another, even if he cannot (or simply refuses to) compensate him/her for the use of said knowledge and labor, is a moot point?
"Waitwaitwaitwait..... are you actually trying to tell me that whether or not one citizen has the "right" to demand access to the knowledge and labor of another, even if he cannot (or simply refuses to) compensate him/her for the use of said knowledge and labor, is a moot point?"
Why, sure it's moot, Grumpy, IF the gubmint controls access to the knowledge and labor of another, y'know, the economy. What's the word for that again?
Whatever it is, it's not "fascism." Marxaphasia said so!
Wait! What are you doing? No, don't check the dictionary! It's wrong! Marxy is the one who's right! Marxy is always right! What do you mean the dictionary disagrees? Who are you going to believe? Marxy? Or the dictionary?
Wait! Where are you going? Don't leave! Come back!
::grumbling:: … … stupid, uh, um, ah… Cultist!…
Waitwaitwaitwait..... are you actually trying to tell me that whether or not one citizen has the "right" to demand access to the knowledge and labor of another, even if he cannot (or simply refuses to) compensate him/her for the use of said knowledge and labor, is a moot point?
Grumpy: don't try and do that. Remember, he's defeated all of us, including LabRat, and proven that mortgage and jobs are _slavery_.
Don't try and revisit that again. It's mooted. He said so.
"Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
Classic, Mark.
You *could* explain what you mean. Be clear, concise, and define what you mean.
But you won't. On purpose. You'll sneer, and throw something around, "I suggest you review.." and then run away.
Because when you try, you know you fail. Like your callout on corporations - where you cited their horrible abuse - *at the behest of the government*. And claimed it proved your point, not ours, about government power.
You stick to glittering generalities, because you know you don't have the facts. You don't the honesty. Just like as above, you can demonstrate competence and understanding in Engineering. Even you. If you do it. But you can't say "refer to static load bearing..." or "refer to a chapter on resistance..."
The government hasn't "taken over" health care.
They've levied massive new taxes on health care items. They've mandated procedures, payments - and yes, via payments, they *have* "taken over". In large extent. Possibly, not totally - but that doesn't support what serves you for "logic".
US government was now going to own all stakes in all insurance agencies, HMOs, hospitals, pharmaceuticals and medical device companies then we would be able to talk about where this is detailed in the Constitution or is not.
Did you duck when that went over your head? We could have the "detailed in the Constitution" - which you're ducking - no matter what.
You don't get to choose what's legitimate to discuss or debate, especially when you've got the track record of dishonesty that you do.
But even then, it's very telling that according to you, ONLY 100% GOVERNMENT CONFISCATION IS REVIEWABLE...
(and you'd move the goalposts even if that happened.)
Why is that the same people that misinterpret the Constitution completely fail at interpreting the Bible?
I don't know - why do you? You're the one who's been spanked Biblically here more than once - and then came back and repeated the argument that you had previously admitted had been totally incorrect.
You're the one who's claimed the President is "in charge of the Federal Government" and "lets the states" do or not do things.
What was that again, Marxaphasia?
U-J,
To be fair, Marxy hasn't reasserted the claim that he admitted was wrong about. At least, not that I know of. He has made additional wild claims, but not that one.
He did make a comment recently which sort of implied that he still thinks there's nothing wrong with pre-marital sex, but (apparently) he no longer claims the Bible agrees with him on this point.
Correction:
Marxy hasn't reasserted the claim that he admitted HE was wrong about.
Ed:
I'll defer to your interpretation, then, I'd understood that you'd called him out for that.
That being said and corrected, I'll still assert that he's by no means demonstrated an ability to interpret the Bible canonically and use it in argument. And even if he didn't, his statement would still indict him more strongly than anybody else.
That he made the claim in the first place and then argued so vociferously against it is what "indict[s] him more strongly than anybody else." Heck, even you heathen ;) didn't have any problem understanding the concept of "there's a list of sins; it's on the list". You just disagree that the Bible is authoritative, which is far more reasonable than denying what's in clear language in writing. So yes, I was referring to that because I'm hoping that because of that particular instance (misreading something which was crystal clear, seeing how he imposed his own desires, and can now see that he had), he'll more clearly understand why his credibility on this issue is non-existent and do something about it.
I just don't want to beat him up for doing the right thing in admitting his error, because that was progress, and I don't want to be the reason why he doesn't make any more improvements.
...he'll more clearly understand why his credibility on this issue is non-existent and do something about it.
And tomorrow morning I shall dine on juicy, crispy bacon that is as light as a feather because it came from my herd of flying pigs. It will be healthy too!
Why can't we hope for change too? :-P
I just don't want to beat him up for doing the right thing in admitting his error, because that was progress, and I don't want to be the reason why he doesn't make any more improvements.
A fine sentiment. But you know better.
Heck, even you heathen
Wait, does that toss me out of "The Base?" I forget what's Marky's "definition" this week....
"and I don't want to be the reason why he doesn't make any more improvements. "
No, there are many, many other reasons why...
Guys, why do you let Marxy eel around on slippery stuff like "redacted three lines", which implies a position, but doesn't actually take one?
Make him state which 3 lines, and what he thinks they mean, and why he believes they enable the stuff he wants.
(And when he reaches for the general welfare clause, like every damned sloppy statist in the house, beat him thoroughly with Federalist #41)
What is that saying again about flagellating deceased equines?
Or someone could beat you thoroughly with #84, geek. We can go down that path if you like but something tells me that you won't like it all that much.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
Which part?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_Federalist_No_84_about
Here's a nice, short piece. It only took me an extra three seconds to find it. A quick summary:
Federalist No. 84, written by Alexander Hamilton and the second to last essay, is significant for mentioning a common issue dredged up by Anti Federalists -- there wasn't a Bill of Rights. Publius (who in this essay was Hamilton) wrote that a Bill of Rights really was unnecessary. He worried that if a Bill of Rights was written it would be perceived to be the ONLY rights people had where in actuality they would have much more. This worry was assuaged with the ninth amendment, which means that any right not explained in the Constitution is still a right of the people.
Unless I'm mistaken, #84 points out the importance of the 9th Amendment, and the limitations placed on the Federal Government, stating that the Feds have only the powers that they've been allowed to have.
So, how does that "beat thoroughly" a claim that the general welfare clause does not allow Congress to do anything it wants?
Or someone could beat you thoroughly with #84, geek.
Not you, I presume. Since you would if you could.
We can go down that path if you like but something tells me that you won't like it all that much.
Oh, I would, And I'm sure Ed, and DJ, and Kevin, and Sarah and the geek would.
So go down that path. Go on. nut up, sack boy. This is your challenge.
You've laid it down. Not back it up, Nut it up. have the balls to back up your big words.
Sucking it up, manning up, and doing it for the first time will be empowering.
Instead of trying to call people out, indirectly, and without, you know, actually demonstrating conclusively that they're wrong. Verbatim.
What I have learned about racism from Markadelphia:
1. If a white conservative says anything unpleasant about a nonwhite liberal, it's racism. And thus it is front page news and should be shouted from the housetops. This remains true no matter whether it was both completely justified and has nothing to do with race at all (Joe Wilson calling someone a liar when he caught him in a lie), has no slightest bit of independent evidence to back up the accusation (racist remarks at Congressmen, despite an offer of $10,000 for such evidence), or even if it was proven to be a complete and utter fabrication (the census worker "murdered because of hatred of a black President, the "armed white racist" at an Arizona town hall meeting.)
2. Liberals are never racist, or if they are it's not important enough to matter. This holds true even if there is unequivocal evidence of them refusing to obey the law when it conflicts with their racial preferences (Sonia Sotomayor, Eric Holder, ACORN) or fabricating from whole cloth an accusation for the specific purpose of fomenting racial hatred (the census worker "murdered because of hatred of a black President, the "armed white racist" at an Arizona town hall meeting.)
3. If it is at all possible for it to be taken as an epithet, it is racist for a white conservative to call a nonwhite liberal something, even if their friends, supporters and allies call them that, and even if they refer to themselves by the same label. Thus it is okay for Van Jones to call himself a communist, but it is racist for a white conservative to call him one. It is okay for Al Sharpton to call Obama a socialist, but it is racist for a white conservative to call him one.
4. If the liberal in question is white (or if remarks about "playing the race card" make it unadvisable), substitute "hate speech" or "fearmongering" for "racism" and all else remains the same. Thus for William Ayers to call himself a communist is courageous, but for a conservative to call him one is hate speech. For Barack Obama to call himself a supporter of single-payer is good, but for a conservative to call him a supporter of single-payer is fearmongering.
5. Racism in liberals, assuming you can get an admission of its existence at all, is unimportant because "everyone is racist". However, while "everyone is racist" is sufficient excuse for any liberal, even at the highest levels of government, it is not sufficient excuse for a random allegedly conservative voice in a crowd that cannot even be verified as other than purely fictional.
Thank you, Mark. I think I can say with complete honesty and sincerity that I don't think I would have learned these things from anyone else I know.
Some animals are just more equal than others, that is all.
Oh and I mustn't forget this one:
6. If a conservative sees racism in a liberal and calls it what it is, that is a "Rovian tactic". In other words, it is an indictment of the conservative, not the racist.
I bet you got some serious warm fuzzies when you thought that one up, Mark.
Does the command, "Hand over your papers!" ring a bell? No? Well, go see this:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/03/025940.php
The background is that AT&T announced, after the bill was signed into law, that it will record a $1 BILLION non-cash expense in the first quarter to begin complying with the new law and "will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health care benefits offered by the company."
The Dimocrats who passed the health care bill apparently don't like those who have to comply with it saying bad things about it. For example, Henry Waxman and Bart Stupak have sent a letter to the Chairman of AT&T. The letter speaks for itself. You can find both pages of it at:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2010/03/ATTpageone.php
and
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/assets_c/2010/03/ATTPagetwo.php
It states, in part:
"The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern. They also appear to conflict with independent analyses. The Congressional Budget Office has reported that companies that insure more than 50 employees would see a decrease of up to 3% in average premium costs by 2016. The Business Roundable, an associationi of chief executive officers from leading U.S. companies, asserted in November 2009 that health care reform could reduce predicted health insurance costs for business by more than $3,000 per employee over the next ten years.
"The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will hold a hearing on April 21, 1010, at 10:00 in Room 2113 of the Rayburn House Office Building to examine the impact of the new law on AT&% and other large employers. We request your personal testimony at this hearing.
"To assist the Committee with its preparations for the hearing, we request that you provide the following documents ..."
The question that comes immediately to mind is, "What? You congressweasels didn't consider the impact of the proposed new law on large employers before voting on it?"
No, of course they didn't. Said impact was of no concern. In the beginning, the idea was to pass it without having any time to read it, and this mindset continued all through the process. Y'see, it didn't matter what was in it.
This letter to AT&T can be translated as:
"You claim that reality differs from our predictions. You will hand over everything you have which documents this claim, then you will appear before the committee and justify it."
The presumption is that the predictions of the Dimocrats are correct and reality is not. The fallacy is plain to see.
The heavy hand of gubmint is thus being felt already. Watch the hearings when they happen, and then read the MSM coverage about it. See if the meeting is about "examine the impact of the new law on ... large employers" or about squashing dissent.
"You claim that reality differs from our predictions. You will hand over everything you have which documents this claim, then you will appear before the committee and justify it."
That's not really what it's saying. it's more basic than that. "You shalt not embarrass us by publicly detailing how much this will cost before the 2010 elections. Come forward and be caned."
They didn't expect it to lower costs, not a single congressweasel did. They just expected that they'd have time to cement it into law and hire all the bureaucracy before the true costs were discovered. This is an attempt to browbeat everybody else into being quiet about it.
See, AT&T and Caterpiller and all, CANNOT NOT REPORT THIS. It is ILLEGAL FOR THEM NOT TO.
This is where Mark's mind shuts down, and cannot understand - it's fine to set up conflicting laws, and then subjectively enforce them. Report it as required by law? Persecute. Don't report it? Prosecute. Prosecute based on politics? Fine and dandy.
The Democrats didn't really think this would save money. They just really thought they'd have more time to cement it in place like the other entitlements.
If anyone does have any evidence, GOF, I doubt they would come forward with it.
... Amazing, it really is.
So if they could prove their assertions, they'd not.
You can choose to believe whatever you want to believe.
I'll stick to believing in factual information, instead of inconsistent, incoherent thoughts from someone who has repeatedly dodged hard proof to his claims.
Even if such information was brought to light, you still would believe that it was doctored/evil lies by the left/taken out of context etc.
You've been incorrect every time you've tried to characterize us. Why would you say that we would do that?
Oh, that's right. THAT'S WHAT YOU DO ALL THE TIME, and you're projecting onto us.
Until the right owns the clear and abundant racism in its base, they are completely full of shit on all matters of taking individual responsibilty.
Clear and abundant. But you can't point to any. Just wave your arms and say "It's all racism! Stop pointing to other facts! RACISTS!" You can only throw shit about individual responsibility (another concept you can't define correctly), just like on your last spew about "gay marriage" (whilst ignoring that what you were attacking was Barry Obama's stance.)
And your points below are ridiculous. I have stated many times on here that the Democrats have a much longer history of racism than the Republicans. This is an indisuputable fact.
You have.
And then you always say:
These same Democrats became Republicans after the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 and now make up the base.
Which is demonstrably bullshit. So you still fail.
Are they all racist? Of course not. But many are and it was more than just Clyburn, Lewis, and Cleaver that heard the word "nigger" being shouted at them as they walked into the Capital. Don't take their word for it. Don't take my word for it. Call up the Capital police Dept and ask them.
Most of those walking HAD VIDEO CAMERAS (in the hopes of catching a single racial epithet or something that could be construed as one). Yet they couldn't. Not one. Not. One.
Who's that who's having trouble accepting proof?
Shorter TSM Base:
"Show us the proof"
Shorter Markadelphia:
"Even if I did, you wouldn't believe it, but it's true, and I can prove it, but I won't, and you wouldn't believe it anyway, and you won't listen to proof."
TSM Base:
"So, you don't have it?"
Markadelphia:
"RACISTS!"
TSM Base:
Where's the proof of that?
Markadelphia:
"It's self-evident, and I've got it, but you wouldn't believe it, but it's true, and I can prove it, but I won't, and you wouldn't believe it anyway, and you won't listen to proof."
TSM Base:"Did you see all that undercover ACORN footage?
Markadelphia:"RACISTS! THEY EDITED IT, IT'S NOT PROOF! You can't prove anything!"
TSM Base:"It's on tape. Right there. Tada."
Markadelphia:"Wat"
TSM Base:"The man said 'Tada'"
I noticed two things here:
1) Marxy hasn't listed which 3 sentences from the Constitution delegate the powers to the FedGov which they just claimed last week. A simple enough question to answer (if true). Yet he found time to post about a much more difficult subject. Is Brave Sir Robin running away again?
2) His claim that liberals were too "scared" to produce evidence is undermined by two very simple facts:
Fact 1: Marxaphasia wasn't too scared to post video of wrongdoing by tea partiers over at his own blog. If fear was the REAL reason, he would have been too afraid to post video of such obvious misbehavior.
Fact 2: The left has NEVER been afraid to spead video of anything they've thought could make the right look bad, even if they had to distort or fake it to do so. (Michael Moore, call your office.)
1) Marxy hasn't listed which 3 sentences from the Constitution delegate the powers to the FedGov which they just claimed last week. A simple enough question to answer (if true). Yet he found time to post about a much more difficult subject. Is Brave Sir Robin running away again?
Silly Ed, facts are for stupid people!
You'd just deny those sentences if he did, you racist.
Hey now. That's Al Qaeda racist fever-swamp fascist fearmongering and redacted angry cultist to you, buddy!
:'(
You know what, it looks like I forgot about sucking on Glenn Beck's big left toe and Rush Limbaugh's vacuum cleaner while exhibiting extreme paranoia in that label. It's just getting too hard to keep track of it all.
*DONT_KNOW*
BTW, It's not like there's no video from that supposed incident that Marxy keeps referring to. For example, here's one. Nope, didn't hear "nigger" or "faggot" in this one. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it is some evidence that it probably didn't, as compared to zero evidence that it did.
Guess where I found this video? From a link posted in the comments section of Marxy's Own Blog! The Great Redacted One is apparently still ignoring what he doesn't like.
*sigh*
Ed, even you should be able to see that the VERY PRESENCE OF THE CROWD was a act of racism! They were DEFYING OBAMA.
Ergo, racism.
"Or someone could beat you thoroughly with #84, geek. We can go down that path if you like…"
Oh, please! Go for it! Please!!! This should be fascinating.
C'mon Marxaphasia! You've been talking big about what the Constitution and authors of the Constitution actually say, but I have YET to see you even summarize what they said that supports your claims, nevermind quoting anything… Verbatim.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_he_me/us_med_healthbeat_primary_care
"Health Overhaul Likely To Strain Doctor Shortage" - AP
Isn't it amazing how just a few days ago this was "fearmongering", but now it's "news"?
re: Cries of "Racist!"
I just came across this posting, and thought it was too good not to share with you guys:
"Now comes a rather dysfunctional, simplistic, blame-Americans-first counterattack: Racism, racism, racism, racism, and oh by the way, racism. Please.
"Racism" is just another word for nothing else to say.
It's a scare word employed not to communicate but to silence.
It's the reactionary recourse of minds that are empty, power that is threatened, and fear that is palpable.
It's the watchword of dysfunctional demagogues. The voice of impaired ideology. The vein-popping snarl of barking, firehose tyranny.
Those capable of shame will be ashamed of this tactic and flush it down the political toilet. Those not will continue to stink their own house and pollute the community. A course in political-cultural hygiene may be in order.
The rest of us will question authority, maintain a necessary critical distance, evaluate political propositions, and call for a revival of public service on the basis of those Constitutional-Declarational norms and content that form the rulebook of human freedom and dignity.
That's progress. That's human. That's America."
I am going to respond down here because I think we can all agree that this threading is crazy.
Before we go any further with debate on the Constitution, I want to make a point. One of the things that I have noticed about this blog (and the right in general) is that there is a collective assumption that many of you know more about the Constitution than...well...everyone. It's my understanding that many of you are engineers and not Constitutional scholars. If there are any Constitutional scholars, please come forward and let us know who you are. Although I have spent a fair part of my life studying the Constitution, I am decidely not a scholar of it. The reason why I bring all of this up is to set the scene that this is essentially an amateur debate.
In order to fully understand what I consider to be the greatest document ever written next to the Bible, years of study are required. To attempt to set oneself up as an "expert" on the Constitution simply because one says they are is an attitude loaded with arrogance and pure hubris. I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude. I will engage in a debate with anyone who uses critical thought when it comes to the Constitution and is able to have the same width of vision that the people that wrote it had.
So when we talk about the Federalist Papers, for example, we must also look at the view that the people that wrote them saw no need for a Bill of Rights...the second of which is a foundation of this blog. Of course, this does not mean that Hamilton didn't want people to have rights. His concern was if such a list were made that these would be the ONLY rights people had or would have. In addition, he wanted to limit the Constitution exclusively to the role of government and leave the rest up to the states. Jefferson countered some of this by stating that the Bill of Rights should not be exhaustive and there were many concerns that without a Bill of Rights, our government could become tyrannical.
In sum, I'll be happy to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the Constitution as long as we recognize that this is a document that has been heavily debated by scholars for years. We aren't those scholars and if this discussion is going to devolve into confirmation bias via the Constitution, then I'll have no part of it.
I for one would applaud you having no part of it.
Longwinded Reponse #11 The "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response, wherin he sets up the following outcomes:
A) If we prove our case, we're engaging in "confirmation bias". (He keeps using those words. I do no think they mean what he thinks they mean...)
B) No matter what we come up with, we're merely dabblers, for the True Intprepretation of the Constitution can Only Be Known by the Annointed Scholars, presumably like Barack.
It's also a #4, "Hey Look! A Pony!", because he still hasn't laid out his 3 line sources of authority from Section 8.
Elsewhere, he also foolishly threatens me with Federalist #84, failing to comprehend that its essence undermines his case, and supports ours.
Why do we keep gladly suffering fools?
>> I'll be happy to engage in any sort of discussion regarding the Constitution as long as we recognize that this is a document that has been heavily debated by scholars for years.
In other words, Marxy would have us subscribe to circular reasoning: Clearly, the guardianship of the Annointed Scholars would have prevented an unjust outcome that included Usurpation of Powers, therefore, despite the fevered wishes of you rabble of armchair constitutionalists, the current situation, whatever it might be, is fully correct and justified.
No, sir, they are not. 1+2= 3, and that is the number of lines we're still waiting for, and the party unfit for discussion is not found on this side of the fence.
No, geek, I never said that any of you were not smart enough to converse with me. I made it a point of stating that I am not a Constitutional scholar. Neither are any of you which, for reasons that are quite obvious, is not acceptable. As I suspected, you do not wish to engage in any serious or critical debate regarding the Constitution. Neither is anyone else as seen below. You are interested only in "proving your case." You also tell half the story...not including Jefferson's views on the Federalist Papers nor his view that the Bill of Rights were not the ONLY rights that people should have or possibly could have. Then, of course, there are the Anti-Federalist Papers which one should also consider.
Your lack of width in your vision is made quite plain in your interpretation of health care via the Constitution. At the time it was written, if someone was sick they would go to a doctor and pay them a fee. Now, it is, indeed, commerce. Before you blow a bowel, consider the vehement statements made on this blog that health care is not a right but something that should be paid for with funds. One needs to buy all sorts of things in relation to health care and these things do indeed fall under "regulate commerce among the states." This includes insurance which is purchased across state lines if one's corporation is in another state. This would also include medical devices, prescription drugs, and a whole host of services that can be categorized as interstate commerce.
Ironic that all in the various screeds on here regarding health care being something that should be "For Profit" you have proved the recent health care bill as being Constitutionally valid. It's regulating commerce and not, contrary to paranoid visions of doom, a government takeover. The commerce line would be one of the lines that Ed has redacted from his mind.
The other two being "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes" and "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States" which are objectionable, not only for health care, but for pretty much everything else that is non-military. Virtually every time I post something here, someone brings up taxes and how "the gubmint threatens me with a gun to collect taxes." And yet it is quite clear that Congress has the power to do that. They also have the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States...something else that has sparked many a fire on here.
Of course, I'm sure there must be something wrong with my eyes...similar to the "fault" that I have when I read the Bible and see that Jesus Christ wants us to help the sick and poor--going as far to say that that is how we will be judged in God's eyes...so please continue with the various personal attacks, obssessive references to my standard responses, and the pitifully sad, Rovian technique of attacking me with what is, in fact, your greatest weaknesses.
Wow. How do you live with yourself? Are you seeing a therapist? Do you have IBS? Do you smoke pot nightly? There must be some outward expression of your problem. You can't even acknowledge the words other people use. Do you have migraines? There must be something. Your brain couldn't possibly be that broken. Doublethink causes brain damage. Do you practice a religion that eulogizes the positive benefits of lying?
Greg, thank you for providing an excellent example of this:
"the pitifully sad, Rovian technique of attacking me with what is, in fact, your greatest weaknesses."
You have me wrong sir! I'm concerned for you. Anyone willing to lie to oneself with such fervor cannot be in good health. I reiterate my question: what is the outward expression of your inward trauma?
"This includes insurance which is purchased across state lines if one's corporation is in another state."
No, you blithering idiot, it doesn't. Read up on it carefully. Federal law prohibits purchasing health insurance across state lines. That's why I had to change insurance companies when I moved from New Mexico to Oklahoma.
You've been told this before, and you continue to ignore it.
The hypocrisy by such as Pelosi is extreme; they use the justification of regulating interstate commerce to regulate commerce that federal law requires to not be interstate.
Now, before you cry foul, I suggest you learn something about corporate structure, finance, and law. See what bizarre structures large insurance providers (Blue Cross, for example) have to set up to be able to offer health insurance in multiple states and still comply with this statute.
Same old shit, different day.
Teacher boy, I suggest you Google "purchase health insurance across state lines". You'll get "about 1,590,000 hits". Read into them, and then tell us how you can purchase health insurance across state lines.
See what bizarre structures large insurance providers (Blue Cross, for example) have to set up to be able to offer health insurance in multiple states and still comply with this statute.
So, I'm a blithering idiot because federal law prohibits purchasing insurance across state lines and yet you say the above. Wow. The last week and a half has really been tough on you guys, hasn't it?
"So, I'm a blithering idiot because federal law prohibits purchasing insurance across state lines and yet you say the above."
No, you're a blithering idiot because you care more for the quick response than you do for the truth. Of course, you didn't learn about the subject before mouthing off. That is precisely what I expected.
Each such insurance company sets up a separate, independent corporation in each state in which it does business, of which the parent is simply a "holding company". By law and by practice, such companies are independent and do not do business across state lines. Thus, they comply with federal law.
The whole goddamned internet is at your fingertips and you just won't use it. I even pointed the way.
Sigh ...
And you claim to be a teacher.
Oops, forgot a P.S.
My sister-in-law works for such a company, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma. It does business ONLY in Oklahoma, thus complying with Federal law.
Try another Google search, teacher boy. Type in "Blue Cross Blue Shield of" and watch as Google's type-ahead give you a choice of all the states in which there is such a company. Search for "Blue Cross Blue Shield of Oklahoma", and then choose this web site:
http://www.bcbsok.com
Click on "Comnpany Information". You'll find this, verbatim (emphasis added):
"Company Information
"Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma, a division of Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association"
Do you get it, teacher boy?
The page continues:
"Throughout its nearly 70-year history, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma (BCBSOK) has been committed to meeting the health care financing needs of Oklahomans. As the state's oldest and largest private health insurer, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma and related subsidiaries in Oklahoma provide benefit plans for more than 600,000 Oklahomans."
Do your homework, teacher boy. You'll find such a site in every state in which Blue Cross Blue Shield does business. Each is independent of the others. Each works in only one state and does not sell health insurance across state lines. It's against federal law to do so, and they don't.
Do you get it now? Can you admit you were wrong?
Hah. I crack me up.
Yo, teacher boy.
Yeah, you.
Do you get it now?
Do you understand that companies which sell health insurance are prohibited from selling it across state lines?
Do you understand that selling health insurance within a state is not interstate commerce?
Or is your sack a bit tight today?
So, I'm a blithering idiot because federal law prohibits purchasing insurance across state lines and yet you say the above. Wow.
No, that's hardly the cause.
I'd fisk what you said. But DJ already did. I'll just point out that again, you've stated that wet streets cause rain.
And then laughed at us for demonstrating meteorologically how rain falls, and asked us if we realize how "desperate" we sound.
I've not seen projection like this since they shut down the drive-in movie theaters.
Aaaaaaand....
Marxy fails. Pretty weak tea, at that.
I never said that those rights listed in the Bill of Rights were the only rights the people had. I have always firmly stated that our political milleau is one of a government of finite, enumerated powers, and our people of expansive rights, both enumerated and not.
The existence of unenumerated rights is insufficient to demonstrate that one has a right to draw on public funds for health care.
So, as to Marxy's three lines:
1) The Commerce Clause: Fail, fail, fail. Why and how the Commerce Clause was abused via FDR's court and Wickard v. Filburn to include any topic that could possibly be deemed "interstate commerce" is discussed at length elsewhere, I'm not rehashing all that. The premise is false, a modern invention of statists, serving statist schemes. Furthermore, "to regulate" means to make regular, as in form or structure. It does not mean, "to dictate the terms and parties of a transaction".
2) "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes" and
3) "To borrow Money on the credit of the United States"
It's interesting that Marxy groups these together, but the long and the short of it is that both of these powers are provided so that the fedgov may pursue those purposes enumerated elsewhere in the document, for example the running of the postal and patent system. It is not carte blanche for the government to raise taxes or borrow money for any damned thing they please, or to invent new powers for themselves. If we accept the premise that lines 2 & 3 form the basis of legitimacy for the invention of new powers, then perhaps it would be feasible to use an exercise in majoritarian democracy to justify taxes for public funding for personal (and mandatory!) yachts.
In that view, this transaction would be valid:
I want a yacht. It's my (unenumerated) right to have a yacht. And if I can convince 50%+1 of my polity to vote thusly, it would be just hunky dory to use the power of government to fleece the productive members of my society for the purpose of providing me with a yacht.
Hell no.
1) The Commerce Clause: Fail, fail, fail. Why and how the Commerce Clause was abused via FDR's court and Wickard v. Filburn to include any topic that could possibly be deemed "interstate commerce" is discussed at length elsewhere, I'm not rehashing all that. The premise is false, a modern invention of statists, serving statist schemes.
Indeed. To paraphrase Alan Gura: The State States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.
The Court may have ruled otherwise; the Court was out to lunch. QED (based on the original public meaning of the words).
Furthermore, "to regulate" means to make regular, as in form or structure.
Again, exactly. In addition, Randy Barnett (who is a Constitutional scholar, by profession as well as by interest) has demonstrated that the publicly understood meaning of the term "commerce" at the time of the drafting and ratification of the Constitution did not encompass agriculture, mining, or manufactures. Commerce is trade, and trade alone.
Likewise, the commerce clause cannot legitimately be contorted to encompass insurance services on the grounds that insurance is not agriculture, mining, or manufacturing. Professional services (such as law) were not unknown in the Founders' time; had they intended Congress to have the power to micromanage the content of professional services, they would have enumerated a power to do so.
Statists serving statist schemes...well, I guess I have my answer on the subject of "Critical Thinking and the US Constitution."
"... well, I guess I have my answer on the subject of "Critical Thinking and the US Constitution.""
He writes, even as, yet again, he ignores the many questions asked of him.
Yet again, hypocrisy boy, we see your Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response.
Yet again, hypocrisy boy, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response.
Yet again, hypocrisy boy, we see your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response.
Yet again, hypocrisy boy, we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response.
Yet again, you fool no one, cult boy.
>>Statists serving statist schemes...well, I guess I have my answer on the subject of "Critical Thinking and the US Constitution."
So...that's the Great and Vast Critical Thinker's big rebuttal?
I think we're done here.
Sayonara, Sir Robin.
Who says we suffer him, gladly or otherwise? I'm just here to point and laugh.
Oh you worthless little shite.
The Constitution of the United States is a breathtakingly simple document. It is a simple listing of the powers entrusted to the federal government. It was designed to be read and understood by everyone, which was one of the revolutionary things about the American Revolution: not only would the rules be written down, but they would be simple enough that everyone could read them and understand them.
This "you're a peasant, you couldn't possibly understand it, leave it to the experts" attitude, that is what you will burn in %Negative Afterlife Location for teaching our children Mark. America was always about the assumption that every man was capable of living his life, that every man was competent. See our gracious hosts own piece "That Sumbitch Hasn't Been Born". I have no master, I don't want one, and I'm not impressed by Constitutional scholars whose idea of scholarship is making up things that aren't there.
Britt,
Were you thinking of this verse, cause you sure reminded me of it!
"He said to His disciples, “It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble.”"
(Luke 17:1–2 NAS95)
"One of the things that I have noticed about this blog (and the right in general) is that there is a collective assumption that many of you know more about the Constitution than...well...everyone."
What you should have noticed is that we actually READ the Constitution, and that we point out to you where the plain language of the Constitution flatly contradicts your statements.
What we have here is your Standard Response #4, the "How 'bout that anthrax, eh?" response, and your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response, and your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response.
"Although I have spent a fair part of my life studying the Constitution, ..."
You're a liar, sack boy. You have demonstrated repeatedly that you flatly do not know what it plainly says.
"... I am decidely not a scholar of it."
You're right, you are not a scholar of it. But, that means any study you have made of it was all for nought, right? Some teacher you are.
Tell us again, liar boy, is the President still in charge of the feddle gubmint?
"To attempt to set oneself up as an "expert" on the Constitution simply because one says they are is an attitude loaded with arrogance and pure hubris."
Let's examine one other recent statement of yours, shall we, hypocrisy boy?
"Until that time, I suggest a review of Section 8 of the Constitution, at least three sentences of which you seem to have redacted in your mind."
I presume from this that you mean Section 8 of Article I, which describes the powers and such of Congress. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because Article I is the only Article that has a Section 8.
You've been asked repeatedly to state just which "three sentences" of that Section your statement refers to, but, of course, you have ignored these requests.
What we have here is your Standard Response #1, the "I can't hear you" response.
I suggest that YOU read Section 8 of Article I very carefully, teacher boy. If you do, and if you know a few things about the English language, then you'll see that Article 8, Section I, is a single sentence. It's a long one, but it's only one.
Helps to actually read it, doesn't it? Helps to understand the language, doesn't it? Studied it, did you?
"I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude."
You are someone who exemplifies this attitude, despite your claim of the opposite. Does that mean you are finally going to shut up?
"I will engage in a debate with anyone who uses critical thought when it comes to the Constitution and is able to have the same width of vision that the people that wrote it had."
Which, of course, you would be the judge of. Odd that, given you have demonstrated for three years that you are not capable of critical thought. Does this mean you are finally going to shut up?
Oh, it's gonna be on an "amateur debate". Does this mean that it's to be a debate between people, such as you, per your standards, who do not know what they are talking about?
Paint, meet corner. Corner, paint.
"We aren't those scholars and if this discussion is going to devolve into confirmation bias via the Constitution, then I'll have no part of it."
What we have here is your Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.
Does this mean you are finally going to shut up?
Sack boy, I've told you many times. You are dealing with grownups here, and you're not up to it. You fool no one.
The more I think about this, the more I laugh about it.
Your argument can be summarized as:
"I will not discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who cannot show himself to be a scholar thereof, but I will discuss (debate?) this subject with anyone who will agree that he is not capable of doing so except at whatever level of expertise (ignorance?) I care to show personally."
You can say what you want about it. This is what it amounts to.
The sports metaphor which describes it is:
"I want desperately to be in the big leagues but I do not have sufficient ability, so I will play only with those players who agree that they are not capable of playing except, not simply T-ball, but T-ball at whatever level I care to play it personally."
Golly. What a whiny, wimpy-assed, pathetic little pissant you show yourself to be.
You have demonstrated a Standard Response #11, the "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response. Is this the first appearance of a Standard Response #12, the "You're not Dumb Enough for Me To Converse With" response? Are you going to whine this response some more?
Of course scholars have debated it for years! Is there anything which has not been debated (by scholars and otherwise), sometimes for the sole purpose of trying to deny what's actually there? Would you agree that people often read their biases into a text, sometimes to a degree that they conclude something precisely opposite of what the writer intended?
The solution to this problem is simple: Reading. For. Comprehension. Or in formal terms, Hermeneutics is "the study of the interpretation of written texts." Would you agree that if someone get the interpretation of the text wrong, then it doesn't matter how many letters are behind their name, they're still wrong about what it means?
So get on with it! (Think of the crowds of people at the end of Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Get on with it!")
Before we go any further with debate on the Constitution,
Technically, we've not gone anywhere. As is your wont, you made a bunch of assertions, ignored specific claims for explanation, including direct links and pastes of the relevant material.
That's not a "debate". That's one guy being a dumbass. Which, speaking of..
I want to make a point.
We'll come back to this.
One of the things that I have noticed about this blog (and the right in general) is that there is a collective assumption that many of you know more about the Constitution than...well...everyone.
OK, that's your point? OK.
The reason why I bring all of this up is to set the scene that this is essentially an amateur debate.
So? This doesn't add to, or subtract from, or in any way refer to your point. You throw words out without any comprehension of what your point *is*. And if you don't know your point how in the hell can anyone else?
In fact, above, you claim we cannot debate the Constitution because we are not "Constitutional scholars' (and then hold up someone who's never made that claim as one.)
But yes, it is an amateur debate. We're not getting paid.
In order to fully understand what I consider to be the greatest document ever written next to the Bible, years of study are required.
No. There are the words. You can debate them without any fucking years of study. (And I say this as someone who has spent some years studying, and debating Constitutional matters.)
You cannot debate them, because you DO NOT KNOW THEM. Don't tell me you've spent years, and value the Constitution, when you describe the office of the President as "in charge of the Federal Government" and that he "lets States" decide.
Because that's laughable.
(Which is par for the course for you.)
Right there. we don't need "years of study" to say "That's bullshit". You're ducking and running because you KNOW you've been full of shit and you're about to go Brave Sir Aphasic on us and run away for a week or three.
I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude.
Because it's the same as your own? And massively hypocritical, you have no problem whatsoever lecturing anybody anywhere in issues that you blatantly don't understand. You cite (incorrectly) "Primary Sources" - except when they're all arrayed against you, then you won't listen to them at all. You've made massive mistakes in this thread alone, along with hundreds of others that demonstrate you have absolutely no idea what the hell you're talking about.
But Ed's laid a very simple challenge out to you. SHOW US WE'RE WRONG. You claimed three sentances. So, nut up, sack boy. It's Verbatim Time.
Or at least have the bare, simple decency to man up, and admit you were running your mouth without engaging your brain. (It's painfully obvious that was the case, no matter what you'll refuse to admit.)
Prediction: Marxaphasia will not "bring it on" because he already knows that the plain meanings of the words in the Constitution and written by its authors about what it means go against him. He has already set up his excuses ("Bias!" "Ignorant!") in his last comment. In other words, he has already started to pull out Standard Response #11. ("The "You're Not Smart Enough For Me To Converse With" response.")
C'mon, Marxy. Do you have the cojones to actually try to show us ignorant right-wingers where the Constitution says the Health Bill is legal? Or is it just false bravado as usual?
So, let me see if I get this straight. Marxy asserts that there are "at least three sentences" in "Section 8" which shows that Ed's mindset "actively encourages a warped view of our government that lends itself to overly emotional and midly to extreme paranoid thought."
When asked, several times, to show which three sentences, his response was "Or someone could beat you thoroughly with #84, geek. We can go down that path if you like but something tells me that you won't like it all that much."
And after many clamoring to see Marxy make good on this, his counter? "I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude."
Riiiight.
Logical arguments are immune to attitude. The attitude is there for fun, and free of charge.
To attempt to set oneself up as an "expert" on the Constitution simply because one says they are is an attitude loaded with arrogance and pure hubris. I will not engage in a debate with someone who exemplifies this attitude.
Quite commendable, at least in the words. Here's where the problem arises. Perhaps you missed it when Ed posted it earlier:
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
— James Madison
Shouldn't you disqualify yourself from debate, under your own standards? I mean, you've just set yourself up as having a greater knowledge of the Constitution than freaking James Madison, have you not?
"I learned to play 'Stairway to Heaven' when I was twelve years old. Jimmy Page didn't actually write it until he was twenty-one...I think that says quite a lot." (Vim Fuego, Bad News)
Spending time with construction workers is interesting. While they're rarely diplomatic, they can be quite eloquent in their own way.
A better educated person might point out that purple shirted SEIU thugs yelling "nigger" at Kenneth Gladney and beating him, caught live on video, somehow didn't rate even half the outrage as completely unverified reports of slurs at Congressman.
The construction worker used fewer words, but it cut more:
"Does the name Ken Gladney ring a bell? You're the ones who made it hard, you can damn well suck on it, bitches."
Duh, it's a Congressman's feelings versus a peasant's actual body.
See, basically the 30% in 1776 who were Royalists, they're all Democrats today. Some people have a hunger to be ruled. It used to be kings and princes, nowadays they want academics to tell them the right opinions to hold, they want the experts in charge. Mark is a perfect example. He craves to be treated like a child, it's why he quotes other sources based not on the merit of their ideas, or the soundness of their logic, but on if their views align with the prevailing vision. I'm of course hijacking Thomas Sowell rather brutally when I talk about visions, but the man is dead on.
Some people do want to be managed, and when the sheep see the goats refusing to do what the shepherd tells them to do, they get very nervous "He's the shepherd! He's in charge! You can't disobey him!". It is their duty to squash the recalcitrant refuseniks, to restore order to the world. Because the way it works is that the sheep get 40% of what the goats make, and the goats should be happy with the 60% because after all the shepherd isn't taking all of it. Not even most of it. That's fair, and the goats should stop whining. They don't know what it's like to be a sheep, it's oh so very hard, the shepherd says so every day.
Ughh I need to go to bed....I know I'm tired when I run a metaphor for more then 3 sentences.
I had a middle-of-the-night epiphany last night.
"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
—U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7
Marxy himself gleefully pointed out that the CBO said this monstrosity would cost $930 Billion, but that it was deficit neutral because it provided enough funds, partially through raising taxes. (New taxes on tanning salons. Taxes on those who refuse to buy insurance. Taxes on so-called "Cadillac insurance plans". Taxes on companies with so many people on the payroll. Etc., etc., etc.) In fact, one of the claims I heard in passing was that what makes this monster "legal" is that it's essentially a tax bill.
So which house did the version they passed originate in?
"The Senate. Why does that…? Oh…"
Ed....
Are you TRYING to impersonate a Constitutional Scholar, AGAIN?
Marky's laid it down, it's very plain, only years of study (except by Obama, who was hired as a lecturer straight out of law school, or, in other words, without any years of study) can make that claim. Stop trying to interpret the Constitution, it's beyond you. You know, it's like the Bible, before Martin Luther. Only the anointed few are allowed to tell you what it means.
"Are you TRYING to impersonate a Constitutional Scholar, AGAIN?"
Nope. Just reading for comprehension and sticking to the obvious. I'm staying well away from the emanations of penumbras.
Just reading for comprehension and sticking to the obvious.
*through gritted teeth*
Thats. Trying. To. Be. A. Constitutional. Scholar. Ver. Bat. Im.
I just saw this article which describes a lawsuit filed by a physicians group over The Monstrosity. I thought this part was interesting:
"The law requires most Americans to buy government-approved insurance starting in 2014, or face stiff penalties. The AAPS says insurance-company executives will be enriched by this requirement, but it violates the Fifth Amendment protection against the government forcing one person to pay cash to another."
This sounds strange to me, so I decided to take another look at the 5th Amendment to see where they got this idea.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
—U.S. Constitution, Amendment V
As best I can tell, they were probably thinking of the last clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Traditionally, this clause has been thought to apply to physical property, such as land, not to money. After all, the Constitution does authorize the collection of taxes to pay for the government's authorized functions. On the other hand, there does seem to be reasonable argument there that money is private property (no problem with that premise), and that the legitimate exercise of delegated government powers is "just compensation" for the taxes taken to fund them. So would money (private property) taken to "spread the wealth around" (welfare, health care, etc.) constitute "public use"? That it's taken without "just compensation" is obvious.
Just more things to make you say "Hmmmmm…"
*snickering*
Gee, more people in the cult/base of verbatim:
There are absolute morons in certain majors (like elementary education, "angry studies", some of the social/therapy areas and others).
I have met people in elementary education, in particular, who were stupid beyond belief, and they easily got a degree. "Angry studies" people mask their stupidity with in-your-face anger and an ability to repeat phrases like "Studies suggest that ..." (and then they just make up whatever they want), but they are still stupid.
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2010/03/its-most-overpriced-product-you-could.html#4702184128492815229
And a bit farther down:
Back to universities, though: What would happen if they lower the salary of a women's studies professor? Would she take a job in private industry bitching at men?
So, let me see if I have this correct. I have been told by several of you that you all think for yourselves and have no allegiance to people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (even though you repeat much of what they say here...sometimes verbatim ;) ). I have been assured up and down that you take your cues from within and not without.
And now, I see this.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/29/michele-bachmann-no-evidence-black-lawmakers-were-harassed-duri/
How sad and pathetic. But, hey, by all means, hitch your wagon to her star! Let me know how it all works out.
Meanwhile, I suggest a review of this video
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/29/trash-talking-mounts-in-t_n_517275.html
as well as a simple inquiry to to law enforcement officials regarding the faxes that were received by many in Congress, including James Clyburn, with nooses. We also have Amy Kremer, of the Tea Party Express, admitting that the slurs did occur and calling them "isolated incidents." This, of course, is in addition to the journalists who reported on the incidents as they heard them.
Not that I expect any of this to break the cocoon but I thought I'd give it a shot.
So, let me see if I have this correct.
You don't. Anytime you start to say that, you're about to demonstrate that you don't have a clue.
even though you repeat much of what they say here...sometimes verbatim .
You're projecting. You look for - and cut and paste - from others, without understanding, and think we do the same. There's a quick way to find out which is the case.
Ask us why. Ask us to explain.
We can. You can't.
You cannot escape from your folly by heaping on more of it.
Like your "3 sentences" bullshit, or your Federalist paper pap. You can't back it up with any explanation. (So now you're trying to stumble away and yelling that, well, you might not be a scholar, but neither are we.)
But, hey, by all means, hitch your wagon to her star! Let me know how it all works out.
I don't know who Michell Bachmann is, other than you hate her. I don't care what she says.
But I can tell you - there's no evidence to back the claims that have been made, and there was a LOT of video shot that day.
I don't care who agrees with me on that - it's the case. It's the correct supposition. It's the factual base.
Anybody who disagrees now, well, there's something interesting.
But in several almost identical situations - you refused to admit even after the evidence was out. (For 2, the ACORN videos - which we haven't seen all of, and the ACORN convictions on vote fraud.) You've insisted that it never, ever, ever happened, despite hard proof.
But we're the ones "delusional". Despite the proof that's been demonstrated, we're crazy for believing the video, for having the belief that HAD there been a single epithet or anything close to it, the media would have been all over it, you insist that they MUST BE BELIEVED, despite the evidence not being there.
The cocoon is surrounding you, but I don't expect you to break out of it, much less be transformed. You prefer the larval stage, and actively seek it out.
Otherwise, you might back up some of your mis-statements. Such as the role of the president. FP #84. the "Three sentences".
There's a reason we sieze upon your idiocy of the day - and you rarely disappoint.
You don't understand what you're pasting, verbatim. You don't know enough to man up, grab your sack, nut up, and admit it. And it's rather obvious to anybody who does understand critical thought.
Every time you post, you leave more and more threads unanswered, more problems with your thoughts exposed. And then insist that it's not you who doesn't understand, it's us.
Like I told you when you made your ludicrous engineering claim. It's very simple to win an engineering argument with one of us. Just demonstrate where we're in error. It's quite simple, if you understand the material, no matter if you've studied engineering for 50 years or 5 minutes. Knowledge matters. Not time. This isn't the tenured system you're trying to get into. Time and experience only matter if you're correct.
And you insist on sticking on stupid.
Something I just saw over at Dr. Sanity's reminds me of our resident "Education Expert".
Over a 20-year span beginning in the early 1970s, the average SAT score fell by 35 points. But in that same period, the contingent of college-bound seniors who boasted an A or B average jumped from 28% to an astonishing 83%, as teachers felt increasing pressure to adopt more "supportive" grading policies. Tellingly, in a 1989 study of comparative math skills among students in eight nations, Americans ranked lowest in overall competence, Koreans highest — but when researchers asked the students how good they thought they were at math, the results were exactly opposite: Americans highest, Koreans lowest. Meanwhile, data from 1999's omnibus Third International Mathematics and Science Study, ranking 12th-graders from 23 nations, put U.S. students in 20th place, besting only South Africa, Lithuania and Cyprus.
Still, the U.S. keeps dressing its young in their emperors' new egos, passing them on to the next set of empowering curricula. If you teach at the college level, as I do, at some point you will be confronted with a student seeking redress over the grade you gave him because "I'm pre-med!" Not until such students reach med school do they encounter truly inelastic standards: a comeuppance for them but a reprieve for those who otherwise might find ourselves anesthetized beneath their second-rate scalpel.
...For many on the left side of the political spectrum, the concept of "personal responsibility" is inextricably linked to conservative moral principles; to business success and capitalism; and--the bugaboo of collectivists everywhere-- individualism. It is no secret that the political left has idealized certain social and political systems because they suppressed the individual and elevated the state, insisting that individuals have no right to exist for their own selves, but only to serve others....Dalrymple correctly notes that, "Self-respect requires fortitude, one of the cardinal virtues; self-esteem encourages emotional incontinence that, while not actually itself a cardinal sin, is certainly a vice, and a very unattractive one. Self-respect and self-esteem are as different as depth and shallowness."
Or as different as achieving maturity versus remaining childish.Dr Sanity
And something I sent to Kevin a minute ago also bears noting in the context of our "Academic Superior"Liberalism is not about people; it is about loving ideas more than people. When liberal policies fail, good liberals do not go back to the drawing board. They see themselves challenged to produce a logical contortion that explains why they are not at fault.
Most of us will know this, of course, by "Try it again, only HARDER!"http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2010/03/liberal-intolerance.html
...and have no allegiance to people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (even though you repeat much of what they say here...sometimes verbatim ;) ). I have been assured up and down that you take your cues from within and not without.
And now, I see this.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/29/michele-bachmann-no-evidence-black-lawmakers-were-harassed-duri/
How sad and pathetic. But, hey, by all means, hitch your wagon to her star! Let me know how it all works out.
By this line of reasoning, you take your cues on healthcare from Fidel Castro, no?
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/03/chicago-law-professor-on-obama-the-professors-hated-him-because-he-was-lazy-unqualified-never-attended-any-of-the-faculty-meetings/
Scuse whilst I quote - verbatim - most of this.
As Emeril says: "BAM!"
The highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law spoke out on Barack Obama saying, “Professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings.”
Doug Ross reported this and more:
I spent some time with the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law a few months back, and he did not have many nice things to say about “Barry.” Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. A few weeks later the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. The Board told him he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor and was hardly an adjunct.
The other professors hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool. According to my professor friend, he had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building. He also doubted whether he was legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is or was a requirement).
This photo of Barack Obama teaching in Chicago was posted in February 2008 at PrestoPundit. In this class Barack Obama was teaching his students the principles of Saul Alinsky. Notice the flow chart indicating the flow of money and power out of productive businesses (“CORP”) and into the political class (“MAYOR”):
The heading at the top reads “POWER ANALYSIS”. The sub-heading reads “RELATIONSHIPS BUILD ON SELF INTEREST”. The symbol on the arrow between “CORP” and “MAYOR” is the “$” sign.
Saul Alinsky came up with the idea of power analysis, which looks at relationships built on self-interest between corporations, banks and utilities. Barack Obama was teaching students in Chicago the Alinsky Principles.
See, funny thing, Mark. I'm not surprised or shocked. Because I can read the Constitution. With comprehension. And I can compare that to Barry's statements about that, law, oaths, and requirements. (Or watch you flounder when you actually try and give details. I'm still waiting on an explanation for your description of the President's duties and abilities. I suspect, like most of your other failures, you're going to fail to learn from it as well.)
There's a very simple story with your Messiah - he was seen as a figurehead long ago by some people, including real terrorists who killed people. (For all your talk about the "right wing terror" you keep not wanting to talk about the actual BOMBS AYERS BUILT.) They had money, and power, and used it. And he's been advanced far past his real competence. But just as you can't see how incompetent you are, he doesn't know how out of his element he is. Yet.
I actually think he'll learn before you.
#GBC is rocking tonight.
http://jdlong.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/pres-barack-obama-editor-of-the-harvard-law-review-has-no-law-license/
And Michelle -who was "legal counsel" - with huge pay raises for the Hospital she worked for (but who didn't feel the need to fill the vitally important position when Michelle moved to the White House) - hadn't had a license to practice law since '93?
Quite interesting.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/03/sweet_obama_did_hold_the_title.html
Notice the date on the article. March 2008.
The Won is wonderful. It's double plus good to love The Won.
To give credit where it's due, ya gotta admire a guy who can out-Clinton the Clintons, the people who required us to define what the meaning of "is" is.
Marxy isn't the only one who can't show where the Constitution gives the authority to pass this monstrosity. Congressman Phil Hare doesn't even care that they're breaking the law!
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>