I removed some posts that were direct attacks. Play nice in the political threads.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Some Americans think that we should be a nation of laws and that the political ruling class should have to obey those laws.Another problem arises when the Constitution, which was written at a time when the US population was 3,929,326 and Barack Obama would have counted as 3/5's of a person, is still the supreme law today, when the US has a population of 308,918,000 and is a very, very different country. The Constitution is also very hard (but not impossible) to change.
What I'm saying is that it's not reactive to changes in what the United States is.
But, for many day to day issues, it doesn't have to be. It is a framework. Local and state laws (including State Constitutions) carry most of the burden for everyday lives. They're slightly easier to change, and more geared to local needs. ;)
Uzzy, thank you for the quote and for the arguments I'm not qualified to make. Good stuff.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
What I'm saying is that it's not reactive to changes in what the United States is.
As a matter of fact, it has reacted to changes twenty-seven times.
The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Some Americans think that we should be a nation of laws and that the political ruling class should have to obey those laws.Another problem arises when the Constitution, which was written at a time when the US population was 3,929,326 and Barack Obama would have counted as 3/5's of a person, is still the supreme law today, when the US has a population of 308,918,000 and is a very, very different country. The Constitution is also very hard (but not impossible) to change.
What I'm saying is that it's not reactive to changes in what the United States is.
The fact that it is difficult to amend is a strong protection for the rights of the minority.
It has simply been easier for the courts to create and abrogate rights than to amend the constitution. In effect the constitution has been radically changed through re-interpretation.
|
Way to go America!"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face— forever."
So much for our vaunted Constitution, might as well be toilet paper.
QQ more.
So you (may have) read 1984; grats. You didn't understand it.
Clown-like gamer response to an unconstitutional power grab. Excellent.
Anyone who voted for Obama didn't understand the book. Those who do not understand the power of symbols, advert campaigns logos, a constant or new enemy (insurance companies, banks, energy companies, on and on) to be destroyed - all mixed into permanent campaign mode 24/7. You obviously didn't get it, did you? People like you will never understand the danger of "the greater good' or "for the Party" conveyed in '84, the destruction of rights or the dissolution of the self all for the power and growth of the State.Maybe I should have put it all in GG, LULZ or "wut"? Would that help?
Yeah 0 people will go to prison for not having health care. People will go to prison for tax evasion because they were levied with tax penalties for not having health care, but not having health care will never be what they are charged with. :DAre there any CBO estimates for how many people will go to prison for not having health care?
What is the fine under the senate bill for failing to go on welfare or purchase insurance?
It's also my understanding that the IRS will be the health care enforcer.
I'm still curious when the fines become active, and how soon will it be before we are putting people in prison for not buying a private commodity.
I'm sure the media won't be covering it.
|
It's not just his opinion. He helped drive policy in the Bush administration. He's welcome to his insipid opinions, but it's not OK that he helped the Bush administration wipe its ass with the Constitution. I'm not very concerned with his neocon opinions, but I have no use for his neocon policies. I think it's a difference that matters.
Okay, point taken. My point of 'b!#~~ing on the internet means nothing' still stands. He's not making policies anymore, is he? But if it helps relieve your stress, I'm all for it.
|
|
This isn't that fight either. To equate what's going on currently in Washington, bad as it is with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia borders on the absurd. (No I take that back, it IS absurd) (although to be fair, Japanese-American citizens were being rounded up and shipped to concentration camps in the U.S. for no other reason than their ancestry) Mandatory Health insurance isn't that much more different than Mandatory insurance for driving. It is more than likely a neccessary mechanism for balancing health care costs but by itself is not the total answer. We need uniform national answer to this problem, as it's clear that this can't be left to a state by state issue as many of the states can't do by themselves the job that Hawaii has managed to do.
Wrong on both counts - losing civil liberties and rights is a descent into tyranny, be it a harsh obvious one or a soft tyranny of control of our daily lives, how and what we spend our money on, who can sell what and at what price, etc.
My response was to Uzzy's comment that Americans have no concept of Communism, or Fascism - that is why I posted what I did. So my comments stand.
You are also wrong about comparing it to auto insurance. Driving in the US is a privilege, not a right. It can be taken away if it is abused, you don't pay fines, etc. What just passed amounts to a life tax, i.e. a tax for just being alive in the US. Short of being poor (the dems constituents) there are no exemptions. The Fed Gov't does not have the power or authority as enumerated in the Constitution (not even as an extension of the Commerce Clause) so that means that the issue is one that goes back to the States based on the 10th.
10th Amend -"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."
I don't care if the reason it's mandatory is to serve as a mechanism to balance costs - their piss poor setup isn't my problem. It's unconstitutional plain and simple.
As far as understanding fascism or communism again your ignorance and banality shows through. Both my parents were born and lived in Communist Russia, and with my father living under Nazi control and for some time in Germany before they both got the hell out of that sht-hole Europa. I had one uncle who was sent off to a gulag to never be seen again and another who was force conscripted into the Red Army. While I don't have first hand knowledge of living under European (and apparently UK) political systems, I have seen the effects it had had on all my surviving older relatives so spare me the "Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like", your gas is getting old.
Please. The point is that socialism != fascism. Maybe you know the difference; the point is, most people who live here don't.
I opposed Bush's socialism as well, but in your world it seems it's fine for Obama to suck because Bush sucked. I just don't understand how stupidity is a virtue just because the last guys were stupid too. It seems a silly model for government to me.
Sorry, nothing can be (correctly) inferred about my opinion of Obama from my statement. I merely pointed out that I find people calling the Healthcare bill fascist to be amusing, because much more glaring examples of true fascism occurred under Bush. If these people truly understood fascism, they wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree.
None of which has anything to do with socialism, which, again, IS NOT a synonym for fascism.
For all of us who opposed the bill and loss, cheer up. We still have the court system that can stop it. We're not beat yet.
But wait; surely you aren't suggesting "Judicial Activism?" ;-)
<SNIP>10th Amend -"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."
I don't care if the reason it's mandatory is to serve as a mechanism to balance costs - their piss poor setup isn't my problem. It's unconstitutional plain and simple.
Now this is 100% correct.
BUT that ship sailed long ago, imho. I don't see how this is any more onerous than any number of other things the federal government has been doing for decades. Which doesn't make what happened Constitutional, but merely the best of bad choices.
And since when has our government offered anything else?
It's also my understanding that the IRS will be the health care enforcer.
I'm still curious when the fines become active, and how soon will it be before we are putting people in prison for not buying a private commodity.
I'm sure the media won't be covering it.
Does the bill actually provide for jail time?
For all of us who opposed the bill and loss, cheer up. We still have the court system that can stop it. We're not beat yet.But wait; surely you aren't suggesting "Judicial Activism?" ;-)
Dude, I'd make a deal with the devil if I could stop this bill. ;). In all seriousness, let's see what the courts think. Many people think it's unconstitutional. To be honest, I don't enough about constitutional law to say one way or the other.
A public option would have been better, IMO. I have a 22 yo son that refuses to purchase health insurance, despite my efforts to convince himn otherwise. Oh, he's fine with me paying for it, just not him. So, as a father, I'm kinda glad he will be forced to do so. Not surprisingly, his support of universal healthcare evaporated as soon as he found out that he has to buy it or be fined. There is a HUGE generational gap btwn what he believes about responsibility versus what I believed at that age. A scary gap.
Also, a salient point to our global RPG'ers. As self-centered as this may sound, it is we Americans that have to foot the bill on whatever this turns out to be. Having an altruistic ideal of a better world is all fine and good, but the practical matter of how is it funded falls squarely on our shoulders, and the older of us have seen our gov't (sadly) live up to its promises of improvements. Hence our cynicism. Of course, if the US cut off funding for a lot of overseas programs I'm sure the final bill to the US taxpayer would be lessened. But that too is just a dream, I'm afraid.
I offer these insights in the hopes of better understanding of the POV of this middle-aged voter.
Good post. Thanks for explaining your position.
Dude, I'd make a deal with the devil if I could stop this bill. ;). In all seriousness, let's see what the courts think. Many people think it's unconstitutional. To be honest, I don't enough about constitutional law to say one way or the other.
I agree. If the courts shoot it down, so be it. I've always understood that as part of judicial branch's job: To determine whether the legislative branch overstepped their bounds. But I'm also no expert on law (Constitutional or otherwise).
|
|
<SNIP>10th Amend -"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."
I don't care if the reason it's mandatory is to serve as a mechanism to balance costs - their piss poor setup isn't my problem. It's unconstitutional plain and simple.
Now this is 100% correct.
BUT that ship sailed long ago, imho. I don't see how this is any more onerous than any number of other things the federal government has been doing for decades. Which doesn't make what happened Constitutional, but merely the best of bad choices.
And since when has our government offered anything else?
What an incredibly depressing point to find agreement on.
What an incredibly depressing point to find agreement on.<SNIP>10th Amend -"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."
I don't care if the reason it's mandatory is to serve as a mechanism to balance costs - their piss poor setup isn't my problem. It's unconstitutional plain and simple.
Now this is 100% correct.
BUT that ship sailed long ago, imho. I don't see how this is any more onerous than any number of other things the federal government has been doing for decades. Which doesn't make what happened Constitutional, but merely the best of bad choices.
And since when has our government offered anything else?
+1
What an incredibly depressing point to find agreement on.<SNIP>10th Amend -"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."
I don't care if the reason it's mandatory is to serve as a mechanism to balance costs - their piss poor setup isn't my problem. It's unconstitutional plain and simple.
Now this is 100% correct.
BUT that ship sailed long ago, imho. I don't see how this is any more onerous than any number of other things the federal government has been doing for decades. Which doesn't make what happened Constitutional, but merely the best of bad choices.
And since when has our government offered anything else?
I aim to please. ;-)
Edit: I all seriousness, you're right. It is sad.
And despite what I'm sure I often sound like, I do empathize with actual conservatives. It must be darn annoying to be lumped into "The Republican Party," when there really is no party that represents their position.
I opposed Bush's socialism as well, but in your world it seems it's fine for Obama to suck because Bush sucked. I just don't understand how stupidity is a virtue just because the last guys were stupid too. It seems a silly model for government to me.Sorry, nothing can be (correctly) inferred about my opinion of Obama from my statement. I merely pointed out that I find people calling the Healthcare bill fascist to be amusing, because much more glaring examples of true fascism occurred under Bush. If these people truly understood fascism, they wouldn't be barking up the wrong tree.
None of which has anything to do with socialism, which, again, IS NOT a synonym for fascism.
I consider National socialism a subset of fascism which I consider to be a subset of socialism in the third position tradition, but I also reject the left/right liner model of political thought.
"The National Socialist Program advocated uniting the German people, implementing profit-sharing in industry, nationalizing trusts, providing an extensive welfare state, instituting government control of the media, and persecuting Jews, in part by canceling their German citizenship."
I'm not certain "these people" are wrong.
EDIT: "these people" from Bugelyman's post not the national socialist movement
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.
Time's up.
Does the bill actually provide for jail time?It's also my understanding that the IRS will be the health care enforcer.
I'm still curious when the fines become active, and how soon will it be before we are putting people in prison for not buying a private commodity.
I'm sure the media won't be covering it.
The last I heard the penalties for non compliance would basically be added to your federal tax liability, so the IRS could keep your refund, garnish wages, seize property, or prosecute criminally.
In effect the IRS becomes the enforcement arm of the individual mandate.
I'm not sure when the punishment phase goes into effect though.
I consider National socialism a subset of fascism which I consider to be a subset of socialism in the third position tradition, but I also reject the left/right liner model of political thought."The National Socialist Program advocated uniting the German people, implementing profit-sharing in industry, nationalizing trusts, providing an extensive welfare state, instituting government control of the media, and persecuting Jews, in part by canceling their German citizenship."
I'm not certain "these people" are wrong.
Socialists advocate public ownership or control over the means of production. Progressive taxation (a redistribution of output) doesn't meet this criteria, at least as far as I can tell.
To me Fascism requires certain tools to be put into place. The ability to monitor public communication. To jail people without limit. To seize their property wholesale.* To me, all those things were either put into place or greatly expanded under Bush Jr., not Obama. Am I disappointed he has made no move to fix them? ABSOLUTELY. But Obama as a fascist? I'm sorry, I just can't get there.
* As in: You said the wrong thing, all your bases are belong to us. NOT your taxes are going up. YMMV.
To me Fascism requires certain tools to be put into place. The ability to monitor public communication. To jail people without limit. To seize their property wholesale.* To me, all those things were either put into place or greatly expanded under Bush Jr., not Obama. Am I disappointed he has made no move to fix them? ABSOLUTELY. But Obama as a fascist? I'm sorry, I just can't get there.
* As in: You said the wrong thing, all your bases are belong to us. NOT your taxes are going up. YMMV.
Well if all of the mechanisms are still in place and being used under Obama, whether he instituted them or not, then either him and Bush are both fascists or neither is.
Heh, Wikipedia is unintentionally plagiarizing Götz Aly. But yeah, research syndicalism and militarism and get back to us, BT. And try not to use Wikipedia for this stuff; it's mostly written with by people with an agenda.I consider National socialism a subset of fascism which I consider to be a subset of socialism in the third position tradition, but I also reject the left/right liner model of political thought.
"The National Socialist Program advocated uniting the German people, implementing profit-sharing in industry, nationalizing trusts, providing an extensive welfare state, instituting government control of the media, and persecuting Jews, in part by canceling their German citizenship."
I'm not certain "these people" are wrong.
Syndicalism is a pain to find information on outside of Wiki, but nothing in my research thus far convinces me that that national socialism is the the opposite of socialism. Modern NSMs label themselves socialists and explicitly promote elements of socialism. I still consider it a subset of socialism, so I think your position is simply wrong even though it's held by quite a few political scientists.
Well if all of the mechanisms are still in place and being used under Obama, whether he instituted them or not, then either him and Bush are both fascists or neither is.
I'm not convinced either is truly fascist.* Rather, I think Bush (naively) put into place the tools, and Obama (foolishly) hasn't done anything to remove them. As long as those tools exist, however, we're essentially trusting all future leaders not to abuse them, which isn't a bet I want to continue making.
TO ME, bush was too dumb to realize the implications of what he was doing, whereas Obama clearly should know better. So in that respect, I guess Obama is worse.
My point was people calling Obama fascist are amusing, not because Bush himself was a would-be fascist, but because the tools of fascism were installed under Bush. At the time anyone who pointed that out, on the left or the right, was called "Un-American" at best, traitor at worst.
* Cheney, however, is a wannabe fascist. No, I'm not kidding.
I consider National socialism a subset of fascism which I consider to be a subset of socialism in the third position tradition, but I also reject the left/right liner model of political thought."The National Socialist Program advocated uniting the German people, implementing profit-sharing in industry, nationalizing trusts, providing an extensive welfare state, instituting government control of the media, and persecuting Jews, in part by canceling their German citizenship."
I'm not certain "these people" are wrong.
Socialists advocate public ownership or control over the means of production. Progressive taxation (a redistribution of output) doesn't meet this criteria, at least as far as I can tell.
To me Fascism requires certain tools to be put into place. The ability to monitor public communication. To jail people without limit. To seize their property wholesale.* To me, all those things were either put into place or greatly expanded under Bush Jr., not Obama. Am I disappointed he has made no move to fix them? ABSOLUTELY. But Obama as a fascist? I'm sorry, I just can't get there.
* As in: You said the wrong thing, all your bases are belong to us. NOT your taxes are going up. YMMV.
I think both of them engage in policies I would consider fascist, but for me this isn't a left versus right linear comparison. I consider it all to be statist. As a practical matter I'm not sure how relevant the political science is. Whether someone dies in a communist gulag or a fascist concentration camp would seem to matter very little, and I'm not saying that Obama is going to put everyone in concentration camps.
I suppose the political science is relevant regarding the labeling, but it seems to me it's all about expanding state power and limiting individual liberty, and both parties are quite guilty.
Well if all of the mechanisms are still in place and being used under Obama, whether he instituted them or not, then either him and Bush are both fascists or neither is.I'm not convinced either is truly fascist.* Rather, I think Bush (naively) put into place the tools, and Obama (foolishly) hasn't done anything to remove them. As long as those tools exist, however, we're essentially trusting all future leaders not to abuse them, which isn't a bet I want to continue making.
TO ME, bush was too dumb to realize the implications of what he was doing, whereas Obama clearly should know better. So in that respect, I guess Obama is worse.
My point was people calling Obama fascist are amusing, not because Bush himself was a would-be fascist, but because the tools of fascism were installed under Bush. At the time anyone who pointed that out, on the left or the right, was called "Un-American" at best, traitor at worst.
* Cheney, however, is a wannabe fascist. No, I'm not kidding.
I suppose it's a question of degree, but I see a massive expansion of government power in health care in the US, and I see that as a tool or a weapon to be used against the American people too.
* I think I'll concede that one.
TO ME, bush was too dumb to realize the implications of what he was doing, whereas Obama clearly should know better. So in that respect, I guess Obama is worse.
Sounds pretty much like the conclusion I derived.
* Cheney, however, is a wannabe fascist. No, I'm not kidding.
Cheney scares me, but for some reason Biden scares me worse. I can't shake the picture of him being an unholy amalgamation of Cheney and Quayle, just on the other side of the aisle.
<SNIP>As a practical matter I'm not sure how relevant the political science is. Whether someone dies in a communist gulag or a fascist concentration camp would seem to matter very little </SNIP>
No difference whatsoever.
I suppose the political science is relevant regarding the labeling, but it seems to me it's all about expanding state power and limiting individual liberty, and both parties are quite guilty.
I think labels matter because they have many connotations for a great many people.
But beyond that: Yes, expanding state power at the expense of individual liberty is something which much be guarded against; on that we can agree.
My sticking point on this particular issue is that people want to be "free" to not buy insurance, but then expect to be treated when something does go wrong. In essence, they want to reap the rewards of taking the risk (no insurance premiums), but not pay the consequences (huge costs, and/or no treatment) if their number comes due.
Anyway, we're not going to solve this issue on a message board. Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to listen and discuss.
Too all who vow to continue the fight in the courts, I encourage you to exercise all legal options open to you. Those avenues are there for a reason. If the courts deem the bill Unconstitutional, then it's Unconstitutional.
I know this is argument should have been made a page and a half ago, but I didn't have time.
The Constitution is a living document. That's the most important thing that the founding fathers did was to make certain that the Constitution (not to mention the nation itself) could survive the changing times and sensibilities of its people. The founders weren't stupid or blind to history.
* I think I'll concede that one.Remember, we were just a pretzel away from having him as president.
/joking around
;)
Cheney/Voldemort 2012!!!!!
Cheney/Voldemort 2012!!!!!
* I think I'll concede that one.Remember, we were just a pretzel away from having him as president.
/joking around
;)
I think I'd rather Voldermort/Cheney. With Mary-Kate Olsen as speaker of the house.
Cheney/Voldemort 2012!!!!!
* I think I'll concede that one.Remember, we were just a pretzel away from having him as president.
/joking around
;)
Cthulhu 2012. Why vote for the lesser evil?
Yes I have that shirt. Yes I will be wearing it to the polls.
Unless they're running against Darth Vader/Sauron I don't think they'll win.Cheney/Voldemort 2012!!!!!
* I think I'll concede that one.Remember, we were just a pretzel away from having him as president.
/joking around
;)
Cheney/Voldermort vs Pulosi/Zombie Freddy Mercury
Watch every person in the nation jump ship. :D
I know this is argument should have been made a page and a half ago, but I didn't have time.
The Constitution is a living document. That's the most important thing that the founding fathers did was to make certain that the Constitution (not to mention the nation itself) could survive the changing times and sensibilities of its people. The founders weren't stupid or blind to history.
Then wouldn't the honest thing to do be amending the constitution rather than ignoring it?
|
|
Someday, I must compare a European Poly Sci/Sociology/History textbook to an American one. There seems to be a real disconnect from my college days. The reaction to the terms themselves seems to strike nerves, moreso than their application. Interesting. Must include analysis of generational trends/outlooks, Euro versus American.Will do, once Americans on this board stop calling things Fascist, Communist or Socialist, when they clearly aren't. It's emotive language designed to provide an emotional response, and shut down discussion.Perhaps you would be wise to quit stereotyping Americans.Also, it seems that Americans have no idea what a Fascist, Communist or even a Socialist state is like, and your continued cries of 'This is Fascist/Communist/Socialist' are as wrong as they are amusing.
Gotta remember, those words tore the Continent up in the '30s and '40s, and kept the Continent trembling through the '80s.
You really want a reaction, call it Europastan. But, then, Europeans have a tendency to chant mindlessly like King Arnulf of Atlantis while the island is sinking.
|
|
Unless they're running against Darth Vader/Sauron I don't think they'll win.Cheney/Voldemort 2012!!!!!
* I think I'll concede that one.Remember, we were just a pretzel away from having him as president.
/joking around
;)
Cheney/Voldermort vs Pulosi/Zombie Freddy Mercury
Watch every person in the nation jump ship. :D
Freddy Mercury can't run because he's from India, and he was cremated so he can't be a zombie either. He'd be our first Zoroastrian in the executive branch too.