I removed some more posts. Personal attacks and angry yelling help no one.
Then wouldn't the honest thing to do be amending the constitution rather than ignoring it?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 we should amend the Constitution, actually, and include the extended bill of rights that someone posted a while back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights
But I don't see how passage of this bill is a Constitutional argument. What language, specifically, could a lawyer use to oppose it?
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.
Damn!
|
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.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
Um, he's Persian (Iranian). At least you got his ancient religion right. ;)
|
|
Um, he's Persian (Iranian). At least you got his ancient religion right. ;)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.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
Um, He's Parsi (Persian expat-zoroastrians). They were forced to flee Iran during the Islamic conquests 1400 years ago, and they live in India today.
I think we should amend the Constitution, actually, and include the extended bill of rights that someone posted a while back.
Roosevelt's stated justification was that the "political rights" guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had "proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness." Roosevelt's remedy was to create an "economic bill of rights" which would guarantee:
* A job with a living wage
* Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies
* A home
* Medical care
* Education
* Recreation
So, essentially, everyone would be hand-held throughout every step of their life and given everything they needed on a silver platter. Yes, I can't see how THAT could go horribly wrong.
/bleeding sarc
But I don't see how passage of this bill is a Constitutional argument. What language, specifically, could a lawyer use to oppose it?
Keep in mind, the US Government having the power to provide for the general welfare of the populace has been ruled ad nauseum to be for not simply the nation itself but for those residing within for centuries. Also, they certainly have the power to levy taxes.
There's no avoiding either of these things without one or more Constitutional Amendments.
Hello E7 as a global RPG'er who lives in a country with a Universal Health care system and seatbelt laws (police can and will issue an on the spot fine for not wearing one). Paying for the care is an issue as our population is aging and there will be less workforce to be taxed to pay. The government recognises this and both the left and right update and maintain the administration of Medicare to mediate the problem.
Disclaimer - Australia is not perfect by any standards, its a great country but not a Nirvana or utopia.
Below is information on the Australian medicare system - which we have had since 1975.
Medicare is Australia's publicly-funded universal health care system, operated by the government authority Medicare Australia. Medicare is intended to provide affordable treatment by doctors and in public hospitals for all resident citizens and permanent residents except for those on Norfolk Island. Residents with a Medicare card can receive subsidised treatment from medical practitioners who have been issued a Medicare provider number, and fully subsidised treatment in public hospitals. Visitors from countries which have reciprocal arrangements with Australia have limited access to Medicare.
Since 1999, the public health scheme has been supplemented by a Private Health Insurance Rebate, where the government funds at least 30% of any private health insurance premium covering people eligible for Medicare. Including these rebates, Medicare is the major component of the total Commonwealth health budget, taking up about 43% of the total. The program is estimated to cost $18.3 billion in 2007-08. This figure is projected to rise by almost 4% annually in real terms over the next few years..
The Australian economy has been performing nominally better than other economies of the OECD and has supported economic growth for 16 consecutive years. According to the Reserve Bank of Australia, Australian per capita GDP growth is higher than that of New Zealand, US, Canada and The Netherlands.
So the point of the above is despite living in a country where a great proportion of our budget goes to healthcare we are still doing very well.
We have roughly the same land mass (More if the rest of the world would recognise our claim to 2/3rds of Antarctica) and 20 million people compared to the 250 million people of the US - so we have less of a Tax base and have to be efficient with our spending.
Wasting tax money will lose you an election in Australia.
Here is where I have the problem. Universal health care is a service I am more than happy to pay for and I am happy to pay for fellow citizens as well. You pay Tax, I dont understand why it is such a huge issue that some of your taxes go to healthcare.
In Australia and the UK we have had government owned industries and services. We have seen some of those industries and services sold off. Every time this happens the service becomes less efficient and more expensive and available to less people.
We know that the service is less profitable when run by the government. service for the majority over profit is the primary reason for it existing.
What makes me angry is my Taxes being wasted. How much money does Iraq cost you in a year - (I am sure that it is more than Universal Health care cost).
I removed some more posts. Personal attacks and angry yelling help no one.
You do know that my "Get off of my lawn!" line was a joke because I'm old right?
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.
But, how about starting with controlling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and adding to that an enormous amount of control/ownership of many other of the banking institutions through the purchase of their debt?
How about adding to that the enormous control gained over GMC through the purchase of its debt/bailout which includes ousting CEOs among everything else?
Even without a majority stake, the government was able to use its muscle in March to oust GM Chief Executive Rick Wagoner. But such a major holding would turn GM into a sort of Government Motors, making the federal government the company's de facto boss and bank lender.
How about control of industries through expanded powers of the EPA?
On Monday, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency declared, in the Associated Press's words, that "greenhouse gas emissions are a danger and must be regulated."The AP, in the item just linked, and many other news outlets carried U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Thomas J. Donahue's warning that regulations based on EPA's declaration could lead to "a top-down command-and-control regime that will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project."
So, the government now has far greater power to control industry however it chooses and to do it without the legislative branch being able to stop it...
The government not only both owns and operates two enormous lenders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, it has controlled large shares in other banks and has simulatneously moved to greatly increase its control over the banks it does not own with increased regulation.
The government has an enormous ownership stake in GM which is an American based manufacturer that happens to be one of the largest manufacturers in the world.
Also, the government is hand in hand with unions who through their direct bargaining power exert enormous powert over industry and production...
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.
Alex Carey:
... the 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy.
Australian social scientist, quoted by Noam Chomsky in World Orders Old and New
Aristotle:
If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost.
Dorothy Thompson:
Of all forms of government and society, those of free men and women are in many respects the most brittle. They give the fullest freedom for activities of private persons and groups who often identify their own interests, essentially selfish, with the general welfare.
Eugene McCarthy:
As long as the differences and diversities of mankind exist, democracy must allow for compromise, for accommodation, and for the recognition of differences.
George Washington:
As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.
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.
It is not supposed to be.
In fact, it is not only not "supposed to be" reactive it is intentionally "supposed to be not" reactive. Period.
That it is not reactive to change in what the US is reactive to change does not imply that it should be.
You are putting forth your opinion that it should be reactive in that way and using that to justify that the constitution is outdated.
The fact that it was written when Obama would have been treated differently does not matter because the constitution was amended to change that. It no longer is that document.
And again, you argue against the constitution because it is difficult to change. But again, it is that way deliberately. It is intentionally that way to greatly restrict the ability of the majority to take from the minority and it is deliberately that way to make it very difficult to force the rule of one state upon another. You not liking the difficulty in changing the US Constitution to something that you would prefer is not a valid reason for dismissing it is being as outdated.
The United States is an enormous nation with both an enormous population and tremendous variety within that population. The difficulty in changing the rules that apply to everybody allows for differentiation among the states. Thus if one person likes A and dislikes B but a second likes B and dislikes A, each can still find a state where the laws are to his or her liking.
There is enormous difference in culture and ethics and morals between the east coast states and the west coast staes and the central states and the miwest ones and the Rocky Mountain ones... Note: That is not saying one is superior but rather stating the degree of difference...
Allowing change to come more easily would remove that. For instance, this would make it easier for a few urban states to combine with the urban areas of rural states to enact changes that would be pleasing to those who live in the city and displeasing to those who live in the country. And on and on...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In fact, it is not only not "supposed to be" reactive it is intentionally "supposed to be not" reactive. Period.
Facts can be proven objectively. I'm not sure whose intentions count in the case of a document drafted by a large number of people, any number of whom might have had differing opinions as to the intent of that document, nor am I aware of any objective way to prove that intention (particularly since those people are long dead). Nor do most Constitutional law scholars. There are various arguments for how the Constitution should be interpreted, but nothing approaching a fact.
Or, if you prefer:
You are putting forth your opinion that it should not be reactive in that way and using that to justify that the constitution is not outdated.
|
|
Minor problem with the "they've been dead for 200+ years, we don't know what they were thinking" stance. They (our "Founding Fathers") left behind a metric ass load of correspondence, writings, and whatnot, and were pretty explicit about their views on governance and the role of government.
[As an aside, their definition of "liberal" is radically different than the Progressive movement's (the basis of the modern Left) definition of "liberal". It isn't cricket to quote them and implying a modern definition of a word when they clearly meant something all together different when using that word.]
<SNIP>[As an aside, their definition of "liberal" is radically different than the Progressive movement's (the basis of the modern Left) definition of "liberal". It isn't cricket to quote them and implying a modern definition of a word when they clearly meant something all together different when using that word.]
Correct.
Though: "Cricket?"
Thank goodness for context. ;-)
|
|
<SNIP>[As an aside, their definition of "liberal" is radically different than the Progressive movement's (the basis of the modern Left) definition of "liberal". It isn't cricket to quote them and implying a modern definition of a word when they clearly meant something all together different when using that word.]Correct.
Though: "Cricket?"
Thank goodness for context. ;-)
I just wanted to be "hep" and "with it" using the Brit slang ;)
|
|
"He's kept Guantanamo open, he's continued to use indefinite detention," Nader said. The only real difference, he said is that "Obama's speeches are better." 'Waaaaaaaaaaaay better.
Yep, the last one was an idiot, the current one is an idiot savant, and his trick is public speaking.
I'd rather he could count toothpicks and cards, so we could send him to Vegas and wipe out the deficit...
|
|
I'm with you on the savant part, not so much the idiot part.
Like him or hate him, one thing Obama isn't is stupid.
I'm just going on his track record with a) the opposition, b) the international leaders (reading the foreign press, other than Brown, apparently they're not impressed with him), and c) his propensity for surrounding himself with very ineffective, very unsavory characters (Napolitano and Holder jump out immediately, Geithner and Clinton aren't exactly lighting it up either).
I'm sure he's book smart as all get out, but politically, not so much. He could still learn quite a few lessons from Clinton 42 about how to govern a nation, and not a party.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm with you on the savant part, not so much the idiot part.
Like him or hate him, one thing Obama isn't is stupid.
I'm just going on his track record with a) the opposition, b) the international leaders (reading the foreign press, other than Brown, apparently they're not impressed with him), and c) his propensity for surrounding himself with very ineffective, very unsavory characters (Napolitano and Holder jump out immediately, Geithner and Clinton aren't exactly lighting it up either).
I'm sure he's book smart as all get out, but politically, not so much. He could still learn quite a few lessons from Clinton 42 about how to govern a nation, and not a party.
On the other hand, Clinton never passed health care reform.... ;)
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
I'm with you on the savant part, not so much the idiot part.
Like him or hate him, one thing Obama isn't is stupid.
I'm just going on his track record with a) the opposition, b) the international leaders (reading the foreign press, other than Brown, apparently they're not impressed with him), and c) his propensity for surrounding himself with very ineffective, very unsavory characters (Napolitano and Holder jump out immediately, Geithner and Clinton aren't exactly lighting it up either).
I'm sure he's book smart as all get out, but politically, not so much. He could still learn quite a few lessons from Clinton 42 about how to govern a nation, and not a party.
On the other hand, Clinton never passed healthcare reform...
|
I'm with you on the savant part, not so much the idiot part.
Like him or hate him, one thing Obama isn't is stupid.
I'm just going on his track record with a) the opposition, b) the international leaders (reading the foreign press, other than Brown, apparently they're not impressed with him), and c) his propensity for surrounding himself with very ineffective, very unsavory characters (Napolitano and Holder jump out immediately, Geithner and Clinton aren't exactly lighting it up either).
I'm sure he's book smart as all get out, but politically, not so much. He could still learn quite a few lessons from Clinton 42 about how to govern a nation, and not a party.
On the other hand, Clinton never passed healthcare reform...
I knew there was something I liked about him.
Are we still talking about this? Surely there's something else we can all fight about?
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
I removed some posts. For the last time, be civil.
[whiney voice]But Rooooooossss. I was having fun![/whiney voice]
Having fun deliberately at my expense...
Does that count as deliberate trolling, Ross?
1 vote for lock. We done beat this horse dead.
I'm with you on the savant part, not so much the idiot part.
Like him or hate him, one thing Obama isn't is stupid.
1 vote for lock. We done beat this horse dead.[Beavis]Are you threatening me?[/Beavis]
[Beavis]I am the Great Cornhulio! I need TP for my bunghole![/Beavis]
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 . . . .
Um, not true. The relevant text:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
Barak Obama is, and always has been, a "free Person" and therefore not 3/5 of a person.
But I'm also no expert on law (Constitutional or otherwise).
There are parts that are pretty clearly unconstitutional, but the Kelo decision caught me by surprise, so I'm not gonna put money on any of it. Still, one can hope.
Now, as some people seem to be unable to post without hurling insults, and Ross has given his three warnings, I'm gonna say "Good Luck" to anyone still hanging around.
In Australia and the UK we have had government owned industries and services. We have seen some of those industries and services sold off. Every time this happens the service becomes less efficient and more expensive and available to less people.
We know that the service is less profitable when run by the government. service for the majority over profit is the primary reason for it existing.
What makes me angry is my Taxes being wasted. How much money does Iraq cost you in a year - (I am sure that it is more than Universal Health care cost).
Iraq costs about $12,000,000,000 per month in 08 or $144,000,000,000 a year. It's absurd, unconstitutional, and we can't afford it.
We're looking at ~$150,000,000,000 a year for Obama care on top of ~$879,000,000,000 in Medicare and federal Medicaid spending in addition to a $738,000,000,000 outlay for social security. That's roughly $1,617,000,000,000 a year in social spending and we will still have ten to twenty million people with out health insurance.
I was also fond of this:
Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 milion in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.
Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)
Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings
Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion
Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion
Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion