For the most part, there is no meaningful difference. Republicans invariably use libertarian arguments to support their positions, and most self-identified libertarians vote Republican.
Since the Libertarian Party has zero political power, but libertarians in general have powerful influence on Republican ideology, I generally consider them one and the same.
Then you are wrong. i dont know what else to tell you.
Democratic majorities controlled the House and Senate through the forty best years this country has ever seen. We've been a continual downslide ever since conservatism became the dominant ideology. Maybe that's not a coincidence?
You consider the stagflation of the late 70's some of the "best years?" I bet many Korean or Vietnam vets would disagree that Democratic control of the legislative branch were some of their best years. How about recently? Was 2005-2010 some of America's best years? Is that seriously your position? Take away any representation from any american who would dare to register Republican?
Nobody. But you seemed surprised that his actions didn't match his rhetoric. Of course they didn't. He was an idiot puppet mouthpiece for the corporate establishment.
You missed my point. I was not surprised. I was using him as an example of how easily the public can be fooled into electing someone without their best interests at heart. Its the whole point behind Libertarianism, to lessen the impact of the tyranny of charlatans on the people.
Once the recession hit, it was inevitable.
And what good has it done?
...continue the Patriot Act,
Of course. Most of the Patriot Act is sound legislation that we need.
Really? I think most everyone who is not in government disagrees with you.
...not close Guantanamo,
He did close Guantanamo. It was the very first executive order he signed. Congress has denied him any funds to move the prisoners. Rule of law, sometimes its a b&!$~.
Fair enough. I admit when I'm wrong.
Second half coming up. Post too long
I did not see the Jasmine Revolution coming, but I do support our actions in Libya. What's the other war?
Yemen and possibly Somalia too. Also I consider the missle strikes into northern Pakistan as an act of war. I know that if Pakistan launched drones into New York to kill Mafia members, I'd consider it war. You support our actions in Libya? First off, I consider it wasteful military spending, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Secondly, when these bombs kill civilians, as they inevitably do, it only leads to more hatred towards the US. No wonder you support the Patriot Act. But what do I know, I'm loony.
Citation? All torture programs were suspended under Bush.
Wrong. All American torture was suspended, yet rendition still exists. Surely you can put two and two together. article
...still erode our civil rights,Citation?
See Patriot Act above and add in continuance of War on Drugs, the ATF, TSA, "free speech zones",Health Care mandate, etc etc. Not to mention that I consider attempting to assassinate US citizens a pretty big trampling of civil rights. Honestly, if you do not think that our civil rights are being eroded, then I am left wondering how you manage to use the internet with no eyes to see or ears to hear with.
...and not end the war in Afghanistan within 90 days??Obama never said he would end the war in Afghanistan in 90 days. Here is what he did say.
Once again I was wrong. I meant Iraq. which we are still in. youtube
I don't think its the Libertarians who are loony, I think it is you and the others who still think that there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats or believe that either one cares about your best interests....so vote Republican. (sorry, Fark.com joke)
or vote not along party lines but by individual candidate. Loony concept, I know! (For the record, I voted Obama in 08 in the vain hope that he would keep to his campaign promises of restoring our rights and ending the illegal wars. In that instance, I was indeed loony.)
This does not even really go anywhere near to what the Germans where up to. The German's where engaged in full scale race war. Everyone in Eastern Russia was to be killed or enslaved to make way for resettlement of the region by Germans. They'd take a major city they had captured and was now fairly far behind the lines and literally stop all shipments of anything into or out of the city. Needless to say cities are not self sufficient in food so the people would start to starve. The Germans where actively trying to kill off the population to depopulate their conquests. Needless to say a little bit Germany's kind treatment and the normally anti-Russian Ukrainians suddenly became ardent Russian patriots.Just a note -- the SU itself praticed a scorched earth policy as well -- and were noted for trying to turn anything into a weapon (even dogs and in a few cases *of which I am not certain of the validity* children) which has the habit of making your enemy very paranoid and prone to committing atrocities in the hopes of preventing an attack (which did help the SU with free propaganda). It's similar to some of the stuff our soldiers saw in Vietnam -- and some of their responses were just as predictably bad (though by no means all of them were such, or anything like that).
Quite -- I don't mean to suggest absolution or even a "well look at the other guy". The Nazi's regularly practiced methods that are grotesque and inhumane beyond what was needed or justifiable in any situation.
My purpose was only to bring awareness to some of the other things going on at the time -- as nothing happens in a vacuum. I staunchly believe all wrongs need addressed if only to help people understand how much of an atrocity each part is... I don't want to see genocides creep up on us again because we ignore the little massacres because we don't want to get involved or 'its not big enough for us to worry about'.
|
Is that seriously your position? Take away any representation from any american who would dare to register Republican?
...
I was using him as an example of how easily the public can be fooled into electing someone without their best interests at heart. Its the whole point behind Libertarianism, to lessen the impact of the tyranny of charlatans on the people.
I just want to point out the apparent hypocrisy in these statements.
I don't think people should vote for Republicans because Republicans have bad ideas. So you accuse me of wanting to "take away" representation from Americas. Fair enough.
But then you turn around and suggest that libertarianism would "lessen the impact" of the "tyranny of charlatans." Well, how exactly? Don't answer, I already know: By imposing libertarian concepts of the limits of government power that cannot be challenged by voters.
It is pretty much what you just accused me of.
Once the recession hit, [deficit spending] was inevitable.And what good has it done?
It's kept the economy from going into absolute free fall.
Most of the Patriot Act is sound legislation that we need.Really? I think most everyone who is not in government disagrees with you.
That's because most people are ignorant of the vast majority of what the Patriot Act authorizes. The Patriot Act vastly improved inter-agency communication and created many of the tools that law-enforcement agencies are using as we speak to prevent terrorism.
Yemen and possibly Somalia too. Also I consider the missle strikes into northern Pakistan as an act of war. I know that if Pakistan launched drones into New York to kill Mafia members, I'd consider it war.
Drone strikes in Pakistan were started under Bush. The drone strikes in Yemen and Somali are being carried out with the permission of the Yemeni and Somalian governments, so can't rightly be called "war."
You support our actions in Libya? First off, I consider it wasteful military spending, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Secondly, when these bombs kill civilians, as they inevitably do, it only leads to more hatred towards the US. No wonder you support the Patriot Act. But what do I know, I'm loony.
I support all people in their efforts to overthrow tyrannical governments and create a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Of all of the armed conflicts we are involved in currently, the Libyan conflict is the only one that is truly just - they have asked for our help in overcoming tyranny, and just as the French came to our aid when we asked for help in overcoming the tyranny of the British, we have an obligation to assist others who wish to have the same freedoms we do.
...or vote not along party lines but by individual candidate. Loony concept, I know! (For the record, I voted Obama in 08 in the vain hope that he would keep to his campaign promises of restoring our rights and ending the illegal wars. In that instance, I was indeed loony.)
That represents a complete failure to understand how Washington DC works. Individual candidates have minimal power, but they do count towards creating majorities - which can result in the difference between Democrat and Republican control.
Consider what the House Democrats under Pelosi accomplished - health care reform, tax reform, credit card reform, job creation bills, expanded gay rights, tons of really excellent legislation...most of which was killed by Republican senate filibusters. And that's just scratching the surface.
What has the House accomplished under Boenher? Nothing, except to go after women's rights and giveaways to the wealthy. And if you look around the country at state governments, Republicans are on a warpath of destruction, bound and determined to force women back into the kitchen (barefoot and pregnant!), slashing government services for ordinary citizens, removing state workers right to free assembly and right to redress, and handing the cookie jar right over to the Koch brothers.
Anyone who votes Republican is voting to harm women and minorities, and to support the wealthiest job destroyers in their plot to turn America into a third world nation. It doesn't matter what the individual candidate stands for.
Is that seriously your position? Take away any representation from any american who would dare to register Republican?
...
I was using him as an example of how easily the public can be fooled into electing someone without their best interests at heart. Its the whole point behind Libertarianism, to lessen the impact of the tyranny of charlatans on the people.
I just want to point out the apparent hypocrisy in these statements.
I don't think people should vote for Republicans because Republicans have bad ideas. So you accuse me of wanting to "take away" representation from Americas. Fair enough.
But then you turn around and suggest that libertarianism would "lessen the impact" of the "tyranny of charlatans." Well, how exactly? Don't answer, I already know: By imposing libertarian concepts of the limits of government power that cannot be challenged by voters.
It is pretty much what you just accused me of.
If you say so. If you really think telling people that they shouldnt have people in Washington representing their beliefs is the exact same as saying that politicians shouldnt have as much power as they do, then more power to you. Enjoy yourself as both parties (not so) slowly take your rights away.
It's kept the economy from going into absolute free fall.Once the recession hit, [deficit spending] was inevitable.And what good has it done?
prove it.
That's because most people are ignorant of the vast majority of what the Patriot Act authorizes. The Patriot Act vastly improved inter-agency communication and created many of the tools that law-enforcement agencies are using as we speak to prevent terrorism.Most of the Patriot Act is sound legislation that we need.Really? I think most everyone who is not in government disagrees with you.
So you think the entire bill is a good thing and Harry Reid was in the absolute right when he insisted that it be passed without any amendments? You must have loved Bush and Cheney then.
Yemen and possibly Somalia too. Also I consider the missle strikes into northern Pakistan as an act of war. I know that if Pakistan launched drones into New York to kill Mafia members, I'd consider it war.Drone strikes in Pakistan were started under Bush. The drone strikes in Yemen and Somali are being carried out with the permission of the Yemeni and Somalian governments, so can't rightly be called "war."
Citation? I dont care which party started the drone strikes. Once again you fail to realise that both parties are for the most part, the exact same.
More coming. Dont know why it wont allow me to reply to whole post.
You support our actions in Libya? First off, I consider it wasteful military spending, just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Secondly, when these bombs kill civilians, as they inevitably do, it only leads to more hatred towards the US. No wonder you support the Patriot Act. But what do I know, I'm loony.I support all people in their efforts to overthrow tyrannical governments and create a government of the people, by the people, for the people. Of all of the armed conflicts we are involved in currently, the Libyan conflict is the only one that is truly just - they have asked for our help in overcoming tyranny, and just as the French came to our aid when we asked for help in overcoming the tyranny of the British, we have an obligation to assist others who wish to have the same freedoms we do.
Guess what? A lot of people dont support us overthrowing sovreign nations on the whim of the president. When one man decides that a nation goes to war, no matter the reason, that nation is NOT a republic. If the French wanted our aid, they should have asked congress to declare war. But then you are fine with silencing anyone who doesnt agree with you, so that's par for the course.
...or vote not along party lines but by individual candidate. Loony concept, I know! (For the record, I voted Obama in 08 in the vain hope that he would keep to his campaign promises of restoring our rights and ending the illegal wars. In that instance, I was indeed loony.)That represents a complete failure to understand how Washington DC works. Individual candidates have minimal power, but they do count towards creating majorities - which can result in the difference between Democrat and Republican control.
And that represents a complete failure to understand how Washington DC could work. Individual candidates could run (gasp) on platforms that benefited their constituents instead instaed of the cookie cutter two party system. But what did John F Kennedy know? He must of been a loon for glorifying politicians who did just that in that book of his. Obviously he did not understand Washington DC either. Unless you meant that my voting for Obama in 08 was a complete misunderstanding of how Washington works, then, yes, I agree with you.
Consider what the House Democrats under Pelosi accomplished - health care reform, tax reform, credit card reform, job creation bills, expanded gay rights, tons of really excellent legislation...most of which was killed by Republican senate filibusters. And that's just scratching the surface.
So they accomplished stuff, but not really because the Republicans killed it? They gave us healthcare reform, all right. Reform that includes a mandate. So now Congress can declare that we have to buy goods because they demand it? Nope, nosiree, no way that that precedent could be abused in the future. Tarp and the ARRA laws too. Yup, Let the big banks that collapsed our economy know that we will never let them fail, no matter how badly they behave, that's another good precedent to set. Expanded Gay rights? You mean adding them to the hate crimes list? I fail to see how that is expanding gay rights.
What has the House accomplished under Boenher? Nothing, except to go after women's rights and giveaways to the wealthy. And if you look around the country at state governments, Republicans are on a warpath of destruction, bound and determined to force women back into the kitchen (barefoot and pregnant!), slashing government services for ordinary citizens, removing state workers right to free assembly and right to redress, and handing the cookie jar right over to the Koch brothers.
I agree,(and I think you are confusing me for a Republican) but I dont think the answer is to blacklist them. After all, they were elected for a reason.
Anyone who votes Republican is voting to harm women and minorities, and to support the wealthiest job destroyers in their plot to turn America into a third world nation. It doesn't matter what the individual candidate stands for.
Citation? Anyone who votes Republican or Democrat is voting to maintain the status quo: ie the destruction of our civil liberties, ensuring that we are always in a state of never-ending warfare, and for making sure that big business always manages to keep their boots on our throats.
|
|
They gave us healthcare reform, all right. Reform that includes a mandate. So now Congress can declare that we have to buy goods because they demand it? Nope, nosiree, no way that that precedent could be abused in the future.
I'm not interested in going through every single item on the list of things about the government and law you just plain don't understand and trying to explain them to you. It's much easier to point out that libertarianism has been tried and it failed, so we're unlikely to go back to it. But I do want to point out that the argument you are making here, which is typical of the kind of arguments you are putting forth, is just silly.
Yeah, there is a mandate. If it was a universal health care system, there would be a mandate too. You know why the mandate exists? Because the right wingers and libertarians in this country won't even consider an actual national health care system. Despite the massive evidence to the contrary, they insist that the "free market" is more efficient than government at providing insurance, so we have to preserve the private insurance market.
And that means a mandate to buy health insurance. Because otherwise the whole system just won't work. Because everyone will just act like a free rider, only paying into the system when they get sick. That won't work. Arguing against just the mandate is a nonsensical, because what you're reallyarguing is that people should get to be freeloaders who don't support the system, only take advantage of it.
The mandate doesn't set any kind of precedent. The precedent was set decades ago, when the courts decided it was within government authority to force anyone who drives to buy auto insurance from a private vendor.
Also:
And that represents a complete failure to understand how Washington DC could work. Individual candidates could run (gasp) on platforms that benefited their constituents instead instaed of the cookie cutter two party system.
Except the system of checks and balances in the government ensures that no one politician can set the agenda. A Republican could come forward promising everything I want. But he can't deliver on those promises -- only a party can do that. All he could do is help ensure the agenda is set by Republicans, which would mean denying gay rights, hurting women, and giveways to big business.
That's why politics are so much saner in Europe - they vote for parties, not people, with the understanding that parties have power while individuals do not.
But then you are fine with silencing anyone who doesnt agree with you, so that's par for the course.
And you're a disingenuous liar. Suggesting that blaming "government" for the failures of the Republicans is misleading is not at all like suggesting people who disagree with me should be silenced. We're done talking. If you can just lie like this, I have nothing to say to you.
You know what I don't get? Why the health care law "forces" people to buy insurance. They should have just taken the money and called it a tax. Then the entire "forcing us to buy stuff" argument just goes away. After all, you don't see people (successfully) arguing that they shouldn't be "forced to buy" roads, courts, or national defense. What a load of B.S.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what I don't get? Why the health care law "forces" people to buy insurance. They should have just taken the money and called it a tax. Then the entire "forcing us to buy stuff" argument just goes away. After all, you don't see people (successfully) arguing that they shouldn't be "forced to buy" roads, courts, or national defense. What a load of B.S.
Because if it was a tax, that would mean that the government was the insurer, which would be commiesocialifascistsharialawnaziism.
You know what I don't get? Why the health care law "forces" people to buy insurance. They should have just taken the money and called it a tax. Then the entire "forcing us to buy stuff" argument just goes away. After all, you don't see people (successfully) arguing that they shouldn't be "forced to buy" roads, courts, or national defense. What a load of B.S.
I agree. It would have been much much more preferable.
I agree. It would have been much much more preferable.
I know, right? Whether you like the law or not, the Constitutional issue goes away.
The mandate doesn't set any kind of precedent. The precedent was set decades ago, when the courts decided it was within government authority to force anyone who drives to buy auto insurance from a private vendor.
Amish do not drive they are not forced to buy auto insurance. Commuters who do not own a car are not forced to buy auto insurance. Everyone who is alive must buy health insurance. That seems fairly different to me. Now we can be forced to buy something, not as a luxury, but just for existing. I am a libertarian and that is my biggest problem with the HealthCare bill. Now tell me exactly what it is that I do not understand.
Except the system of checks and balances in the government ensures that no one politician can set the agenda.
Do not worry, there is most definitly a bipartisan effort to destroy the checks and balances of the American Republic. No longer does the Judicial branch need to be involved in issuing warrants or allowing wiretaps. No longer need the Legislative Branch worry about declaring war. The President can take us to war by himself. Now tell me what it is that I do not understand.
And you're a disingenuous liar. Suggesting that blaming "government" for the failures of the Republicans is misleading is not at all like suggesting people who disagree with me should be silenced. We're done talking. If you can just lie like this, I have nothing to say to you.
Fair enough. But when your entire position is "I dont care what people who vote Republican's core beliefs are, they are destroying the country and no one should ever vote republican because no republican has a good idea at all" sure seems alot like you believe that all republicans should be removed from office. And republicans are part of government. And for the last time, Libertarian=/=Republican. I know way more Libertarians who would support Dennis Kucinich (alot) than who would support Bachmann or Santorum (0) Now, once again, tell me what I do not understand.
I agree. It would have been much much more preferable.I know, right? Whether you like the law or not, the Constitutional issue goes away.
Exactly. I have no problem with the mandate included with HealthCare bill for the reasons that Gailbraithe stated. Its shared sacrifice. What I have problems with is, say sometime in the future, a majority of Monsanto supporters (once again, just as an example) gets elected to Congress. Democrat, republican- doesnt matter. And they manage to pass a law stating that everyone must buy produce grown from genetically modified seeds. And now, due to the mandate, they have the legal precedent to do so.
|
|
Now tell me exactly what it is that I do not understand.
That the precedent of the government requiring citizens to purchase a good from a private broker was established before Obamacare. The exact same mandate existed in Romneycare, and the state of Massachusetts. The slippery slope argument you are making is just that, a slippery slope argument.
It becomes even more ridiculous when you realize the argument you're presenting has only become popular since the right started pushing it in response to Obamacare...completely ignoring that Republicans had been pushing for the mandate for the two decades previous.
Blame Obama for the mandate all you want, at the end of the day it was a compromise with right wingers who wouldn't accept the "commie socialism" of a direct tax insurance system.
Now tell me what it is that I do not understand.
The entire point of my every comment. Are you even reading what I'm writing? Because you just keep spamming me with the same nonsense no matter how I respond.
Fair enough. But when your entire position is "I dont care what people who vote Republican's core beliefs are, they are destroying the country and no one should ever vote republican because no republican has a good idea at all" sure seems alot like you believe that all republicans should be removed from office.
I do believe that Republicans should be removed from office. By not electing them. Nowhere does that translate to "Republicans should be silenced."
Whom would you propose fill in the Republican's positions? I adamantly refuse to vote other than as my research indicates would be "my" candidate for a given position. If the power vacuum is entirely filled by one party, that will not go well.
The checks and balances are (some what) still there - one of these is the presence of a non-majority political group with some clout.
Granted, the way things have been going, the Republicans and the Democrats both are heading into electoral season hurt lockers ... or they should be, at least.
|
|
Interresting read: The Liberty Scam
Why even Robert Nozick, the philosophical father of libertarianism, gave up on the movement he inspired.
That was a fantastic read. This in particular stood out to me: "Every thinking person is to some degree a libertarian, and it is this part of all of us that is bullied or manipulated when liberty is invoked to silence our doubts about the free market. The ploy is to take libertarianism as Orwell meant it and confuse it with libertarianism as Hayek meant it; to take a faith in the individual as an irreducible unit of moral worth, and turn it into a weapon in favor of predation."
This is why I just roll my eyes when people start pulling out the libertarian arguments. It all so much disingenuous BS.
|
|
Whom would you propose fill in the Republican's positions?
The Democrats. And then the progressive wing of the party can split off, perhaps welding the Green and less-insane parts of the Libertarian movement into a new progressive left party, leaving the center-right establishment core of the Democrats to play the conservative role the Republicans abandoned in favor of the radicial reactionary politics of "conservatism."
The drone strikes in Yemen and Somali are being carried out with the permission of the Yemeni and Somalian governments, so can't rightly be called "war."
By that same logic, the United States was never at war in South Vietnam (they had "permission" from every puppet from Diem to Thieu) and the Soviet Union was never at war in Afghanistan (invited in by the PDPA).
Furthermore, I don't understand how anyone reasonably well-informed can support NATO's war in Libya. All the accusations of genocide and mass rape that were the imperialists' rationale for the war have been severely undermined by human-rights observers on the scene. Which isn't to say that the Qaddafi regime hasn't behaved with outrageous brutality, but so have the Benghazi rebels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't buy any of this "shared sacrifice" caca, either.
Obama has stepped up and announced that he's willing to knife Social Security and Medicare. New Deal? Bye-bye. Great Society? See ya!
As anyone older than 16 should realize, the "corporate assault" on America has been proceeding apace for at least 40 years now. For the past generation, the lower classes--the poor, the workers, the "middle class" of cubicled professionals, the farmers, probably most small business-owners--have been taking it on the chin or up the ass, depending on your taste in metaphors: loss of jobs, lowered buying-power of wages, exploding prices, etc.
Meanwhile, the government just makes up a bunch of money and gives it to their buddies on Wall Street and Motown who, from what I can tell, stick it in banks or give it out as bonuses to their CEOs.
Meanwhile, the government makes up a bunch more money to drop how many missiles on Libya, send killer robots into how many countries, and play rent-a-cop in the oil and poppy fields of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Meanwhile, Tyrone at the foundry and Pam at the elementary school, who are busy living the American dream of rising health care costs, second mortgages and credit card bills, are told "oh, there isn't any money so you're going to have to sit on wage freezes, more pension contributions and less insurance. We've all got to do our part!"
Screw that, where's my bailout?!?
Now tell me exactly what it is that I do not understand.That the precedent of the government requiring citizens to purchase a good from a private broker was established before Obamacare. The exact same mandate existed in Romneycare, and the state of Massachusetts. The slippery slope argument you are making is just that, a slippery slope argument.
It becomes even more ridiculous when you realize the argument you're presenting has only become popular since the right started pushing it in response to Obamacare...completely ignoring that Republicans had been pushing for the mandate for the two decades previous.
Blame Obama for the mandate all you want, at the end of the day it was a compromise with right wingers who wouldn't accept the "commie socialism" of a direct tax insurance system.
RomneyCare required Massachusett citizens to buy Health Insurance. People in Kansas were unaffected. Nice try though.
Once again, I'm not a republican. If they had passed the mandate, I would be railing against it just as hard. Third point, I agree.Now tell me what it is that I do not understand.
The entire point of my every comment. Are you even reading what I'm writing? Because you just keep spamming me with the same nonsense no matter how I respond.
Yes I am reading what you are writing. No where has it been explained to me how giving up our civil rights is a good thing.
Fair enough. But when your entire position is "I dont care what people who vote Republican's core beliefs are, they are destroying the country and no one should ever vote republican because no republican has a good idea at all" sure seems alot like you believe that all republicans should be removed from office.
I do believe that Republicans should be removed from office. By not electing them. Nowhere does that translate to "Republicans should be silenced."
Once again, fair enough.
|
|
RomneyCare required Massachusett citizens to buy Health Insurance. People in Kansas were unaffected. Nice try though.
Once again, I'm not a republican. If they had passed the mandate, I would be railing against it just as hard. Third point, I agree.
That rebuttal makes no sense. The state of Massachusetts is bound by the same constitution as the federal government (due to the 14th amendment), which means that when Massachusetts pass Romneycare the precedent was set.
Yes I am reading what you are writing. No where has it been explained to me how giving up our civil rights is a good thing.
Nowhere have I claimed that giving up our civil rights is a good thing.
You want to talk about the Patriot Act? Okay, let's talk about that.
It contains numerous provision that in no way violate our civil rights, but do allow for information sharing and combined action by various independent law enforcement agencies, while granting new powers to those law enforcement agencies to deal with modern terrorism.
Thanks to epic levels of dithering and Republican obstructionism when the Patriot Act came up for reconsideration there was insufficient time to allow for serious consideration and debate of the hundreds of provision in the bill. It was set to expire in a matter of days, which would have undermined several ongoing investigations and crippled law enforcement's ability to respond to present and emerging threats.
Should the Patriot Act be reviewed in full? Yes. Can that be done realistically in the current political climate? No. So what choice does that leave us? We either kick the can down the road in favor of not making ourselves immediately vulnerable to terrorism, or we let it expire in toto and thus make ourselves immediately vulnerable to terrorism.
It's easy to play armchair politician and demand that any particular politician -- such as Obama -- do the ideal thing, but that makes the perfect the enemy of the good, and has the end result of demanding that good be stupid.
Would I have preferred the Democrats thoroughly review the Patriot Act and eliminate the more egregious parts of it? Yes. Do I think that such a thorough review is possible given the Republicans behavior in Washington DC over the last two years? Not for a second.
At the end of the day, I would rather we have the flawed Patriot Act than go back to the pre-9/11 schema that lead directly to 9/11. Have you read the 9/11 commissions report? It was the lack of interagency cooperation that lead to 9/11. Take away the Patriot Act entirely, and we're right back in that situation.
That rebuttal makes no sense. The state of Massachusetts is bound by the same constitution as the federal government (due to the 14th amendment), which means that when Massachusetts pass Romneycare the precedent was set.RomneyCare required Massachusett citizens to buy Health Insurance. People in Kansas were unaffected. Nice try though.
Once again, I'm not a republican. If they had passed the mandate, I would be railing against it just as hard. Third point, I agree.
Not quite. The Constitution does not forbid the states to do this. The argument is that it does not allow the federal government to do so.
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Basically put if the feds can't because it infringes on your immunities or privileges as then the states can't either.
Now if one is to state the feds can't do it for some other reason we might get into other areas -- but the number one reason I've seen people quote as being the reason the government can't mandate health care is that it infringes on their rights and protections.
If you would like to make a different case I'm all ears.
Then I admit that my arguement is flawed, if it makes everyone happy. I do not not point fingers at any specific party. I point them at the whole two party system. It is then the Massachusetts Romneycare that set the bad precedent. That does not make it right. They too should have just taxed it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then I admit that my arguement is flawed, if it makes everyone happy. I do not not point fingers at any specific party. I point them at the whole two party system. It is then the Massachusetts Romneycare that set the bad precedent. That does not make it right. They too should have just taxed it.
Hey you'll get my fully hearted endorsement of tearing down the two party system (not the government -- just the parties) -- I vote for the person I think will do the best job regardless of political affiliation -- I firmly agree with our first president who said that a political party system would be the death of our country.
I'm a bit more sophisticated than that jeff -- part of picking the best person for the job is paying attention to what he lets other people do -- it's no good if his personal credentials are perfect if he's going to let other people (possibly his part for example) do things that aren't good too.
After all while you might not be your associates who you associate with does say something about you too.