# WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?



## Bfgrn

I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...

Guess what pea brains...















WASHINGTON  Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for  lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

*Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments *in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

*Democrats*  who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document * have proposed 27 amendments*, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and  an old favorite  prohibit desecration of the American flag.

During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress  a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Whole Article...


----------



## Tom Clancy

Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS. 

End of thread.


----------



## California Girl

Is there any major achievement, figure, event, etc that you don't claim as yours? 

You're becoming even more ridiculous than previous evidence had suggested. Oh wait.... no, my mistake... None of it is actually your own thought - you just 'form' your opinions by ingesting someone else's. Got it.


----------



## Bfgrn

Tom Clancy said:


> Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS.
> 
> End of thread.



End of thread? Who the fuck are you?


----------



## johnrocks

I just wish everyone would interpret it like I do


----------



## Tom Clancy

Bfgrn said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS.
> 
> End of thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of thread? Who the fuck are you?
Click to expand...


It's merely a from of expression.


----------



## Modbert

Superman.


----------



## Tom Clancy

Modbert said:


> Superman.



False.

Captain America. 

/Thread. 

Damn, 2 /Threads in one day..


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Tom Clancy said:


> Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS.
> 
> End of thread.



What he said.


----------



## ConservativeDad

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS.
> 
> End of thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What he said.
Click to expand...


What they said

The constitution limits the power of government.  All congresscritters want those limits gone.

It may be the only truly bi-partisan effort they make...


----------



## Modbert

Tom Clancy said:


> False.
> 
> Captain America.
> 
> /Thread.
> 
> Damn, 2 /Threads in one day..



That's debatable, good thing you didn't say this on a comics site. Otherwise it'd be as big as the Mosque thread.


----------



## Tech_Esq

Well ok, responding to the OP.

Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.

AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?

Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.

So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.

I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.

The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> Tom Clancy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS.
> 
> End of thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End of thread? Who the fuck are you?
Click to expand...


He's Tom Clancy, novelist extraordinaire.


----------



## daveman

Tech_Esq said:


> Well ok, responding to the OP.
> 
> Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.
> 
> AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?
> 
> Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.
> 
> So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.
> 
> I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.
> 
> The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...
> 
> Guess what pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
> 
> But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for  lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
> 
> This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
> 
> *Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments *in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
> 
> *Democrats*  who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document * have proposed 27 amendments*, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.
> 
> The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.
> 
> Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."
> 
> Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and  an old favorite  prohibit desecration of the American flag.
> 
> During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress  a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.
> 
> Whole Article...



Let me see if I understand your position.

You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?


----------



## Charles_Main

Tom Clancy said:


> Both parties are Cherry Pickers of the COTUS.
> 
> End of thread.




The parties are, not me. lol

But then I have a problem with Parties to begin with lol. At least only 2 of them sharing power


----------



## Oddball

Quantum Windbag said:


> Let me see if I understand your position.
> 
> You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?


Smart money goes with "... juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans".

Just sayin'.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oddball said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your position.
> 
> You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> Smart money goes with "... juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans".
> 
> Just sayin'.
Click to expand...


Hey DUDE, why the new screen name Jethro?


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...
> 
> Guess what pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
> 
> But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for  lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
> 
> This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
> 
> *Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments *in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
> 
> *Democrats*  who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document * have proposed 27 amendments*, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.
> 
> The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.
> 
> Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."
> 
> Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and  an old favorite  prohibit desecration of the American flag.
> 
> During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress  a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.
> 
> Whole Article...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your position.
> 
> You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
Click to expand...


Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People. 

And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do. 

Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...

Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?


----------



## California Girl

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection. 

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

Bfgrn said:


> I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...
> 
> Guess what pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
> 
> But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for  lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
> 
> This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
> 
> *Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments *in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
> 
> *Democrats*  who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document * have proposed 27 amendments*, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.
> 
> The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.
> 
> Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."
> 
> Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and  an old favorite  prohibit desecration of the American flag.
> 
> During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress  a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.
> 
> Whole Article...



Funny thing about the Constitution, it can and has been amended.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

California Girl said:


> Is there any major achievement, figure, event, etc that you don't claim as yours?
> 
> You're becoming even more ridiculous than previous evidence had suggested. Oh wait.... no, my mistake... None of it is actually your own thought - you just 'form' your opinions by ingesting someone else's. Got it.



You mean besides Christ, the Founding Fathers and Albert Einstein?


----------



## California Girl

CrusaderFrank said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any major achievement, figure, event, etc that you don't claim as yours?
> 
> You're becoming even more ridiculous than previous evidence had suggested. Oh wait.... no, my mistake... None of it is actually your own thought - you just 'form' your opinions by ingesting someone else's. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean besides Christ, the Founding Fathers and Albert Einstein?
Click to expand...



Yep, yep and yep. All committed socialists.... except they weren't. 

Particularly Christ.... because the left loathe Christianity, ridicule it, and dismiss it, until it suits their agenda to use Him for their own ends.


----------



## Bfgrn

California Girl said:


> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.



Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.

I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater


----------



## johnrocks

So many interpret it differently from Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to Mark Levin to the late Senator Byrd who carried around the Constitution to Obama, how did a document written on one page get so damn complicated?


----------



## Oddball

johnrocks said:


> So many interpret it differently from Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to Mark Levin to the late Senator Byrd who carried around the Constitution to Obama, how did a document written on one page get so damn complicated?



It's the people who wish to get around the document's clear cut constraints who need to "interpret" their way around it, while people like Judge Napolitano and Dr. Paul take it at face value.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.
> 
> And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.
> 
> Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?


You no longer have the freedom to decide for yourself if you want to purchase health insurance.

Damn Republicans!


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...

How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?

How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?


----------



## johnrocks

Oddball said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many interpret it differently from Ron Paul and Judge Napolitano to Mark Levin to the late Senator Byrd who carried around the Constitution to Obama, how did a document written on one page get so damn complicated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the people who wish to get around the document's clear cut constraints who need to "interpret" their way around it, while people like Judge Napolitano and Dr. Paul take it at face value.
Click to expand...


Hopefully he'll run again


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...
> 
> Guess what pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
> 
> But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for  lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
> 
> This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
> 
> *Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments *in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
> 
> *Democrats*  who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document * have proposed 27 amendments*, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.
> 
> The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.
> 
> Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."
> 
> Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and  an old favorite  prohibit desecration of the American flag.
> 
> During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress  a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.
> 
> Whole Article...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your position.
> 
> You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.
> 
> And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.
> 
> Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?
Click to expand...


Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?

BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state. 

How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress, a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.

Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


Please explain to me why Democrats think people are stupid and cannot be trusted if they meet your definition of liberals, and why Republicans want to allow people the freedom to make their own choices if they meet your definition of conservative.

BTW, I love your quoting Goldwater in an attempt to prove your point. Personally I am glad that the PTB in the Republican party only pay lip service to the agenda of the socially conservative Christians. It keeps them quiet, and drives the idiots on the other side nuts.


----------



## Bern80

daveman said:


> How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?
> 
> How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?




Hate to burst your bubble, but you're going to have a hard time getting an answer from those freedom loving liberals on this one. I've tried. Some paradoxes are just too much for people to spin their way out of. But since we're trying we can add; 

How does letting people keep less of their money (repealing the Bush tax cuts) make them more free?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Liberals trust the people that's why they pass 2,000 pages bills covering every facet of their lives.

It's a state of love and trust


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqp0eXfpiWU]YouTube - Congressman John Dingell: Control The People[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me see if I understand your position.
> 
> You oppose amending the Constitution if someone finds there is a problem with it. I guess that means you also oppose sovereign immunity, want to go back to separately electing the President and vice President, restore slavery, allow states to deny citizenship and the right to vote to people based on the color of their skin, their age, or their sex.
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is, or will you just admit you got carried away by another idiot's story that tickled your juvenile fancy because it attacked Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.
> 
> And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.
> 
> Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?
> 
> BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.
> 
> How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or *allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress,* a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.
> 
> Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.
Click to expand...


Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.

Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a *direct democracy???*WOW, talk about a REAL moron.

The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.

When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carried away? I don't think so. All the amendments you cite increased freedoms and liberties for We, the People.
> 
> And, THAT is what Democrats continue to do.
> 
> Republicans and right wing teabaggers want to DEcrease or remove freedoms and liberties for We, the People: repeal the 14th amendment, repeal the 17th amendment, ban marriages that don't comply to their dogma...
> 
> Shall I go on to show you just how stupid your position is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?
> 
> BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.
> 
> How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or *allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress,* a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.
> 
> Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.
> 
> Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a *direct democracy???*WOW, talk about a REAL moron.
> 
> The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.
> 
> When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.
Click to expand...


I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.


----------



## DiveCon

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?
> 
> BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.
> 
> How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or *allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress,* a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.
> 
> Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.
> 
> Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a *direct democracy???*WOW, talk about a REAL moron.
> 
> The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.
> 
> When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.
Click to expand...

your first mistake is assuming you would get a logical discussion of the fact from the moronic OP


----------



## daveman

Bern80 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?
> 
> How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate to burst your bubble, but you're going to have a hard time getting an answer from those freedom loving liberals on this one. I've tried. Some paradoxes are just too much for people to spin their way out of. But since we're trying we can add;
> 
> How does letting people keep less of their money (repealing the Bush tax cuts) make them more free?
Click to expand...

No bubble to burst.  This ain't my first rodeo.  

It all makes perfect sense, if you can think in Newspeak:

War is Peace.

Freedom is Slavery.

Ignorance is Strength.


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic amendments want to increase liberties, not decrease them? Do you have any evidence for that, or are you simply spouting partisan hype?
> 
> BTW, that anti slavery thing? It is a Republican amendment, not a Democrat one. Not to mention that sovereign immunity was specifically written to deny citizens the freedom to sue a state.
> 
> How does restricting government ownership of private companies, making it harder to raise taxes, or *allow voters to direct repeal laws passed by Congress,* a restriction of my rights? I would love you to explain that concept to me, or to anyone else outside of the partisan world where Republicans are evil and hate rights.
> 
> Your problem is you read the editorial part of the story and ignored the factual part of the story. Basing your opinions and positions on the opinions of others always leaves you high and dry when challenged. Always. Stick to facts as the basis of your opinions and you will at least be able to defend them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.
> 
> Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a *direct democracy???*WOW, talk about a REAL moron.
> 
> The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.
> 
> When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.
Click to expand...


I DON'T believe it. You clearly don't know what our founding fathers did. 

Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10  advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state  it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey windbag, I'm glad you finally shed that FALSE 'classic liberal' bullshit. You are a right wing pea brain that couldn't tell dogshit from chocolate without tasting it.
> 
> Our founding fathers created a representative democracy, a Republic. And pea brains like you are calling for a *direct democracy???*WOW, talk about a REAL moron.
> 
> The party of Lincoln is DEAD. There are no Lincoln Republicans. They are now called Democrats. Lincoln was a LIBERAL.
> 
> When will we see one penny of human capital in ANY Republican solutions? The Republicans and right wing pea brains like you have always been around. Jesus called them Pharisee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what the founders did, believe it or not. What I am asking is how going from what we have now to an actual democracy decreases my rights. I notice you were unable to answer that question, which indicates to me that you are unable to actually address the points. As a result you have to engage in name calling and end up proving my assertion that your position is based on the opinions of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I DON'T believe it. You clearly don't know what our founding fathers did.
> 
> Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities, notably manifested in what Madison referred to as the "leveling impulse" of democracy to restrict the wealth and power of economic and social elites in favor of the public at large. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10  advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state  it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity..."
Click to expand...


To reiterate, my question is simply, how does allowing everyone to vote on laws that Congress passes restrict my rights. Instead of assuming that you know what I know, or even what my position is in this, please answer the question.


----------



## Bfgrn

daveman said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?
> 
> How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?
Click to expand...


I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class. 

You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.

I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.

30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.


_The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention_


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?
> 
> How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
> 
> 
> _The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
> William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention_
Click to expand...


Please, tell me who got us into this situation.

Andrew Cuomo: Architect of Ruin


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.



You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?




Bfgrn said:


> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.



You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be. More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack

You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system. 

You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?
> 
> How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
> 
> 
> _The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
> William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, tell me who got us into this situation.
> 
> Andrew Cuomo: Architect of Ruin
Click to expand...


WOW, you actually brought out the 'selling homes to black people' destroyed the world economy according to a BLOGGER argument...What a FUCKING idiot... 

Please tell me again you are a 'classic liberal'...

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy

WASHINGTON  As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.

Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.

Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.

Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. *Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.*

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

    * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

    * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

*The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,"* the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> 
> 
> How does wishing to increase government control over individuals = greater freedom?
> 
> How does wishing to decrease government control over individuals = less freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
Click to expand...


Oh, now I remember where I've heard this before:

War is Peace.

Ignorance is Strength.

Freedom is Slavery​.

Didn't think anyone was actually stupid enough to advocate it as a basis of government, though.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tech_Esq said:


> Well ok, responding to the OP.
> 
> Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.
> 
> AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?
> 
> Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.
> 
> So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.
> 
> I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.
> 
> The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.



You are a bit confused and obviously one sided.  Let's balance it a bit.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832), conservative activism rejected by Georgia and Andrew Jackson.

Dred Scott (1857), conservative activism to re-nationalize slavery and end any attempt of blacks having standing to sue in federal courts.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), conservative activism to legally segregate based on race..

Kelo v. City of New London (2005), conservative activism to empower big business in land taking for private profit.


----------



## Bfgrn

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be. More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack
> 
> You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.
> 
> You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.
Click to expand...


SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.



Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.

You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Medicare and Social Security are constitutional.  End of that subject.  Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.


----------



## Bfgrn

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.* More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. *Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack
> 
> You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.
> 
> You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.
Click to expand...


Hey pea brain, WHAT did our founding fathers create? Here is a clue for pea brains...A GOVERNMENT.

HOW did our founding father's GOVERNMENT treat these 'Corporations comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms.'?

When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.

The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.

States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're still dodging. If that is true than you should be firmly oppossed to policies that make individuals less free, like say removing people's choice in whether to purchase health insurance or not. Removing choice is the definition of restriction on freedom. PUT UP OR SHUT UP personal freedom lover. Are you or are you not opposed to government requiring individuals to make private purchases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong if you wanted to be.* More government, whether it be regulation of industry or individuals equals less freedom. That isn't open to debate. *Corporations are comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms. The freedom to do business how they see fit. More government regulation BY DEFINITION is a restriction of choice and thus freedom. Government regulation of industry doesn't expand the freedom's of individuals. All it does is allow them to remain willfully ignorant, irresponsible consumers. No one held a gun to the head's of all those people that couldn't afford to buy those homes they couldn't really afford. No one stopped them from educating themselves about the terms of their mortgage. No one shoved a few extra slices of pizza down your throat, hastening your way to a heart attack
> 
> You are the only that clearly doesn't get why we are we are. It's clear because their is variable in this equation that you liberals absolutely refuse to acknowledge as part of the problem, YOURSELVES. Your pissed because the economy is in the tank? Did you or anyone else ever look in a mirror and ask how you may have contributed to the problem? Was it perhaps due to the righteous mentality you have about what you think you deserve and not whether you can actually pay for it? Or maybe your pissed off at the state of health care. Ever ask yourself what you are doing to contribute to that? How many pounds overweight are you? What's your exercise and diet regimen like? People simply not taking care of themselves is probably the biggest contributor to the strain on our health care system.
> 
> You 'pea brain' liberals need to give up in thinking things are going to change because as a group you are completely incapable of self accountability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey pea brain, WHAT did our founding fathers create? Here is a clue for pea brains...A GOVERNMENT.
> 
> HOW did our founding father's GOVERNMENT treat these 'Corporations comprised of individuals trying to exercise their freedoms.'?
> 
> When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from control by English corporations that extracted their wealth and dominated trade. After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
> 
> Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end.
> 
> The states also imposed conditions (some of which remain on the books, though unused) like these:
> 
> * Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
> 
> * Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
> 
> * Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
> 
> * Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
> 
> * Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
> 
> * Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.
> 
> For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate. Citizens governed corporations by detailing operating conditions not just in charters but also in state constitutions and state laws. Incorporated businesses were prohibited from taking any action that legislators did not specifically allow.
> 
> States also limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Unless a legislature renewed an expiring charter, the corporation was dissolved and its assets were divided among shareholders. Citizen authority clauses limited capitalization, debts, land holdings, and sometimes, even profits. They required a company's accounting books to be turned over to a legislature upon request. The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
Click to expand...


Hey pea brain answer the question you chicken shit.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Medicare and Social Security are constitutional.  End of that subject.  Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.



Who said health care was unconstitutional?


----------



## Bfgrn

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.
> 
> You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?
Click to expand...


You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess for simple minded pea brains the solutions are just as simple. I don't advocate government control over individuals, but I DO advocate government control over private entities, banks and corporations that destroyed our economy and have been feeding on the middle class.
> 
> You right wing morons don't even know how we got in this mess.
> 
> I guarantee that you, your neighbors and fellow countrymen that are forced to file for bankruptcy, are crushed by medical bills or receive dire economic news in their mailbox are not victims of too much government control. They are victims of not ENOUGH regulation and consumer protection.
> 
> 30+ years of conservative dominated politics has created a plutocracy. And the strong middle class liberals created, which defined America, is being systematically dismantled.
> 
> 
> _The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act. Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy. There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter.
> William Jennings Bryan, 1912 Ohio Constitutional Convention_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, tell me who got us into this situation.
> 
> Andrew Cuomo: Architect of Ruin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW, you actually brought out the 'selling homes to black people' destroyed the world economy according to a BLOGGER argument...What a FUCKING idiot...
> 
> Please tell me again you are a 'classic liberal'...
> 
> Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | McClatchy
> 
> WASHINGTON  As the economy worsens and Election Day approaches, a conservative campaign that blames the global financial crisis on a government push to make housing more affordable to lower-class Americans has taken off on talk radio and e-mail.
> 
> Commentators say that's what triggered the stock market meltdown and the freeze on credit. They've specifically targeted the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which the federal government seized on Sept. 6, contending that lending to poor and minority Americans caused Fannie's and Freddie's financial problems.
> 
> Federal housing data reveal that the charges aren't true, and that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the soaring subprime lending at the core of the crisis.
> 
> Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. *Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.*
> 
> Federal Reserve Board data show that:
> 
> * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
> 
> * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
> 
> * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.
> 
> *The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007,"* the President's Working Group on Financial Markets reported Friday.
Click to expand...


Wow, did you even notice how the government pressured the private sector into making those risky loans? The way this works is it snowballs, and and builds into an avalanche over a period of time.


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SELF accountability?!?!?! OK...here's a plan asshole. If you don't want to buy health insurance, then you should sign a self accountability 'let me die' contract. If you are in an car wreck, and you don't have insurance, you DIE. No emergency medical treatment that I HAVE to pay for in my premiums.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.
> 
> You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.
Click to expand...


Why will you not answer the question?


----------



## Bfgrn

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or I can just choose pay for it. What a fucking concept.
> 
> You're STILL dodging. If you are "Mr. I'm all about people's individual freedom' then you ought to be against policies restricting it, which requiring citizens to make private purchases categorically does. Are you or aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why will you not answer the question?
Click to expand...


I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.

It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first? 

RIP pea brain...


----------



## DiveCon

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why will you not answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.
> 
> It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?
> 
> RIP pea brain...
Click to expand...

you continue to project your own pea-brainism


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing individual freedom with individual responsibility. If you REALLY want individual freedom, then you have to step up to the plate and sign the 'let me die' contract. Because without insurance, YOUR medical bills will become MY responsibility and the responsibility of others. Sorry, I don't trust you. If you can't afford insurance, why should I believe you will pay for what could be tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of medical care. I need a down payment...$30,000 or I will call a priest for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why will you not answer the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.
> 
> It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?
> 
> RIP pea brain...
Click to expand...


Does government require me to purchase a car in the first place? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.


----------



## Bfgrn

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why will you not answer the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.
> 
> It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?
> 
> RIP pea brain...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I required to buy a car? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.
Click to expand...


IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...


----------



## Tech_Esq

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Republicans should be allowed to vote, and to exist. But just not be allowed to govern.
> 
> I've tried to educate you on how today's GOP has been hijacked by far right theocrats, authoritarians and far left Trotskyists (neoconservatives), but you close your eyes, plug your ears and hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> 
> "Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


This post should be entitled *IRONY* and admired as art.


----------



## 2Parties

The Real ones are the ones who can recite the entire document by heart  AND can recite all of the federalist and anti-federalist papers by heart.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art.  Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern.  The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party.  The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art.  Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern.  The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party.  The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.


i hope you are not alone on election night this year


----------



## Bern80

Bfgrn said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did, you're just not capable of understanding it. It's that consistent problem you right wingers have...pea brainism.
> 
> It's called sound business practice. Would a car dealer give you a $30,000 car without paying for it first?
> 
> RIP pea brain...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I required to buy a car? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...
Click to expand...


Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.


----------



## Old Rocks

Tech_Esq said:


> Well ok, responding to the OP.
> 
> Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.
> 
> AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?
> 
> Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.
> 
> So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.
> 
> I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.
> 
> The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?_r=1


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art.  Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern.  The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party.  The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.



Do you have your "stolen election!!" screeches cued up and ready to roll?


----------



## DiveCon

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art.  Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern.  The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party.  The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have your "stolen election!!" screeches cued up and ready to roll?
Click to expand...

dont you hope jokey isnt alone on election night?


----------



## daveman

DiveCon said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tech does not grasp irony and knows not art.  Goldwater was 100% correct, and the last thirty years are witness to that concern.  The theocrats, corporatists, and neo-cons have changed the party into a terrible parody of the once Grand Old Party.  The coming defeats this fall for the Pubs should shake some of the nuts out of the Republican tree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have your "stolen election!!" screeches cued up and ready to roll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dont you hope jokey isnt alone on election night?
Click to expand...

Or at least has the Suicide Hotline on speed-dial.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Am I required to buy a car? No. You said you are for expanding individual freedom. Removing choice is a restriction of freedom. Either you are lieing about the former or feel an exception must be made for the later. Pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Because having a sizable portion and number of Americans without health care jeopardizes the welfare and security of the nation far more than not having car insurance.  Bern80, I had forgotten just how challenged your are when it comes to critical thinking.

HC is legal, it is necessary, period.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Progressives jeopardize the welfare and security of the nation


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because having a sizable portion and number of Americans without health care jeopardizes the welfare and security of the nation far more than not having car insurance.  Bern80, I had forgotten just how challenged your are when it comes to critical thinking.
Click to expand...



Maybe it would, but it's irrelevant. We aren't talking about whether people should have health insurance or not, because the vast majority of people choose to have it anyway. The point is the CHOICE to have it or not. If people think choosing to not have insurance means they're not going to have to pay for services, they are sorely mistaken. They will pay for it one way or the other. If you get saddled with a giant bill because you decided to hedge your bets or something on getting sick or injured, tough shit. Treat the person and send them a bill.





JakeStarkey said:


> HC is legal, it is necessary, period.



You call me mentally challenged and follow that up with this retarded statement? Word to the wise, review your wording for clarity in the future. Are you really trying to suggest that I am saying hospitals and doctors (Health Care) are not legal?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well ok, responding to the OP.
> 
> Anyone who would defend everyone who says they're on your side is an idiot. The guy in GA thinks for himself and he is or does whatever that is, but that is meaningless to me.
> 
> AMENDING the Constitution is what you are SUPPOSED to do when you don't like it. The conservatives don't mind if the Dems try to change it that way. They may disagree on substance, but not on form. But that's not how the Dems usually try to change the Constitution, is it?
> 
> Nope. Instead, they go to the court system. They try to change the law that way. For instance, in the case of abortions. Imagine if you will, it's 1959 and the right to privacy does not exist. If you are a Yale law professor you just say, "Let's try again. Let's see if we can get the police to arrest an unmarried person for buying a condom." After nearly a decade of trying they succeed. They had to get the police in a complete pickle before they would do it, but they did. And Griswold v. Connecticut was born. It goes to the supreme court and a couple justices have a fantasy about penumbra arising like a mist from the 4th, 8th and 9th Amendments. And, presto, now there is a right to privacy just as strong as the ones that you can actually see written there.
> 
> So, building on this success the left goes on to tackle the issue they wanted, abortion. Roe v. Wade takes Griswold and extends it. Notice, no Constitutional amendment has taken place, but the Constitution is substantially changed.
> 
> I can go on. US v. Darby where the Sct guts the 10th Amendment. Wickard v. Filburn, where the Sct. says that no commerce is actually commerce so the Congress can regulate no commerce as well as real commerce. Look it up if you don't understand that. After that, everything is commerce so Congress can regulate everything because everything is either commerce or no commerce, right? That's the justification for the Health Care law.
> 
> The Constitution is changed, and no amendment process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html?_r=1
Click to expand...


My guess is this was an attempt to prove the quoted post in error. As such it indicated the total lack of understanding of the subject matter, just like Obama did in his State of the Union address.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you are in a car wreck and your injuries are life threatening, you are required to either get costly medical care, or DIE...CHOOSE pea brain. No freebies, pay in advance or see 'ya...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still dodging. That says enough for me about the credibility of your position. Why am I required to pay in advance? That's not required even with insurance. You think doctors can figure the bill before they even do anything for me? Now you're just being ridiculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because having a sizable portion and number of Americans without health care jeopardizes the welfare and security of the nation far more than not having car insurance.  Bern80, I had forgotten just how challenged your are when it comes to critical thinking.
> 
> HC is legal, it is necessary, period.
Click to expand...


No one is actually debating the legality of the new law, that would be absurd. The actual question is not is it legal, but is it Constitutional. If you knew anything about our legal system you would understand this, so you have just proven your complete lack of qualification to even discuss this topic.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

JakeStarkey said:


> Medicare and Social Security are constitutional.  End of that subject.  Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.



Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?


----------



## 8537

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare and Social Security are constitutional.  End of that subject.  Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?
Click to expand...


Medical insurance and a retirement plan.


----------



## DiveCon

8537 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare and Social Security are constitutional.  End of that subject.  Based on those facts, you are on an uphill slippery slope to find health care unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Medical insurance and a retirement plan.
Click to expand...

no, you aren't
you can CHOOSE to


----------



## 8537

DiveCon said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about a strawman. Tell me what are you required to purchase under Medicare and Social Security?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medical insurance and a retirement plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, you aren't
> you can CHOOSE to
Click to expand...


Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.


----------



## DiveCon

8537 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medical insurance and a retirement plan.
> 
> 
> 
> no, you aren't
> you can CHOOSE to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
Click to expand...

ah, i see what you mean now
i thought you were saying you had to buy ANOTHER plan


----------



## daveman

8537 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medical insurance and a retirement plan.
> 
> 
> 
> no, you aren't
> you can CHOOSE to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
Click to expand...

You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.


----------



## 8537

DiveCon said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you aren't
> you can CHOOSE to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ah, i see what you mean now
> i thought you were saying you had to buy ANOTHER plan
Click to expand...


Oh -  I should have been a bit less snippy and a bit more clear


----------



## 8537

daveman said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you aren't
> you can CHOOSE to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
Click to expand...


So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The antis are upset by free market competition among the insurance companies for our business.


----------



## daveman

8537 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
Click to expand...

Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.


----------



## HUGGY

Bfgrn said:


> I constantly hear all you right wing pea brains 'claim' that the Constitution MUST be adhered to and that Democrats and liberals always want to change it...
> 
> Guess what pea brains...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON  Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
> 
> But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for  lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
> 
> This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
> 
> *Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments *in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
> 
> *Democrats*  who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document * have proposed 27 amendments*, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.
> 
> The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship. Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top GOP lawmaker on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment's authors didn't intend.
> 
> Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document's "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. *"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."*
> Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and  an old favorite  prohibit desecration of the American flag.
> 
> During the health care debate, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., introduced an amendment that would allow voters to directly repeal laws passed by Congress  a move that would radically alter the Founding Fathers' system of checks and balances.
> 
> Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president's ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.
> 
> Whole Article...



We are suffering a plague of expatriated Brazillian babies?  Who knew?

It was stupid of the founders not to anticipate the invention of the commercial aircraft.


----------



## 8537

daveman said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Medicare is in the health care business.

Social Security is in the financial planning business.

The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.

I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> The antis are upset by free market competition among the insurance companies for our business.



...says the big-government-supporting Statist.


----------



## daveman

8537 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
> 
> 
> 
> Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Medicare is in the health care business.
> 
> Social Security is in the financial planning business.
> 
> The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.
> 
> I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
Click to expand...

Yup.


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, you aren't
> you can CHOOSE to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
Click to expand...


Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.  Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
Click to expand...

Good!


HUGGY said:


> Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.


Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to.  That freedom has been taken away.


----------



## HUGGY

daveman said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good!
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to.  That freedom has been taken away.
Click to expand...


You mean the "freedom" to leach off of the public if you get sick or injured?  Just like there is a responsibility to buy car insurance there should be a responsibility to not add to the outreageous costs of everyones medical expenses just because you "choose" to be irresponsible.  Like it or not we live together and the only rational way to deal with some costs is to manage them colllectively.  No one lives a whole life without some medical needs.  Do you think you should be allowed to "Opt" out of police, Fire, street maitanance? etc?


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> The antis are upset by free market competition among the insurance companies for our business.



I see you know nothing about the healthcare plan either.  Jake, if you are going to troll, learn your subject matter.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.  

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.


----------



## daveman

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
> 
> 
> 
> Good!
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to.  That freedom has been taken away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the "freedom" to leach off of the public if you get sick or injured?  Just like there is a responsibility to buy car insurance there should be a responsibility to not add to the outreageous costs of everyones medical expenses just because you "chose" to be irresponsible.
Click to expand...


So what's going to change under Obamacare?  People who can't afford their own policies will still be leaching off the rest of us, because their premiums will be paid by our tax dollars.  Only now, it'll cost us more, because uninsured people who didn't get sick or hurt didn't cost us anything before.  Now, we have to pay for their insurance.

Congratulations!  You support a law that makes something else you object to even worse!


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.
> 
> He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.


Astoundingly wrong.  Just another day at the office for Statist Jakey.

I pay for my family's insurance coverage.  Once I retire, I'll pay for my insurance as well.  I have no problem with that.  

You should try to understand this, Statist Jakey:  Just because you're so incompetent you need the government to take care of you cradle to grave doesn't mean everyone else is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.  Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
Click to expand...


Talk about short term memory.

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.


----------



## Spoonman

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.
> 
> He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Astoundingly wrong.  Just another day at the office for Statist Jakey.
> 
> I pay for my family's insurance coverage.  Once I retire, I'll pay for my insurance as well.  I have no problem with that.
> 
> You should try to understand this, Statist Jakey:  Just because you're so incompetent you need the government to take care of you cradle to grave doesn't mean everyone else is.
Click to expand...


Jake wrong?  Hmm that seems to be a pattern around here. 

Wait till he gets out of Jr high and get's out in the real world.  he'll wisen up a bit.

My girfriend got a real kick out of his feebleness the other night. She had tears coming out of her eyes she was laughing so hard.


----------



## JakeStarkey

daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly.  And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that.  Too bad, Spoon: don't be stupid again.

Guys, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that.


----------



## 8537

daveman said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until someone can show me where the Constitution authorizes the federal government to be in the healthcare business, it's unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare is in the health care business.
> 
> Social Security is in the financial planning business.
> 
> The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.
> 
> I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...

OK, but we were discussing a line being drawn between Medicare and the Health Care reform bill.  Someone was trying to draw a distinction between the two.


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly.  And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that.  .



I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie? 


waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything

Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.

starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that


----------



## DiveCon

Spoonman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly.  And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?
> 
> 
> waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything
> 
> Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.
> 
> starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
Click to expand...

hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to


----------



## JakeStarkey

All of your arguments have been easily dismissed, Spoon.  You know that and I know that.  You are unable to make a consistent, coherent argument.  When you do, when we can deal with that.  In the meantime, you will simply keep getting slapped down very hard.  Deal with it.


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly.  And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?
> 
> 
> waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything
> 
> Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.
> 
> starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to
Click to expand...


Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll.  I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him.  watch, his response will be inane nothing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Spoonman continues to growl under the bridge.  That's where he will remain until discusses the OP.


----------



## DiveCon

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?
> 
> 
> waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything
> 
> Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.
> 
> starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
> 
> 
> 
> hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll.  I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him.  watch, his response will be inane nothing.
Click to expand...

you know him so well

that's almost scary


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> All of your arguments have been easily dismissed, Spoon.  You know that and I know that.  You are unable to make a consistent, coherent argument.  When you do, when we can deal with that.  In the meantime, you will simply keep getting slapped down very hard.  Deal with it.



See what I mean? nothing.  Sorry jakey, you are an island here. looks like everyone has your game. I see no support coming your way


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll.  I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him.  watch, his response will be inane nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you know him so well
> 
> that's almost scary
Click to expand...


yea, and it took me all of two posts to figure him out.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Spoonman, you continue to be the fool here, and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> Spoonman, you continue to be the fool here, and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> Spoonman, you continue to be the fool here, and there is nothing you can do about it.


nice attempt at projection, but you fail even at that


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman, you continue to be the fool here, and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> nice attempt at projection, but you fail even at that
Click to expand...


Divecon 1   -   Starkey 0


----------



## DiveCon

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman, you continue to be the fool here, and there is nothing you can do about it.
> 
> 
> 
> nice attempt at projection, but you fail even at that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Divecon 1   -   Starkey 0
Click to expand...

LOL you need to add a few more to mine, but you got his right


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> nice attempt at projection, but you fail even at that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Divecon 1   -   Starkey 0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you need to add a few more to mine, but you got his right
Click to expand...


I just started the tally but i'm expecting as soon as he opens his yap it will be 

Divecon 1      -   Starkey  -1


----------



## DiveCon

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divecon 1   -   Starkey 0
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you need to add a few more to mine, but you got his right
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just started the tally but i'm expecting as soon as he opens his yap it will be
> 
> Divecon 1      -   Starkey  -1
Click to expand...

you are giving him too much credit


----------



## Liberty

i didnt read any replies, but i want to address the OP.

Proposing amendments is constitutional.
Passing laws that violate the constitution is unconstitutional.

not rocket science.


----------



## Liberty

Bfgrn said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
Click to expand...


Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.

on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal. 

oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.  Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Talk about short term memory.
> 
> The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.
Click to expand...



Short term memory loss? WOW!

The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.

Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.

Waterloo | FrumForum


----------



## daveman

Spoonman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.
> 
> He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
> 
> 
> 
> Astoundingly wrong.  Just another day at the office for Statist Jakey.
> 
> I pay for my family's insurance coverage.  Once I retire, I'll pay for my insurance as well.  I have no problem with that.
> 
> You should try to understand this, Statist Jakey:  Just because you're so incompetent you need the government to take care of you cradle to grave doesn't mean everyone else is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jake wrong?  Hmm that seems to be a pattern around here.
> 
> Wait till he gets out of Jr high and get's out in the real world.  he'll wisen up a bit.
> 
> My girfriend got a real kick out of his feebleness the other night. She had tears coming out of her eyes she was laughing so hard.
Click to expand...

Uh-oh.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> daveman still has not made his argument, and Spoonman can't argue his clearly.  And he is simply unhappy because he got slapped down very hard recently, so I understand that.  Too bad, Spoon: don't be stupid again.
> 
> Guys, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that.


Have you considered applying the same rules to yourself?  No, I don't think you have.  You made these ridiculous declarative statements:
daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit. 

He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.​...and treated them as fact.  You have not made a clear argument; you have once again confused opinion with fact -- a common leftist failing.

It past time you realized that just because you say something, that doesn't mean it's true.


----------



## daveman

8537 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare is in the health care business.
> 
> Social Security is in the financial planning business.
> 
> The Dept of Agriculture is in the farming business.
> 
> I presume you find all of those + oil royalties unconstitutional, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, but we were discussing a line being drawn between Medicare and the Health Care reform bill.  Someone was trying to draw a distinction between the two.
Click to expand...


Wasn't me.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> All of your arguments have been easily dismissed, Spoon.  You know that and I know that.  You are unable to make a consistent, coherent argument.  When you do, when we can deal with that.  In the meantime, you will simply keep getting slapped down very hard.  Deal with it.



You're a rude little boy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Divecon, daveman, Spoonman continue to fail in their argument.

They can offer absolutely nothing evidentiary that affirmatively supports their position.

Yes, they are here for only grins and chuckles.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?
> 
> 
> waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything
> 
> Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.
> 
> starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that
> 
> 
> 
> hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll.  I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him.  watch, his response will be inane nothing.
Click to expand...


Jake is his own unique brand of entertainment. He continues to insist on his Republican creds. If he were this delusional out in life, he'd be committed. 

I thought at first he was getting paid to pretend to be a Centrist Republican but later realized there is no amount of money in the world that would make someone subject himself to the humiliation, ridicule and laughter that Jake does on a daily basis. 

No, Jake is a true believer, he is a Progressive saboteur. He thinks that Progressives still control the media and the debate and that's what makes him so fucking funny.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to purchase those from the government.  Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?
Click to expand...


No, your original premise is wrong. You aren't buying your social security or medicare from the government. It isn't a one-to-one transaction. Buying something means you own it. You don't own social security or medicare. You are paying taxes for other people now and are required to enroll in it later. That is quite a big difference from government telling you what you have to purchase for yourself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.


----------



## Bern80

HUGGY said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.
> 
> 
> 
> Good!
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to.  That freedom has been taken away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the "freedom" to leach off of the public if you get sick or injured?  Just like there is a responsibility to buy car insurance there should be a responsibility to not add to the outreageous costs of everyones medical expenses just because you "choose" to be irresponsible.  Like it or not we live together and the only rational way to deal with some costs is to manage them colllectively.  No one lives a whole life without some medical needs.  Do you think you should be allowed to "Opt" out of police, Fire, street maitanance? etc?
Click to expand...


Choosing to not have insurance does not equal not paying for services. It means I get to choose how I want to pay for them.  As I said before, feel free to choose to not have health insurance, fine. Maybe you want to invest to cover the cost of your medical expenses, maybe you think you have enough to cover them without insurance. Whatever the case if something does happen to you the cost of whatever it takes to fix is still on you. Whether you can afford it at the time or you need to work out a payment plan for the rest of your life it doesn't matter. You're still on the hook for the bill, insurance or not.  Given the cost of health care, most people would choose to purchase it anyway. But is that really an argument you want to make. That it's okay to legislate away a choice when most are going to pick choice A in the first place?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.



That's real, genuine Centrist Republican thinkin' right there.

The New Deal, Great Society and ObamaCare are all featured in Jake's Great Moments in Centrist Republican History.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bern80, no one has legislated away the right for to own your insurance.  Of course you can, and you will pay a small fee for doing so.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Bern80, no one has legislated away the right for to own your insurance.  Of course you can, and you will pay a small fee for doing so.



So we're back to the argument government can make you do whatever they want as long as they collect tax for non-compliance?


----------



## JakeStarkey

The government can certainly do so if Congress passes such a law and SCOTUS affirms it when the law is challenged.  You certainly have the right to believe as you wish, but that has no force for anybody other than yourself.


----------



## johnrocks

Problem is, so many interpret it differently and claims to be so knowledgeable about it.  I can ask about the "General Welfare" Clause and get at least 3-4 different interpretations, same for "Common Defense and still others will say crap like "Where in the Constitution do you have the right to do _________"(fill in the blank).

Why can't 300 million individuals all swim in the same directions?  Because they are Individuals!  That's why I lean so hard libertarian right there in a nut shell.


----------



## Bfgrn

Liberty said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.
> 
> I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.
> 
> on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal.
> 
> oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.
Click to expand...


OK Einstein, what happened to the 'conservatives' Gladstone talks about...did they just evaporate? Funny, F.A. Hayek who was a classic liberal and considered Gladstone one of the three greatest liberals felt compelled to write a whole essay disassociating himself from conservatism.

Why I Am Not a Conservative - By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

You right wing pea brains have tried to hijack liberalism. The only thing you hang your association on is 'Laissez-faire' economics. BUT, you pea brains don't even understand THAT. Corporate run government and corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that externalize costs is NOT 'Laissez-faire' ...it is Mussolini's fascism.

You right wing pea brains that call yourself 'conservatives' have NOTHING in common with liberalism. 'Conservatives' throughout man's existence have always been for an aristocracy, oligarchy and plutocracy.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.



Actually it is different. Proof of insurance for your car is not federal law. It is state law and states DO have the authority to make such laws.


----------



## Bern80

JakeStarkey said:


> The government can certainly do so if Congress passes such a law and SCOTUS affirms it when the law is challenged.  You certainly have the right to believe as you wish, but that has no force for anybody other than yourself.



So even though the constitution grants specific powers to the government they can still do whatever they want until they are challenged in court. Keep digging bud.


----------



## johnrocks

Bfgrn said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.
> 
> on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal.
> 
> oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Einstein, what happened to the 'conservatives' Gladstone talks about...did they just evaporate? Funny, F.A. Hayek who was a classic liberal and considered Gladstone one of the three greatest liberals felt compelled to write a whole essay disassociating himself from conservatism.
> 
> Why I Am Not a Conservative - By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
> 
> You right wing pea brains have tried to hijack liberalism. The only thing you hang your association on is 'Laissez-faire' economics. BUT, you pea brains don't even understand THAT. Corporate run government and corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that externalize costs is NOT 'Laissez-faire' ...it is Mussolini's fascism.
> 
> You right wing pea brains that call yourself 'conservatives' have NOTHING in common with liberalism. 'Conservatives' throughout man's existence have always been for an aristocracy, oligarchy and plutocracy.
Click to expand...


Other than the insults, you nailed it with this post  I do think both terms; liberal and conservative; have been so redefinded as to render both meaningless when trying to compare either to what was back during Colonial times though.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JR, give a couple of examples on both sides.  I am intrigued if we are unable to compare the terms today to the terms then.  Or is it, perhaps, more appropriate to compare terms today in relation to those we associate Hamilton and Jefferson?


----------



## Bern80

johnrocks said:


> Problem is, so many interpret it differently and claims to be so knowledgeable about it.  I can ask about the "General Welfare" Clause and get at least 3-4 different interpretations, same for "Common Defense and still others will say crap like "Where in the Constitution do you have the right to do _________"(fill in the blank).
> 
> Why can't 300 million individuals all swim in the same directions?  Because they are Individuals!  That's why I lean so hard libertarian right there in a nut shell.



I have noticed that basically two things happen when making laws and whether or not they are constitutional. a) in the legislative it isn't even brought up or considered whether what they want to pass is constitutional or not. b) when it is brought is where people start trying to 'interpret' things. It's not a hard document to understand. When/if people start 'interpreting' it's really code for 'we know this is unconstitutional, but we're gonna make are best effort to convince you it is anyway'.


----------



## johnrocks

Bern80 said:


> johnrocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is, so many interpret it differently and claims to be so knowledgeable about it.  I can ask about the "General Welfare" Clause and get at least 3-4 different interpretations, same for "Common Defense and still others will say crap like "Where in the Constitution do you have the right to do _________"(fill in the blank).
> 
> Why can't 300 million individuals all swim in the same directions?  Because they are Individuals!  That's why I lean so hard libertarian right there in a nut shell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have noticed that basically two things happen when making laws and whether or not they are constitutional. a) in the legislative it isn't even brought up or considered whether what they want to pass is constitutional or not. b) when it is brought is where people start trying to 'interpret' things. It's not a hard document to understand. When/if people start 'interpreting' it's really code for 'we know this is unconstitutional, but we're gonna make are best effort to convince you it is anyway'.
Click to expand...


Yep, I tend to interpret things strictly, it was written on one page, how hard should it be, now, there are 1000 plus  page bills passed;unread; by both sides, frankly, I trust neither Party to stem the tide.


----------



## johnrocks

JakeStarkey said:


> JR, give a couple of examples on both sides.  I am intrigued if we are unable to compare the terms today to the terms then.  Or is it, perhaps, more appropriate to compare terms today in relation to those we associate Hamilton and Jefferson?



Oh no!, a "reverse head lock"(joke from me asking you a week or  so ago,lol).

I don't see Pelosi or Bush anywhere close to what Jefferson was.

In my opinion, the closest man in politics today  to what Jefferson stood for  is Ron Paul, people like him include men like Judge Napolitano, Walter Williams and John Stossel, the others; like Hannity, Limbaugh or Levin is more like the Tories or maybe John Adams if a FF has to be used, the liberals of today, I think of Hamilton as their "American Idol", favoring a strong,centralized government.

I am in the Paul/Napolitano/Williams/Stossel camp, most cons today are in the Hannity/Limbaugh/Bush camp and most liberals are in the Hamilton mindset; at least from my perch.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The "liberal" issue with Hamilton is going to have to avoid the projection of overseas American Power.
Maybe not.  Didn't Hamilton want war with France in the first year or two of Adams' presidency?


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> No, your original premise is wrong. You aren't buying your social security or medicare from the government. It isn't a one-to-one transaction. Buying something means you own it. You don't own social security or medicare.



One never owns an insurance plan.  One has rights to the benefits provided in exchange for a stream of payments.  Kinda like...Medicare and SS.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your original premise is wrong. You aren't buying your social security or medicare from the government. It isn't a one-to-one transaction. Buying something means you own it. You don't own social security or medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One never owns an insurance plan.  One has rights to the benefits provided in exchange for a stream of payments.  Kinda like...Medicare and SS.
Click to expand...


Own then may be the wrong term. It's provding a service for as long as you choose to pay for it, like cable or internet. SS and medicare don't work that way. 1) You dont have a choice. 2) You aren't paying for YOUR SS or YOUR medicare.


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your original premise is wrong. You aren't buying your social security or medicare from the government. It isn't a one-to-one transaction. Buying something means you own it. You don't own social security or medicare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One never owns an insurance plan.  One has rights to the benefits provided in exchange for a stream of payments.  Kinda like...Medicare and SS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Own then may be the wrong term. It's provding a service for as long as you choose to pay for it, like cable or internet. SS and medicare don't work that way. 1) You dont have a choice. 2) You aren't paying for YOUR SS or YOUR medicare.
Click to expand...


When you get health insurance, you're not paying for your own insurance. When you pay into a 401(K) you are not  creating a pot of money that is strictly yours.  in both instances, current payees fund current recipients.

Ditto, health insurance from Medicare or under the new plan.
Ditto, Social Security.

All are constitutional and all are based on the same principles.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Divecon, daveman, Spoonman continue to fail in their argument.
> 
> They can offer absolutely nothing evidentiary that affirmatively supports their position.
> 
> Yes, they are here for only grins and chuckles.



In order to keep from looking like a total flaming hypocrite, you need to prove this statement:


JakeStarkey said:


> daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.
> 
> He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.



My money says you're going to remain a total flaming hypocrite.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.


Wrong.  If you drive your vehicle only on your own property, you don't need insurance.  Furthermore, no one is required to have a car.  If you don't want insurance, don't own a car.


----------



## daveman

Bfgrn said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
> William E. Gladstone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.
> 
> on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal.
> 
> oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK Einstein, what happened to the 'conservatives' Gladstone talks about...did they just evaporate? Funny, F.A. Hayek who was a classic liberal and considered Gladstone one of the three greatest liberals felt compelled to write a whole essay disassociating himself from conservatism.
> 
> Why I Am Not a Conservative - By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
> 
> You right wing pea brains have tried to hijack liberalism. The only thing you hang your association on is 'Laissez-faire' economics. BUT, you pea brains don't even understand THAT. Corporate run government and corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that externalize costs is NOT 'Laissez-faire' ...it is Mussolini's fascism.
> 
> You right wing pea brains that call yourself 'conservatives' have NOTHING in common with liberalism. 'Conservatives' throughout man's existence have always been for an aristocracy, oligarchy and plutocracy.
Click to expand...

From your link:


> Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving.


That is, of course, incorrect.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> When you get health insurance, you're not paying for your own insurance. When you pay into a 401(K) you are not  creating a pot of money that is strictly yours.  in both instances, current payees fund current recipients.



I am paying for continued coverage, that is not true of SS or medicare. And you're just plain wrong on the 401(k). Mine I do a own and can cash out whenever I choose.



8537 said:


> All are constitutional and all are based on the same principles.



Under the interpretation of what SPECIFICALLY in the constitution?


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you get health insurance, you're not paying for your own insurance. When you pay into a 401(K) you are not  creating a pot of money that is strictly yours.  in both instances, current payees fund current recipients.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am paying for continued coverage, that is not true of SS or medicare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The funds you deposit with the insurance company do not go to cover your claims - they go towards covering the claims of whoever might be accessing services at the time or they get invested for future use.
> 
> That's what happens with SS and Medicare payments as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just plain wrong on the 401(k). Mine I do a own and can cash out whenever I choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh, you can cash it out.  But that doesn't mean they set aside money with your name on it.  Just like SSDI doesn't set aside your contributions in case you  become disabled.  Both just pull money out of the pot when you require payments.
Click to expand...


----------



## johnrocks

Health insurance is not really insurance anymore, it is more like pre paid medical,imho.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> The funds you deposit with the insurance company do not go to cover your claims - they go towards covering the claims of whoever might be accessing services at the time or they get invested for future use.
> 
> That's what happens with SS and Medicare payments as well.



I am aware of that. What's your point?



8537 said:


> oh, you can cash it out.  But that doesn't mean they set aside money with your name on it.  Just like SSDI doesn't set aside your contributions in case you  become disabled.  Both just pull money out of the pot when you require payments.



Again whats your point? You've been spending the whole time arguing that I am purchaseing something for myself through the government. Now you're basically telling me I'm not. Make up your mind.


----------



## 8537

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funds you deposit with the insurance company do not go to cover your claims - they go towards covering the claims of whoever might be accessing services at the time or they get invested for future use.
> 
> That's what happens with SS and Medicare payments as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of that. What's your point?
Click to expand...


My point is that Medicare, SS and other forms of insurance are all services we purchase and that, like SS and Medicare, the HCR bill involves a government mandate to buy the service...

Though we've certainly drifted away from that point


----------



## CrusaderFrank

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funds you deposit with the insurance company do not go to cover your claims - they go towards covering the claims of whoever might be accessing services at the time or they get invested for future use.
> 
> That's what happens with SS and Medicare payments as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of that. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that Medicare, SS and other forms of insurance are all services we purchase and that, like SS and Medicare, the HCR bill involves a government mandate to buy the service...
> 
> Though we've certainly drifted away from that point
Click to expand...


They're services that we purchase only in the sense that if you operate a restaurant or business in NYC and the local wiseguy tells you you need to buy protection, you purchase that service as well.

The punitive power of the government forcing you to purchase, does not make this like any other purchase.


----------



## JakeStarkey

8537 said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funds you deposit with the insurance company do not go to cover your claims - they go towards covering the claims of whoever might be accessing services at the time or they get invested for future use.
> 
> That's what happens with SS and Medicare payments as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of that. What's your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that Medicare, SS and other forms of insurance are all services we purchase and that, like SS and Medicare, the HCR bill involves a government mandate to buy the service...
> 
> Though we've certainly drifted away from that point
Click to expand...


Bern80 knows that and tried to deflect.  You got him and corrected him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss?  It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.  Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company.  AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about short term memory.
> 
> The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss? WOW!
> 
> The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.
> 
> Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.
> 
> Waterloo | FrumForum
Click to expand...


I love that almost identical quote.  Funny thing, that 1993 bill came from a Republican, but there were other bills also proposed then. The liberals point to the most liberal Republican and use his bill in an attempt to prove that Republicans are hypocrites because they oppose the new law, even though they opposed the bill that Chafee proposed back then. Can I point at a conservative Democrat and use him to prove that Democrats are hypocrites? It would be really easy to find a blue dog Democrat that opposed the health care law, the bailouts, and the stimulus.

Fortunately for me, I am an honest person that does not tar everyone with the same brush. If only more people on both sides were actually true to themselves and their principles.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.



You do not need proof of insurance to own a car.


----------



## Bern80

8537 said:


> My point is that Medicare, SS and other forms of insurance are all services we purchase and that, like SS and Medicare, the HCR bill involves a government mandate to buy the service...
> 
> Though we've certainly drifted away from that point



Except you just got done arguing that you actually are NOT purchasing services. You are paying for someone elses services. That's all this is happening for the government run programs. Now like it or not that is very different then a contractual agreement between you and a private business to provide a service, whether it be private health insurance, auto insurace, cable, internet whatever in exchange for a recurring usage fee.

The second part addresses a question I have asked before, If you think government has the authority to make you buy things, what DON'T they have the authority to make you do?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bern80 said:


> 8537 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that Medicare, SS and other forms of insurance are all services we purchase and that, like SS and Medicare, the HCR bill involves a government mandate to buy the service...
> 
> Though we've certainly drifted away from that point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you just got done arguing that you actually are NOT purchasing services. You are paying for someone elses services. That's all this is happening for the government run programs. Now like it or not that is very different then a contractual agreement between you and a private business to provide a service, whether it be private health insurance, auto insurace, cable, internet whatever in exchange for a recurring usage fee.
> 
> The second part addresses a question I have asked before, If you think government has the authority to make you buy things, what DON'T they have the authority to make you do?
Click to expand...


Insurance is buying a service, it is just not the one most people think it is. What I do when I buy insurance is pay into a pool that allows my personal risk to be spread if I encounter a need for the service covered by the insurer. The way it works for the insurer is that he sells the risk to as many people as possible so that when someone has to make a claim against the coverage he has enough money to cover that claim, and still maintain a profit.

You recognize this on one level, but you then assume that what I am buying is paying for those other claims. There is insurance out there that works that way, like this one, but most work on the principle that I am not going to need the coverage.

One of the primary reasons health care costs have skyrocketed is because of laws that froze wages, which required employers competing for workers to offer benefits that were not insurance in the traditional sense. Guaranteed coeverage of doctor visits, drug and alcohol treatment, and routine medical care should not be covered through insurance, it should be covered out of pocket.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not need proof of insurance to own a car.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum WindBag is arguing everything but the OP.  Until he does, he is fail here.  Bern80 already has.


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not need proof of insurance to own a car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...

how about you providing the link that say you must have insurance to own a car?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is a good argument, Bern80.  However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car.  To have folks "own" health care is no different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do not need proof of insurance to own a car.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


To what? 

Most states require insurance to operate a vehicle on public roads. Some, like California extend that obligation to cars parked on public roads. However, California does not actually require that you buy insurance, unlike most states. If any state requires insurance for a person to own a vehicle I do not know of it. That puts any requirement for a link on you.

Just to prove that I am actually smart enough not to make things up though, here is what CA says about it.



> Financial responsibility must be obtained  and maintained on any vehicle operated or parked on California roadways  and must be provided as specified below:
> 
> 
> 
> [*]When requested by law enforcement
> [*]When renewing vehicle registration (if requested)
> [*]When the vehicle is involved in a traffic accident
> [*]Within 30 days of receiving a registration card for a newly acquired vehicle
> [*]Within 45 days of the cancellation of a policy for a currently registered vehicle
> You must carry evidence of financial responsibility, proof of insurance, in your vehicle at all times.
> 
> 
> 
> *Types of financial responsibility*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [*]A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
> [*]A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
> [*]A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
> [*]A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California



Car insurance requirements for California Drivers

Imagine that, I can own, and drive, a car in California and not buy insurance, and it is legal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum WindBag is arguing everything but the OP.  Until he does, he is fail here.  Bern80 already has.



I am just enjoying myself by pointing out that you are a fool. If that makes me a fail, what does it make you? I would hate to be proved a fool by a total failure.


----------



## Bfgrn

Quantum Windbag said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about short term memory.
> 
> The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support. The Democrats in the Senate scuttled the Public Option because they did not like it. The Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing if they had any power to influence it, but thanks for giving them credit they do not deserve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss? WOW!
> 
> The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.
> 
> Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.
> 
> Waterloo | FrumForum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that almost identical quote.  Funny thing, that 1993 bill came from a Republican, but there were other bills also proposed then. The liberals point to the most liberal Republican and use his bill in an attempt to prove that Republicans are hypocrites because they oppose the new law, even though they opposed the bill that Chafee proposed back then. Can I point at a conservative Democrat and use him to prove that Democrats are hypocrites? It would be really easy to find a blue dog Democrat that opposed the health care law, the bailouts, and the stimulus.
> 
> Fortunately for me, I am an honest person that does not tar everyone with the same brush. If only more people on both sides were actually true to themselves and their principles.
Click to expand...


Honest? Maybe you are just plain stupid then. Chafee's bill was the one of main Republican health overhaul proposals. It had 21 sponsors in the Senate. And, most of the Republican bills called for the individual mandate. 

Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980&#8242;s

    In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. &#8220;It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.&#8221;&#8230;

    &#8220;We called this responsible national health insurance,&#8221; says Pauly. &#8220;There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.&#8221;

The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, *this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where &#8220;government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.&#8221;*

Mark Pauly didn't move; the center did

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate

By Julie Rovner
NPR
February 15, 2010

For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.

"Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."

But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.

In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."

Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s &#8212; when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system &#8212; "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "

The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."

One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.

"We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."

So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors &#8212; Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri &#8212; remain in the Senate today.

But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.

Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments &#8212; something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.

And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.

Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum WindBag is arguing everything but the OP.  Until he does, he is fail here.  Bern80 already has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am just enjoying myself by pointing out that you are a fool. If that makes me a fail, what does it make you? I would hate to be proved a fool by a total failure.
Click to expand...


Because you say so (cue laugh track). QWB, that was good material, but whether ownership or operatorship, the requirement to have it was there, was it not?

Thanks.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bfgrn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Short term memory loss? WOW!
> 
> The Health Care Law passed without any Republican support is almost IDENTICAL to the health care plan REPUBLICANS proposed in 1993, INCLUDING the individual mandate.
> 
> Republicans would have scuttled the whole thing, even though they KNEW our health care system was broken and bankrupting American families, but they were MORE concerned about defeating our president, than helping the American people.
> 
> Waterloo | FrumForum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that almost identical quote.  Funny thing, that 1993 bill came from a Republican, but there were other bills also proposed then. The liberals point to the most liberal Republican and use his bill in an attempt to prove that Republicans are hypocrites because they oppose the new law, even though they opposed the bill that Chafee proposed back then. Can I point at a conservative Democrat and use him to prove that Democrats are hypocrites? It would be really easy to find a blue dog Democrat that opposed the health care law, the bailouts, and the stimulus.
> 
> Fortunately for me, I am an honest person that does not tar everyone with the same brush. If only more people on both sides were actually true to themselves and their principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Honest? Maybe you are just plain stupid then. Chafee's bill was the one of main Republican health overhaul proposals. It had 21 sponsors in the Senate. And, most of the Republican bills called for the individual mandate.
> 
> Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980&#8242;s
> 
> In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.
> 
> We called this responsible national health insurance, says Pauly. There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldnt be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.
> 
> The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, *this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.*
> 
> Mark Pauly didn't move; the center did
> 
> Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate
> 
> By Julie Rovner
> NPR
> February 15, 2010
> 
> For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.
> 
> "Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."
> 
> But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.
> 
> In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."
> 
> Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s  when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system  "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "
> 
> The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."
> 
> One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.
> 
> "We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."
> 
> So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors  Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri  remain in the Senate today.
> 
> But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.
> 
> Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments  something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.
> 
> And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.
> 
> Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR
Click to expand...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving rep to Bfgrn again.

Outstanding rebuttal for which no answer logically or honestly really exists (1) other than the GOP is backwalking and (2) that with the House, the Senate, and the President, the GOP did not pass it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Bfgrn said:


> Honest? Maybe you are just plain stupid then. Chafee's bill was the one of main Republican health overhaul proposals. It had 21 sponsors in the Senate. And, most of the Republican bills called for the individual mandate.



Some of whom were Democrats. Like I said earlier, be honest. 



Bfgrn said:


> Republican support for the individual mandate policy goes back further than this health care reform discussion. Earlier this month, Julie Rovner profiled a history of the policy dating back to the 1980&#8242;s
> 
> In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time.
> 
> We called this responsible national health insurance, says Pauly. There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldnt be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens.
> 
> The policy was originally included in many Republican proposals including the proposals during the Clinton administration. The leading GOP alternative plan known as the 1994 Consumer Choice Health Security Act included the requirement to purchase insurance. Further, *this proposal was based off of a 1990 Heritage Foundation proposal outlined a quality health system where government would require, by law every head of household to acquire at least a basic health plan for his or her family.*
> 
> Mark Pauly didn't move; the center did
> 
> Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate
> 
> By Julie Rovner
> NPR
> February 15, 2010
> 
> For Republicans, the idea of requiring every American to have health insurance is one of the most abhorrent provisions of the Democrats' health overhaul bills.
> 
> "Congress has never crossed the line between regulating what people choose to do and ordering them to do it," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). "The difference between regulating and requiring is liberty."
> 
> But Hatch's opposition is ironic, or some would say, politically motivated. The last time Congress debated a health overhaul, when Bill Clinton was president, Hatch and several other senators who now oppose the so-called individual mandate actually supported a bill that would have required it.
> 
> In fact, says Len Nichols of the New America Foundation, the individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. "It was invented by Mark Pauly to give to George Bush Sr. back in the day, as a competition to the employer mandate focus of the Democrats at the time."
> 
> Pauly, a conservative health economist at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, says it wasn't just his idea. Back in the late 1980s  when Democrats were pushing not just a requirement for employers to provide insurance, but also the possibility of a government-sponsored single-payer system  "a group of economists and health policy people, market-oriented, sat down and said, 'Let's see if we can come up with a health reform proposal that would preserve a role for markets but would also achieve universal coverage.' "
> 
> The idea of the individual mandate was about the only logical way to get there, Pauly says. That's because even with the most generous subsidies or enticements, "there would always be some Evel Knievels of health insurance, who would decline coverage even if the subsidies were very generous, and even if they could afford it, quote unquote, so if you really wanted to close the gap, that's the step you'd have to take."
> 
> One reason the individual mandate appealed to conservatives is because it called for individual responsibility to address what economists call the "free-rider effect." That's the fact that if a person is in an accident or comes down with a dread disease, that person is going to get medical care, and someone is going to pay for it.
> 
> "We called this responsible national health insurance," says Pauly. "There was a kind of an ethical and moral support for the notion that people shouldn't be allowed to free-ride on the charity of fellow citizens."
> 
> So while President Clinton was pushing for employers to cover their workers in his 1993 bill, John Chafee of Rhode Island, along with 20 other GOP senators and Rep. Bill Thomas of California, introduced legislation that instead featured an individual mandate. Four of those Republican co-sponsors  Hatch, Charles Grassley of Iowa, Robert Bennett of Utah and Christopher Bond of Missouri  remain in the Senate today.
> 
> But the summary of the Republican bill from the Clinton era and the Democratic bills that passed the House and Senate over the past few months are startlingly alike.
> 
> Beyond the requirement that everyone have insurance, both call for purchasing pools and standardized insurance plans. Both call for a ban on insurers denying coverage or raising premiums because a person has been sick in the past. Both even call for increased federal research into the effectiveness of medical treatments  something else that used to have strong bipartisan support, but that Republicans have been backing away from recently.
> 
> And how does economist Pauly feel about the GOP's retreat from the individual mandate they used to promote? "That's not something that makes me particularly happy," he says.
> 
> Republicans Spurn Once-Favored Health Mandate : NPR



Which is why Obama claimed that the law was bipartisan. Yet somehow  Republicans are the evil people and the hypocrites here, even though  Obama opposed the mandate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOJBiklP1Q]YouTube - Obama v Clinton on the Individual Mandate Mobile[/ame]

Politicians are always hypocrites, and Republicans jumping on the bandwagon against the mandate when it polls so heavily negative only surprises people who think politicians are human.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> You must spread some Reputation around before giving rep to Bfgrn again.
> 
> Outstanding rebuttal for which no answer logically or honestly really exists (1) other than the GOP is backwalking and (2) that with the House, the Senate, and the President, the GOP did not pass it.





Clinton was a Republican? Who knew.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hmmm.  QWB, were you still serving time from 2001 to 2006.  I will help your memory: the President and Congress was GOP.  The failed to pass the type of bills the whiners like McConnell and Boehner and their supporters are yelling about but won't support.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> Hmmm.  QWB, were you still serving time from 2001 to 2006.  I will help your memory: the President and Congress was GOP.  The failed to pass the type of bills the whiners like McConnell and Boehner and their supporters are yelling about but won't support.



If you were capable of reading you would have known we were talking about an alternative to HillaryCare from 1993.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We were talking about bills that were being discussed from Clinton to Bush.  Pay attention.  And the GOP certainly did not follow up during the GOP majority, which tells us that the earlier suggestions were mere politics, that the GOP had no intention of passing any such bills, and were infuriated when the Dems incorporated large portions of it into their own bill that passed in 2010.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JakeStarkey said:


> We were talking about bills that were being discussed from Clinton to Bush.  Pay attention.  And the GOP certainly did not follow up during the GOP majority, which tells us that the earlier suggestions were mere politics, that the GOP had no intention of passing any such bills, and were infuriated when the Dems incorporated large portions of it into their own bill that passed in 2010.



And the one we were specifically discussing was proposed under Clinton in 1993. Then you stepped in and said the Republicans could not pass that bill even with a Republican president. This is the last I am going to say on the subject to you though, so feel free to claim victory and prance about like you always do.


----------



## Richard-H

A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.

Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.

Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.

The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.

Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.

If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about bills that were being discussed from Clinton to Bush.  Pay attention.  And the GOP certainly did not follow up during the GOP majority, which tells us that the earlier suggestions were mere politics, that the GOP had no intention of passing any such bills, and were infuriated when the Dems incorporated large portions of it into their own bill that passed in 2010.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the one we were specifically discussing was proposed under Clinton in 1993. Then you stepped in and said the Republicans could not pass that bill even with a Republican president. This is the last I am going to say on the subject to you though, so feel free to claim victory and prance about like you always do.
Click to expand...


Major portions of the GOP bill were ignored by the Bush administration yet passed by the Democratic congress.

Pretending that it did not exist has nothing to with your previous comments.  Your ignorance does not preclude the correct inference from the facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Richard-H said:


> A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.
> 
> Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.
> 
> The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.
> 
> Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.
> 
> If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.



The Constitution only is the foundation for American law.  The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.
> 
> Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.
> 
> The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.
> 
> Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.
> 
> If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution only is the foundation for American law.  The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.
Click to expand...

wrong again
but you will never understand why


----------



## Quantum Windbag

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard-H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.
> 
> Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.
> 
> The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.
> 
> Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.
> 
> If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution only is the foundation for American law.  The other documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of the Constitution when it comes to law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong again
> but you will never understand why
Click to expand...


It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The other documents have no legal standing in interpreting the Constitution.  The documents are interesting but not binding, as well as outdated in an agrarian community with an economic, oligarchic ruling class.  Next, please.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So how much have people actually saved by switching to ObamaCare?


----------



## jillian

CrusaderFrank said:


> So how much have people actually saved by switching to ObamaCare?



which has what to do with the constitutional issues, crazy frank?


----------



## jillian

Quantum Windbag said:


> It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.



actually, he's correct.

only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.

i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.

it's amusing to watch opposite world.


----------



## Bern80

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, he's correct.
> 
> only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.
> 
> i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.
> 
> it's amusing to watch opposite world.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone think the Declaration of Independence is law? Talk about a red herring. While things like the federalist papers have no legal standing they do tell us what the framers meant by what the wrote in the document that DOES carry weight of law. When there is clear contradiction in the way we are told they intended for us to interpret it, one ought to automatically become rather suspicious.


----------



## antagon

Richard-H said:


> A true Constitutionalist not only supports the adherence to all of the Constitution, but to the principles and philosophies that underlie it.
> 
> Not only should the Constitution be repected, but the Declaration of Independance, the federalist papers, and especially the works of Thomas Paine - the philosophical mastermind of the American Revolution.
> 
> Unfortunately, most of the works of Thomas Paine have been all but forgotten by most Americans because they are simply too radical.
> 
> The French 'Rights of Man' was authored by Thomas Paine. Additionally, his last works were an attack on organized religion and a statement of the principals of deism - the true religion of most of the founding fathers.
> 
> Both the Declaration of Independance and the U.S. Constitution were modeled on the ideas presented in his book 'Common Sense'. The work that is singly most responsible for promoting American Independance.
> 
> If more Americans were to familiarize themselves with the works of Thomas Paine, America would be a very different country.



the constitution was written with more foresight than to assume that the principles of the founders should limit the principles of their progeny.  the constitution was drafted with flexibility built into it.  the congress is able to determine how they use the powers enumerated them, they have the power to amend the constitution.  a judiciary was created to consider its application in cases of doubt.  this is all to avoid structural obsolescence of our government. 

other enlightenment philosophers and the founders understood that republican government served the purpose of maintaining an alignment between the government and its constituents, lending to the wisdom to found the US on this principle, rather than on the paper government principles maintained by those who you call true constitutionalists.


----------



## DiveCon

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, he's correct.
> 
> only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.
> 
> i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.
> 
> it's amusing to watch opposite world.
Click to expand...

tell me, which would be more important to understand what the constitution was about, the federalist papers(written by the men that wrote the Constitution) or foreign laws?


----------



## antagon

the role that foreign law plays, particularly british law, cant be played down because of the references that the constitution makes to it.  because there's no mutually exclusive relationship between this understanding and the federal papers, i think considering which is more influential is silly.  

to understand the role that the fed papers play, one would have to keep in mind that the opinions in them were not the exclusive opinions which led to the constitution's final draft.  considering hamilton's disposition after the government was founded, i would argue that his contribution to the fed papers was more persuasive for the benefit of confederates than it was a reflection of his vision of strong federal government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

jillian said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> It makes him feel smart to pretend he does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, he's correct.
> 
> only certain documents have force of law. documents like the declaration of idependence, while interesting, are not among them.
> 
> i find it really funny when peoplelike you who don't know what they're talking about not only state incorrect things, but insult the people who ARE saying the correct things.
> 
> it's amusing to watch opposite world.
Click to expand...


He is correct? Here is what he said that I actually mocked.



JakeStarkey said:


> The Constitution only is the foundation for American law.  The other  documents are interesting but have nothing to do with interpretation of  the Constitution when it comes to law.



If he is correct almost every lawyer I know is wrong, because they all believe that US law is founded on more than the Constitution. Congress is free to look anywhere and everywhere when making laws, as long as they fit within the framework of the Constitution. SCOTUS has been known to cite precedents from English common law, and even international courts, in reaching their decisions. 

If the Constitution were the sole foundation of US law we would not have the half of the federal bureaucracy we currently have, nor would we have the new health care law.

What amuses me is when people think they know what I am thinking, and then attempt to correct me for mocking others based on my correct interpretation of the facts and what the other person is saying.


----------



## JakeStarkey

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."


yes, because no SCOTUS decision has EVER been reversed


SCOTUS is infallible


----------



## JakeStarkey

It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."


----------



## DiveCon

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."
> 
> 
> 
> yes, because no SCOTUS decision has EVER been reversed
> 
> 
> SCOTUS is infallible
Click to expand...




JakeStarkey said:


> It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."


see above 

moron


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not need proof of insurance to own a car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how about you providing the link that say you must have insurance to own a car?
Click to expand...


Like that dipshit would ever provide a link.  He's a troll.


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you need to add a few more to mine, but you got his right
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just started the tally but i'm expecting as soon as he opens his yap it will be
> 
> Divecon 1      -   Starkey  -1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are giving him too much credit
Click to expand...


You do realize that is a negative 1  on his side?


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."



Hey Jake? Am I banned?   FAIL

Bwwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!  God starkey, you suck at this.   LMAO


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hi, Spoonman.  I don't know if you were banned or suspended or not.  You know the rules now.  Family is off limits.


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


> Hi, Spoonman.  I don't know if you were banned or suspended or not.  You know the rules now.  Family is off limits.



Ha Ha starkey. You fail.  Nice gloat fail you moron.  I can't stop laughing


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## boedicca

Real Constitutionalists don't believe the government is responsible for providing food, housing, education, and health care...nor do they believe that any company is Too Big Too Fail...for starters.


----------



## Spoonman

JakeStarkey said:


>


  Your fail always makes my day.  Great weekend and then I come back to your failure.  Sorry to burst your bubble but I wasn't banned.  Your attempt failed.  smooth move jackass


----------



## DiveCon

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just started the tally but i'm expecting as soon as he opens his yap it will be
> 
> Divecon 1      -   Starkey  -1
> 
> 
> 
> you are giving him too much credit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a negative 1  on his side?
Click to expand...

but even that is giving him too much credit


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are giving him too much credit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a negative 1  on his side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but even that is giving him too much credit
Click to expand...


Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend.  Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.


----------



## DiveCon

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a negative 1  on his side?
> 
> 
> 
> but even that is giving him too much credit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend.  Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.
Click to expand...

somehow, i doubt it
i think he is doomed to perpetual FAIL


----------



## JakeStarkey

Spoonman said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that is a negative 1  on his side?
> 
> 
> 
> but even that is giving him too much credit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend.  Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> but even that is giving him too much credit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, but I see he made it up to like minus 50 over the weekend.  Maybe someday he'll grow up and discover a real life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> somehow, i doubt it
> i think he is doomed to perpetual FAIL
Click to expand...

You're right. I'm the eternal optimist but I do realize with starkey there is no hope.  God, that fool makes me laugh.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."
> 
> 
> 
> yes, because no SCOTUS decision has EVER been reversed
> 
> 
> SCOTUS is infallible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has been written that "SCOTUS affirmed an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. Those who disagree with the decision may do so, but should be aware than angry internet posters do not trump the legal scholars on the bench."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> see above
> 
> moron
Click to expand...


You'd have better luck getting a hamster to perform brain surgery than you will getting Starkey to understand logic.


----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Spoonman

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  QWB, were you still serving time from 2001 to 2006.  I will help your memory: the President and Congress was GOP.  The failed to pass the type of bills the whiners like McConnell and Boehner and their supporters are yelling about but won't support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were capable of reading you would have known we were talking about an alternative to HillaryCare from 1993.
Click to expand...


But he isn't. We've all seen that. His only objective here is to troll.


----------



## JakeStarkey

And your projection comes through loud and clear.


----------



## Spoonman

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Divecon, daveman, Spoonman continue to fail in their argument.
> 
> They can offer absolutely nothing evidentiary that affirmatively supports their position.
> 
> Yes, they are here for only grins and chuckles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In order to keep from looking like a total flaming hypocrite, you need to prove this statement:
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> daveman wants to socialize his risk and maximize his profit.
> 
> He keeps the money he would spend for insurance while society has to assume the risk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My money says you're going to remain a total flaming hypocrite.
Click to expand...


What do you know, you're bet paid off


----------



## DiveCon

JakeStarkey said:


> And your projection comes through loud and clear.


as does yours


----------



## Spoonman

DiveCon said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your projection comes through loud and clear.
> 
> 
> 
> as does yours
Click to expand...

  Like everything else of his, it's kind of fuzzy.


----------



## antagon

i'm impressed by the ad hominem troll show.


----------



## blu

ron paul


----------



## antagon

blu said:


> ron paul



nah, ru paul


----------



## JakeStarkey

Hmmm . . . I thought that was Spoonman in drag.


----------



## Spoonman




----------



## JakeStarkey




----------



## Spoonman




----------

