Dems Move all-in: Protesters are Un-American

[editec]

The health care free-market will fail the great number of Americans in the long run. It has failed more than 40 million Americans now. If it were not for government-run Medicare, several million of our elderly would be at serious risk. As long as corporatism can corrupt the free market, America health care will suffer. It is not about the quality, it is about the accessibility financially for all Americans.

Oh theisHC crises is far worse than mere accessibility problems, Jake.

If the problem was merely that problem, then I'd support nearly any solution they came up with that give us all access.

The real problems come from an aging demographic and increasingly costly medicine.

The solutions to those problems have nothing to do with how we pay for HC.

Unless the current Obamanian plan includes SERIOUS systems to keep costs from rising this system is going to continu to fail more and more of us regardless of how its paid for.

 

[Nik]

he hasnt changed

For fucks sake.

White Supremacists May Attempt To Co-Opt July 4 "Tea Parties" To Promote A Hateful Agenda

There, you goddamn crybaby. Now. Provide me with evidence that the ADL is lying, or the reports have been lies.

key word there

"MAY"

did they?

and you are too fucking stupid to understand

Alright, then may. Now, care to provide evidence for your assertion, liar?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the Democrats didn't want discussions of the issue to occur they wouldn't be holding the townhalls in the first place.

The anti's are just afraid that most Americans will learn that euthanasia and Nazism are NOT part of the healthcare plan,

that's why they're desperate to thwart reasonable rational discussion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

he hasnt changed

For fucks sake.

White Supremacists May Attempt To Co-Opt July 4 "Tea Parties" To Promote A Hateful Agenda

There, you goddamn crybaby. Now. Provide me with evidence that the ADL is lying, or the reports have been lies.

key word there

"MAY"

did they?

and you are too fucking stupid to understand

Even the white supremacists were smart enough not to associate themselves with the profound retardation of the teabagger movement.

 

[007]

Myself, I see the revolution coming. I would welcome and participate in another Civil War to take our country back. I think it's perfectly clear that the majority of Americans are of the same mind, and no doubt we'd even have police and military support. They're as sick of the mutton headed liberals AND republicans in Washington as everyone else is.

Clean house, start over, right from the constitution. Abolish the IRS. Abolish the FED. And send anyone who is in this country illegally packing, period. No if, ands or buts. Then get us out of all these middle east entanglements and bring our troops home. Tell china we're paying them back and no, we don't want to borrow any more money.

 

[bodecea]

Myself, I see the revolution coming. I would welcome and participate in another Civil War to take our country back. I think it's perfectly clear that the majority of Americans are of the same mind, and no doubt we'd even have police and military support. They're as sick of the mutton headed liberals in Washington as everyone else is.

Clean house, start over, right from the constitution. Abolish the IRS. Abolish the FED. And send anyone who is this country illegally packing, period. No if, ands or buts. Then get us out of all these middle east entanglements and bring our troops home.

I can see you doing that, since from your avatar you look to support another set of traitorous losers.

 

[007]

Myself, I see the revolution coming. I would welcome and participate in another Civil War to take our country back. I think it's perfectly clear that the majority of Americans are of the same mind, and no doubt we'd even have police and military support. They're as sick of the mutton headed liberals in Washington as everyone else is.

Clean house, start over, right from the constitution. Abolish the IRS. Abolish the FED. And send anyone who is this country illegally packing, period. No if, ands or buts. Then get us out of all these middle east entanglements and bring our troops home.

I can see you doing that, since from your avatar you look to support another set of traitorous losers.

You just called HALF THE COUNTRY "traitorous losers." Real good. But that doesn't surprise me, coming from a militant, kullyfornian liberal homo.

The avatar is simply tattoo art and I liked it. I live way up north. You ASSumed, and then insulted, and so made yourself look like the fool that you are.

 

[Navy1960]

Amtrak and rail can be self-reliant when we make roads self reliant. Until then, don't bitch about subsidies to rail because they are significantly less than subsidies to roads.

I feel no need to comment here because what I was about to point out to you has already been pointed out. I will say this though, Amtrak has been around since 1971 , 38 years and in that time has been self-reliant how many of those 38 years? In fact tell me in the last 10 years when Amtrak has not lost money? To compare it to roads is like trying to compare apples and oranges and to simply say they are less money does not mitigate any of the losses Amtrak has suffered. Just so you know though, that was not the point of the thread...

How exactly is at apples to oranges to compare the cost of one transport network to the cost of another transport network?

And the point, since you geniuses seem to have missed it, is that some things should be subsidized because its in the public good. Somehow everyone thinks thats A OK when it comes to roads, but as soon as we talk about the evil public transportation network, well it should be self sufficient.

As if somehow its ok to subsidize the middle and upper classes, but subsidizing the poor is a terrible, terrible thing.

Nik, I highly suggest you read the constitution and then point out to me the clause that applies too public good.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison

Is that the public good your talking about? While it's true that roads and rail are part of interstate commerce and Govt. has every right under the constitution to regulate it. Your assertion that Amtrak is somehow by definition entitled to this money because it serves a public good fails on many points. Let's assume for the moment that "public good" as seen by the new progressives as the goal of a Govt. in the same mold of Lenin, then perhaps you might explain what good it serves to take money from the collective and throw it into a a venture that constantly loses money for the collective when that money could be better used elsewhere to server the collective? The facts are Amtrak serves as just one example of Govt. mismanagement , and I am not an advocate that Govt. does not have a place, however Govts. power is limited by the bounds of the constitution. You assume by my posting that I am an advocate for non -intervention by the Govt. in transportation matters, you assume incorrectly. What I advocate is that Govt. has the power through the commerce clause to regulate these roads and rail through the commerce clause but it's a big leap of faith to say that implies Govt. ownership.

South Dakota V. Dole

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment. Rehnquist said that Congress's conditional spending is subject to four restrictions:

The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
The condition must be unambiguous;
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.
The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a "pressure" on the State to comply, not a "compulsion" to do so, because the State's failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5%

 

[bodecea]

Myself, I see the revolution coming. I would welcome and participate in another Civil War to take our country back. I think it's perfectly clear that the majority of Americans are of the same mind, and no doubt we'd even have police and military support. They're as sick of the mutton headed liberals in Washington as everyone else is.

Clean house, start over, right from the constitution. Abolish the IRS. Abolish the FED. And send anyone who is this country illegally packing, period. No if, ands or buts. Then get us out of all these middle east entanglements and bring our troops home.

I can see you doing that, since from your avatar you look to support another set of traitorous losers.

You just called HALF THE COUNTRY "traitorous losers."

LOL, if it had really been half the country, they might have had a chance to win their silly little war...but they were only 11 states out of over 30...less than a third of the population (with even that including over 3 million people held in slavery).

Real good. But that doesn't surprise me,

I'm glad that it doesn't surprise you that I love the United States of America and can recognize those who wanted to destroy it all in the name of enslaving their fellow man.

coming from a militant, kullyfornian liberal homo.

Is that the best you've got to call me? C'mon. You can do better than that. Try harder.

The avatar is simply tattoo art and I liked it. I live way up north. You ASSumed, and then insulted, and so made yourself look like the fool that you are.

That's why I said "look to support" rather than "you unequivacally support".... Reading comprehension is your Friend.
Now that you have clarified, good to see that you do not support Traitorious Secessionists in reality...you just like to talk tough on teh Internets.

 

[Navy1960]

In economics, a public good is a good that is non-rivaled and non-excludable. This means, respectively, that consumption of the good by one individual does not reduce availability of the good for consumption by others; and that no one can be effectively excluded from using the good.[1] In the real world, there may be no such thing as an absolutely non-rivaled and non-excludable good; but economists think that some goods approximate the concept closely enough for the analysis to be economically useful.
Public good - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[007]

I can see you doing that, since from your avatar you look to support another set of traitorous losers.

You just called HALF THE COUNTRY "traitorous losers."

LOL, if it had really been half the country, they might have had a chance to win their silly little war...but they were only 11 states out of over 30...less than a third of the population (with even that including over 3 million people held in slavery).



I'm glad that it doesn't surprise you that I love the United States of America and can recognize those who wanted to destroy it all in the name of enslaving their fellow man.

coming from a militant, kullyfornian liberal homo.

Is that the best you've got to call me? C'mon. You can do better than that. Try harder.

The avatar is simply tattoo art and I liked it. I live way up north. You ASSumed, and then insulted, and so made yourself look like the fool that you are.

That's why I said "look to support" rather than "you unequivacally support".... Reading comprehension is your Friend.
Now that you have clarified, good to see that you do not support Traitorious Secessionists in reality...you just like to talk tough on teh Internets.

Blah, blah, blah, .... insult ... blah, blah, blah, ... insult ... blah, blah, blah.... is that the best YOU'VE GOT? A great big post full of liberal psychobabble? C'mon, you can do better than that. Calling our history and so many PATRIOTS in our country traitors is such a great thing to do, especially coming from such an America hater as yourself. Tell us how you really feel. Tell ALL us conservatives how much you REALLY HATE US for DISAGREEING WITH YOU. How DARE us QUESTION your ELITIST ASS right?

 

[Darkwind]

In an op-ed in USAToday, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker who turned off the lights in Congress when Republicans wanted to speak and will not allow Republicans to put forth amendments to bills wrote:

"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

Calling ordinary middle-class citizens who do not want the government to nationalize health care or to have access to our bank accounts or to call a "Health Care Hotline" run be Euthanasia enthusiast Ezekiel Emanuel (Health Care Operator "Hello, how may I convince you to end your health care dollar consuming life?") is now un-American.

Dems may not like this showdown, but then they should have thought about that before raising the stakes and committing to having the government takeover our health care.

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com

Pretty amusing.

It seems that Pelosi doesn't even know who the opposing views are.

She is the one in power. That means those of us who are against her blatant power grab are the opposing views.

And last time I checked, according to democrats, it is very American to be vocal against your government.

What I do find un-American is the government trying to silence the citizens.

 

[bodecea]

You just called HALF THE COUNTRY "traitorous losers."

LOL, if it had really been half the country, they might have had a chance to win their silly little war...but they were only 11 states out of over 30...less than a third of the population (with even that including over 3 million people held in slavery).



I'm glad that it doesn't surprise you that I love the United States of America and can recognize those who wanted to destroy it all in the name of enslaving their fellow man.



Is that the best you've got to call me? C'mon. You can do better than that. Try harder.

The avatar is simply tattoo art and I liked it. I live way up north. You ASSumed, and then insulted, and so made yourself look like the fool that you are.

That's why I said "look to support" rather than "you unequivacally support".... Reading comprehension is your Friend.
Now that you have clarified, good to see that you do not support Traitorious Secessionists in reality...you just like to talk tough on teh Internets.

Blah, blah, blah, .... insult ... blah, blah, blah, ... insult ... blah, blah, blah....

Outstanding debating skills. Simply outstanding.

is that the best YOU'VE GOT? A great big post full of liberal psychobabble? [/quote]

Liberal psychobabble? Pointing out that the South was grossly outmanned is liberal psychobabble? You must really slay them with that one at the local bar.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Calling our history and so many PATRIOTS in our country traitors is such a great thing to do,[/quote]

They were traitors and admittedly so. However, rather than execute or lock up an entire section of the country, our government chose to forgive (after Reconstruction). Why would there be an Amnesty Act if there wasn't a crime to grant Amnesty over, eh?

especially coming from such an America hater as yourself.

Oh yes. I really hate America...so much that I defended Her from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC for over 20 years...so much that I support the memory of our country's toughest years fighting traitors who wanted to perpetuate enslaving their fellow man from ocean to ocean and would brook no restrictions....so much that I still serve my country today, tho not in the Military.

(But I adore people who equate disagreeing with them with "America hating"....right after they talk about supporting a Civil War in America...Irony always makes me chuckle.)

Tell us how you really feel.

I believe I did.

Tell ALL us conservatives how much you REALLY HATE US for DISAGREEING WITH YOU. How DARE us QUESTION your ELITIST ASS right?

I don't hate you...but I am laughing at you in particular right now.

 

[007]

LOL, if it had really been half the country, they might have had a chance to win their silly little war...but they were only 11 states out of over 30...less than a third of the population (with even that including over 3 million people held in slavery).

I'm glad that it doesn't surprise you that I love the United States of America and can recognize those who wanted to destroy it all in the name of enslaving their fellow man.

Is that the best you've got to call me? C'mon. You can do better than that. Try harder.

That's why I said "look to support" rather than "you unequivacally support".... Reading comprehension is your Friend.
Now that you have clarified, good to see that you do not support Traitorious Secessionists in reality...you just like to talk tough on teh Internets.

Blah, blah, blah, .... insult ... blah, blah, blah, ... insult ... blah, blah, blah....

Outstanding debating skills. Simply outstanding.

is that the best YOU'VE GOT? A great big post full of liberal psychobabble?

Liberal psychobabble? Pointing out that the South was grossly outmanned is liberal psychobabble? You must really slay them with that one at the local bar.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Calling our history and so many PATRIOTS in our country traitors is such a great thing to do,[/quote]

They were traitors and admittedly so. However, rather than execute or lock up an entire section of the country, our government chose to forgive (after Reconstruction). Why would there be an Amnesty Act if there wasn't a crime to grant Amnesty over, eh?

especially coming from such an America hater as yourself.

Oh yes. I really hate America...so much that I defended Her from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC for over 20 years...so much that I support the memory of our country's toughest years fighting traitors who wanted to perpetuate enslaving their fellow man from ocean to ocean and would brook no restrictions....so much that I still serve my country today, tho not in the Military.

(But I adore people who equate disagreeing with them with "America hating"....right after they talk about supporting a Civil War in America...Irony always makes me chuckle.)

Tell us how you really feel.

I believe I did.

Tell ALL us conservatives how much you REALLY HATE US for DISAGREEING WITH YOU. How DARE us QUESTION your ELITIST ASS right?

And the point is, the country is pissed... the MAJORITY of the country is pissed, and they're pissed at YOU and your messiah obama not only for what you've already done, but what you're attempting to do. Now you can insult southerners and call them traitors, that's another discussion, but on THIS topic, the facts are blatant and easy to see. YOU and you're liberals in power now are about to get BOOTED TO THE CURB next year, and that has your POWER LOVING LIBERAL leaders in PANIC MODE. I understand your ire. I understand you see your agenda is about to get a beat down. Say good bye to your "marriage"...

I love it. Liberals scared and the conservatives gaining the upper hand. Life is good. Well get our country back, one way or the other. Peacefully, or by force.

It is our ****CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY****

 

[bodecea]

Blah, blah, blah, .... insult ... blah, blah, blah, ... insult ... blah, blah, blah....

Outstanding debating skills. Simply outstanding.

is that the best YOU'VE GOT? A great big post full of liberal psychobabble?

Liberal psychobabble? Pointing out that the South was grossly outmanned is liberal psychobabble? You must really slay them with that one at the local bar.

C'mon, you can do better than that. Calling our history and so many PATRIOTS in our country traitors is such a great thing to do,

They were traitors and admittedly so. However, rather than execute or lock up an entire section of the country, our government chose to forgive (after Reconstruction). Why would there be an Amnesty Act if there wasn't a crime to grant Amnesty over, eh?

especially coming from such an America hater as yourself.

Oh yes. I really hate America...so much that I defended Her from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC for over 20 years...so much that I support the memory of our country's toughest years fighting traitors who wanted to perpetuate enslaving their fellow man from ocean to ocean and would brook no restrictions....so much that I still serve my country today, tho not in the Military.

(But I adore people who equate disagreeing with them with "America hating"....right after they talk about supporting a Civil War in America...Irony always makes me chuckle.)

Tell us how you really feel.

I believe I did.

Tell ALL us conservatives how much you REALLY HATE US for DISAGREEING WITH YOU. How DARE us QUESTION your ELITIST ASS right?

Is the board really that hard for you to figure out? Where to put a couple simple quote BBC's? Too complicated for your pebble brain?

And the point is, the country is pissed... the MAJORITY of the country is pissed,[/quote]

Uh, no it isn't...but you are welcome to pretend it is.

and they're pissed at YOU

The majority of the country doesn't even know me.

and your messiah obama

How come the only ones I ever hear calling Obama a messiah are people like you?

not only for what you've already done,

What I've already done? Like serve my country? You mean like that?

but what you're attempting to do.

All I am attempting to do...and successfully, I might add, is laugh at you, my Ironic Friend.

Now you can insult southerners and call them traitors,

If I'm not mistaken, all the traitors are now dead. Not one of them is still alive today. I hope you are not one of those slave reparation people who thinks that people today should be held responsible for what the traitors of the 1800s did.

that's another discussion, but on THIS topic, the facts are blatant and easy to see. YOU and you're liberals in power now are about to get BOOTED TO THE CURB next year,

Suuuuure they are...because of people like you, the Republicans are coming across as the Rational Party.

and that has your POWER LOVING LIBERAL leaders in PANIC MODE.

I love Irony, I really do.

I understand your ire.

I don't understand why you think I have ire at this moment...I'm chuckling, really.

I understand you see your agenda is about to get a beat down.

You're free to dream.

Say good bye to your "marriage"...

Totally don't understand what that has to do with anything here besides it maybe being the desperate comments of a neaderthal seeing their caveman world slipping thru their fingers. But, maybe it's just you being silly.

I love it.

Then this is a Win/Win situation. I love Irony too.

Liberals scared and the conservatives gaining the upper hand.

Refresh my memory, who's sounding shrill here?

Life is good.

I agree.

Well get our country back, one way or the other. Peacefully, or by force.

More keyboard kommando stuff, huh...?

It is our ****CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY****

I'm guessing you aren't really all that familiar with what constitutional duty is all about. To you, it's more what YOU want. I might be wrong, but I think not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Myself, I see the revolution coming. I would welcome and participate in another Civil War to take our country back. I think it's perfectly clear that the majority of Americans are of the same mind, and no doubt we'd even have police and military support. They're as sick of the mutton headed liberals AND republicans in Washington as everyone else is.

Clean house, start over, right from the constitution. Abolish the IRS. Abolish the FED. And send anyone who is in this country illegally packing, period. No if, ands or buts. Then get us out of all these middle east entanglements and bring our troops home. Tell china we're paying them back and no, we don't want to borrow any more money.

I doubt that most Americans are for another Civil War.

 

[Nik]

I feel no need to comment here because what I was about to point out to you has already been pointed out. I will say this though, Amtrak has been around since 1971 , 38 years and in that time has been self-reliant how many of those 38 years? In fact tell me in the last 10 years when Amtrak has not lost money? To compare it to roads is like trying to compare apples and oranges and to simply say they are less money does not mitigate any of the losses Amtrak has suffered. Just so you know though, that was not the point of the thread...

How exactly is at apples to oranges to compare the cost of one transport network to the cost of another transport network?

And the point, since you geniuses seem to have missed it, is that some things should be subsidized because its in the public good. Somehow everyone thinks thats A OK when it comes to roads, but as soon as we talk about the evil public transportation network, well it should be self sufficient.

As if somehow its ok to subsidize the middle and upper classes, but subsidizing the poor is a terrible, terrible thing.

Nik, I highly suggest you read the constitution and then point out to me the clause that applies too public good.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison

Is that the public good your talking about? While it's true that roads and rail are part of interstate commerce and Govt. has every right under the constitution to regulate it. Your assertion that Amtrak is somehow by definition entitled to this money because it serves a public good fails on many points. Let's assume for the moment that "public good" as seen by the new progressives as the goal of a Govt. in the same mold of Lenin, then perhaps you might explain what good it serves to take money from the collective and throw it into a a venture that constantly loses money for the collective when that money could be better used elsewhere to server the collective? The facts are Amtrak serves as just one example of Govt. mismanagement , and I am not an advocate that Govt. does not have a place, however Govts. power is limited by the bounds of the constitution. You assume by my posting that I am an advocate for non -intervention by the Govt. in transportation matters, you assume incorrectly. What I advocate is that Govt. has the power through the commerce clause to regulate these roads and rail through the commerce clause but it's a big leap of faith to say that implies Govt. ownership.

South Dakota V. Dole

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment. Rehnquist said that Congress's conditional spending is subject to four restrictions:

The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
The condition must be unambiguous;
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.
The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a "pressure" on the State to comply, not a "compulsion" to do so, because the State's failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5%

Ok, then. Then the government can't promote the public good. So the federal highway system which has done much to bring modernity to rural America isn't allowed. Nor is social security, or medicare. Have fun dying when you hit 70 or so. Please also support yourself while never going onto a federal highway again. Hell, never go onto a road since they are all for the "public good". Don't rely on the cops, or firemen either.

The Constitution is flawed. I don't feel the need to adhere strictly to the rules created by a bunch of white, landowning, slave-owning men.

But, aside from that, your analysis is deeply flawed. You claim that the government has the ability to regulate and control roads and Amtrak...but somehow doesn't have the ability to subsidize them? Thats absurd.

Secondly, your comparison to progressives to Lenin is asinine.

Thirdly, there is no reason that Amtrak should be making money. It should be a subsidized venture. We don't expect firemen, or policemen to "make money". So whats your justification for throwing money down that unprofitable hole?

And when did I say the government should own transportation? I merely said it should subisidize it. But go ahead, sell off all the federal roads, thats a marvelous idea

 

[RadiomanATL]

In an op-ed in USAToday, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker who turned off the lights in Congress when Republicans wanted to speak and will not allow Republicans to put forth amendments to bills wrote:

"Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades."

Calling ordinary middle-class citizens who do not want the government to nationalize health care or to have access to our bank accounts or to call a "Health Care Hotline" run be Euthanasia enthusiast Ezekiel Emanuel (Health Care Operator "Hello, how may I convince you to end your health care dollar consuming life?") is now un-American.

Dems may not like this showdown, but then they should have thought about that before raising the stakes and committing to having the government takeover our health care.

'Un-American' attacks can't derail health care debate - Opinion - USATODAY.com

LOL. I love how things come around full-circle.

Back in '03 if you protested the idiotic misadventure that Bush II was about to embark on, you were an 'Merika hatin' terrrrst by the jingoistic flag wavin' circle-jerk crowd.

Now if you protest the idiotic misadventure that Obama is about to foist on the American public and our future generations, you're an inbred hillbilly who doesn't know what is supposed to be good for them by the holier-than-thou, we're smarter than everyone, arrogant, pansy-waists.

Fuck off, both sides.

 

[Navy1960]

How exactly is at apples to oranges to compare the cost of one transport network to the cost of another transport network?

And the point, since you geniuses seem to have missed it, is that some things should be subsidized because its in the public good. Somehow everyone thinks thats A OK when it comes to roads, but as soon as we talk about the evil public transportation network, well it should be self sufficient.

As if somehow its ok to subsidize the middle and upper classes, but subsidizing the poor is a terrible, terrible thing.

Nik, I highly suggest you read the constitution and then point out to me the clause that applies too public good.

Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which states:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

James Madison

Is that the public good your talking about? While it's true that roads and rail are part of interstate commerce and Govt. has every right under the constitution to regulate it. Your assertion that Amtrak is somehow by definition entitled to this money because it serves a public good fails on many points. Let's assume for the moment that "public good" as seen by the new progressives as the goal of a Govt. in the same mold of Lenin, then perhaps you might explain what good it serves to take money from the collective and throw it into a a venture that constantly loses money for the collective when that money could be better used elsewhere to server the collective? The facts are Amtrak serves as just one example of Govt. mismanagement , and I am not an advocate that Govt. does not have a place, however Govts. power is limited by the bounds of the constitution. You assume by my posting that I am an advocate for non -intervention by the Govt. in transportation matters, you assume incorrectly. What I advocate is that Govt. has the power through the commerce clause to regulate these roads and rail through the commerce clause but it's a big leap of faith to say that implies Govt. ownership.

South Dakota V. Dole

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment. Rehnquist said that Congress's conditional spending is subject to four restrictions:

The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
The condition must be unambiguous;
The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.
The first three restrictions, Rehnquist noted, are uncontested. This leaves the fourth restriction. The Tenth Amendment bars federal regulation of the States, and it has been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit federal regulation of the drinking age. Nevertheless, the Congressional condition of highway funds is merely a "pressure" on the State to comply, not a "compulsion" to do so, because the State's failure to meet the condition deprives it of only 5%

Ok, then. Then the government can't promote the public good. So the federal highway system which has done much to bring modernity to rural America isn't allowed. Nor is social security, or medicare. Have fun dying when you hit 70 or so. Please also support yourself while never going onto a federal highway again. Hell, never go onto a road since they are all for the "public good". Don't rely on the cops, or firemen either.

The Constitution is flawed. I don't feel the need to adhere strictly to the rules created by a bunch of white, landowning, slave-owning men.

But, aside from that, your analysis is deeply flawed. You claim that the government has the ability to regulate and control roads and Amtrak...but somehow doesn't have the ability to subsidize them? Thats absurd.

Secondly, your comparison to progressives to Lenin is asinine.

Thirdly, there is no reason that Amtrak should be making money. It should be a subsidized venture. We don't expect firemen, or policemen to "make money". So whats your justification for throwing money down that unprofitable hole?

And when did I say the government should own transportation? I merely said it should subisidize it. But go ahead, sell off all the federal roads, thats a marvelous idea

Did you actually read what I wrote or did you just make an assumption? What I suggest is you read the commerce clause of the constitution to understand what I wrote but then again that might pose a problem because you have made the statement that you don't feel the need to to be bound by it. However, I would encourage you to take a look at it to understand that as it applies to interstate commerce, I made it quite clear what the Govt. as the power to do and to regulate. If you took that to mean no money to fund this then obviously you didn't read it or understand it. What I did say though is that it did not empower Govt. "rights" of ownership such as in the case of Amtrak. Your trying to compare fire and police which is clearly a local and state issue with a Federal one again exposes your lack of understanding in your own Govt.

Progressivism is a political and social term that refers to ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in a statist or egalitarian direction for economic policies (government management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.

Lenin

THE SOCIALIST PARTY strives to establish a radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control - a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society... where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few. We believe socialism and democracy are one and indivisible- Socialist Party USA


You really should take some time to read the constitution Nik then you would realize that the beauty of it lay in the ability to change it. Your inability to see outside whatever you hear and wahtever talking points you get are showing very clearly in this thread Nik and again it would serve you well to actually read , then you would understand what my posting really meant.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yes, instead of Medicare, we should have lots of elderly people dying in the streets. Much better system.

Medicare actually works quite well. Much better than private insurance, and is very popular. But of course its a failure because....well Republicans say so!

thats your opinion Nik.....not everyone feels that way...both my folkes were on Medicare and it was 50/50....my old man got tired of seeing some shitty doctors,not all of them mind you,but enough....so they got Blue shield as well....now all of a sudden my dad was going to the Joslen Diabetes Center at UCI Med Center paid entirely by Blue Shield....Medicare would not let him go....also instead of just seeing a handful of docs at the center....he was able to see ANYONE of them...his medical care jumped up 5-6 pegs...so did my moms.... experiencing something is a wonder NIK....instead of just listening to those around you.....Medicare only goes so far....apparently they have a limit too....