Open Thread
Ender asked for suggestions that might facilitate participation here. In that spirit, some of my links are from blogs; maybe perusing them will spark some ideas that can be applied to SC. This is an open thread.
Pournelle has some philosophical musings about the affect of increasing bureaucracy upon a democratic society, quoting this well known writer
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned them at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a net-work of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided: men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
Who Killed California ? This essay summarizes some of the reasons for California's current woes. An illustration of how the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.
Doomsday machines ? Ah, the good old days, when the enemy was clear.
The GOP really needs to clean house. When Michele Bachman is a GOP superstar , you know the inmates have indeed taken over the asylum. Oh, she's here
, too, as a brainy conservative calendar girl. Who knew.
There is a beautiful photo essay over at the Forum describing some of the history of the opium trade.
For those who were so sure that a Democratic majority would bring the boys home, the outspoken folks over at Pffugee Camp have some thoughts for you.
- Purpleface's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Comments :
Breaking News:
Obama Hates America.
He refused to fly to Denmark, to lobby for the US Olympic bid, even though every other countries leader who was on the short list bidding for the games, had the time to support their country.
Obama Throws Hometown Under the Bus
President Obama couldn't make time to rally for his hometown to be awarded the Olympic bid by making a day trip to Copenhagen.
Isn't that what the headlines would have read, if Obama had chosen not to fly to Denmark. You know it.
I'm only half stupid
It would've been better if Obama had refused to go to Denmark.
Frankly, I think the fact that the United States at large and Chicago got rejected by the IOC for the 2016 Olympics is a good thing. The United States, with its constant nosing into other countries' affairs and warlike stance for the last half century, which has been continued by our current new Administration in Washington doesn't deserve to be host to the Olympics; it has not earned that right.
There are too many problems here at home that need fixing for so much money to be wasted on hosting the Olympics.
Why?
I see no harm in trying.
It would have been stupid for Obama to be the only leader of a country vying for the Olympics not to go lobby for the bid. The shriekers would have whined about that too. The gasoline that fuels these bullies to get out of bed every day is pure unadulterated Obama hate. The hate comes way before country. So either way Obama would have been portrayed as a big loser, by the opposition.
There is something to be said for losing gracefully. A lot of folks having two year old temper tantrums and childish hissy fits over literally Obama's every move could use a lesson in good sportsmanship.
In the long run Obama will be glad that the Olympics didn't come to Chicago. In this politically poisonous atmosphere, every guy in Chicago that gets a jay walking ticket will be blamed on Obama, with the crazies screaming, "Is this where the world wants to come for the games. Obama's thug town.".
I don't think you can cure, a half a century of non-productive policies in the first eight months of any new administration, do you? That's crazy talk.
Especially in light of what was faced on Jan 20th of 2009. It is an unrealistic expectation to think the world's ills will be cured over night because the US elected a new President. There are still tons of leftover idealogues in every branch of govt, who would be delighted to sabatoge the President around every turn particularly at the Pentagon.
If you are looking for a hero to ride in on a shining cloud to save the country, there is no such thing. To buy into that kind of argument is naive.
I'm only half stupid
No need.
Obama does a fine job of this on his own. That's why I am letting things run on auto-pilot. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You're not lobbying
Snowe to vote against cloture on a possible conference report with a public option? No threats against Blue Dogs to campaign tirelessly?
Good, stay complacent :) 2004 proved that boneheaded incompetence is no barrier to reelection.
I disagree with you, missliberties.
I don't see Obama taking any steps, really, to get us out of Iraq or Afghanistan.
You're correct; there is no hero or heroine to ride on here in America, and unlike you and so many other people, missliberties, I don't consider Obama even the next thing to a hero that's worth riding on.
If there's anything I learned from 8 years of Bush, and from the Kerry fiasco in 2004, it's precisely THAT, honeybabe. Therefore, I have no regrets what. so. ever for having written in my own ticket during last November's POTUS Election.
It's none of Obama's business where the Olympics go. I'm glad Chicago didn't get it. It would've been a disaster, because Chicago's too congested, and the Unted States is bankrupt as it is right now.
It may be a boon, even.
I remember a UK Guardian columnist claiming that the Olympics are a huge money pit. It would make sense for local mayors to hide the costs as regular infrastructure expenses and overhype the economic fallout benefits.
I agree that Obama should not have gone, if only out of fairness. Chicago doesn`t deserve to win if it needs a charismatic world leader to tip the scales (which evidently isn`t even enough).
As for redstate and other idiotic rejoicers, well, who cares.
LA & Utah made money. Most cities lose money though.
More often than not there's a bunch of infrastructure and buildings that need to be put up. Still....what the righties did in acting out their glee in Chicago losing really was revealing as the maturity level they have. You can disagree on principles, you can disagree on actions. A country getting the olympics is none of those. If the righties were making the argument that the US shouldn't spend the money, OK. That wasn't the point of all those big wigs. They hate Obama and would gladly see the US hurt to bolster their views on Obama.
On that note, what would these same 'serious people' do if the US was attacked 9/11 style during Obama's presidency? Do you think they would come together and follow Obama like we all did during bush43 (and were explicitly expected to do) or would they immediatly be calling for his impeachment? Sadly, their own actions show these morons would all take such a terrible scenerio and start demanding impeachment. The denile is mind boggling. I can't tell you how many people called me a traitor for not wanting to invade Iraq.
I'm saying that I don't think that the United States
should be spending the money on bringing the Olympics to Chicago, or anywhere here in the United States. That money is better spent on fixing the problems we've got here at home, and we've got to start pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The road to hell is paved
with good intentions.
Message to the masses. Quit trying. Quit hoping. Don't dream.
Conversely is the road to heaven paved with bad intentions?
I'm only half stupid
Hahaha!
Dreaming doesn't work anymore. (It never did, anyway)
Avoid taxes
by borrowing money to pay insurance premiums on your employees.
This has a two fold reward. If your employee dies, you can collect the life insurance premium, and because you borrow money to pay the premium, you write it off on your taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate-owned_life_insurance
I'm only half stupid
Glenn Beck tries to censor free speech (ha!)
This is just to funny.
If you were unawares, Mr. Beck, has inspired some groupies, or anti-groupies, if you will.
They are using mockery, satire, and the fine art form of Beckian logic to posit the question with a domian site name, http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/, which is a full throated salute to Beck-speak. The satire site is just asking questions, looking for the truth, because no one ever has proved that Beck did not murder that girl in 1990!
http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/
Beck is trying to have the site that lampoons him shut down. Did he go to the US Courts? No. Why? Because obviously Beck is trying to censor free speech. So where did his lawyers take their appeal?
To the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva to try to get the website shut down.
The lampooning site's real lawyer responds:
[Beck..] wants it shut down because Respondent’s website makes a poignant and accurate satirical critique of Mr. Beck by parodying Beck’s very rhetorical style. Beck’s skin is too thin to take the criticism, so he wants the site down. Beck is represented by a learned and respected legal team. Accordingly, it is beyond doubt that his counsel advised him that under the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, no action in a U.S. Court would be successful.
Ha ha ha ha
I'm only half stupid
Gun Rights
Gun rights advocates are pushing hard for the second amendment to trump the states rights argument. They will be arguing before the Supreme Court that Federal rights trump states rights when it comes to bearing arms in the case of McDonald v City of Chicago.
If the gun rights advocates win this case (likelihood high) there are plenty of implications that would affect, gay rights, the right to chose, etc.
"A finding that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ right to own a gun could therefore have the unexpected outcome of also providing more solid ground for recognition of the right to abortion, to sexual privacy, to gay marriage, and to a wide variety of other rights that conservative justices on the court and “originalist” constitutional scholars have long opposed."
Will the conservatives on the Supreme Court take an ironic turn and start supporting a more sweeping interpretation of the Second Amednment that supercedes the States Rights argument.
http://washingtonindependent.com/62209/gun-case-could-broaden-legal-basi...
I'm only half stupid
Totally unscientific
But it seems quite accurate to me ;-)
US Political Beliefs vs Media Attention
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Acorn Gets Over Again!
A 19 year old woman serving Acorn was gang raped by her fellow workers. After threatening to go to the authorities her coworkers locked her in a storage container. When she was released she was shown a clause in her contract preventing her from suing (tort reform) even though she was raped multiple times.
Republicans who are keen on preventing crimes against women were NOT outraged. Why? Oh wait, did I say Acorn? I meant KBR.
30 Republicans voted against legislation that would allow this woman redress for being gang raped by her fellow employees while working at KBR (a subdivision of Halliburton).
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
I'm only half stupid
Boy, oh boy!
If this:
"A 19-year-old woman serving ACORN was gang raped by her fellow workers. After threatening to go to the authorities, her coworkers locked her in a storage container. When she was released, she was shown a clause in her contract preventing her from suing (tort reform) even though she was raped multiple times."
really happened, then it speaks volumes about ACORN as an organization....and not in a positive way, either. Just being honest here.
ReRead the Post
It did not happen to an Acorn worker, but you are correct if it did the right would be slobbering all over themselves.
The irony is that it happened to a KBR worker in Iraq. KBR is a private contractor and a subdivision of Halliburton.
Instead of the Republicans slobbering all over themselves to expose this atrocity, they defended the rights of the corporation, choosing to vote for the rights of Haliburton over the right of the woman to prosecute the perpetrators of the gang rape. That's right.
Yeah it really happened to a Halliburton employee.
The link explains in more detail.
I'm only half stupid
My point is, missliberties, is
that if that if it's true, then it doesn't speak well for the leadership of ACORN.
Both organizations are pathetic, imho, and, regardless of where this kind of thing happens, the atrocities must be exposed for what they are...atrocities.
It's not true for Acorn
but it is true for Halliburton. Irony alert.
I used the word Acorn as bait to lure people 'seeking the honest truth' to 'real questions' to understand that Halliburton not only ripped off tax payers for billions doing fake private contract work in Iraq, they don't mind if their workers are gang raped, as long as they don't get sued. It's Republicans answer to everything, the ever glorious tort reform.
I'm only half stupid
Okay.....
I'm a bad person because I don't hold the same opinion(s) about Barack Obama that you do.
That's the way the cookie crumbles sometimes, isn't it?
I get that
you despise Obama.
If you want to call yourself a bad person, that's up to you.
How that is relevant to Halliburton's, contractual refusal to let a female employee prosecute the male employees who gang raped her is a mystery.
I'm only half stupid
I don't hate Obama, but I'm not crazy about him,
plus I've never thought was good Presidential Material.
It seems to me that you think that I or anybody else who doesn't have a positive opinion of Obama is a bad person, and that's what I'm pointing out to you.
Again, how are your feelings
about me or Obama relevant to the Halliburton case?
The issue at hand is pursuing charges against employees who gang raped you at work. Why should men not be prosecuted for rape just because they work for a transnational corporation?
My contention is that Halliburton engaging in blatant fraud should not be allowed tax exemptions, or enabled by Congress any more than Acorn.
I'm only half stupid
My feelings about you or Obama are not
related to the Halliburton case, nor am I even insinuating that they are.
I strongly agree that men who rape women, be they singlely, or in a gang, whether it be in the workplace or outside the workplace, should be prosecuted, and put behind bars for a long time, because a rape is a violation of a woman's body, heart and soul, not to mention a heinous crime.
Also, missliberties, I've never, ever implied that Halliburton should get off the hook anymore than Acorn, due to being enabled by Congress.
Moreover, missliberties, your often-nasty, condescending, accusatory attitude makes it virtually, if not downright impossible to hold any kind of discussion with you. Plus, you're not doing yourself any favors either, as other posters here on Swordscrossed have suggested.
If this:
If this:
"I used the word Acorn as bait to lure people seeking the homest truth"
really be the case, missliberties, then it speaks volumes for YOU...and not in a positive way, either. You're even stupider and more vicious than you care to admit.
You think you're the greatest, ML, but you know what? You ain't. Not by a LONG shot.
Put THAT in your little pipe and smoke it, babe!
A note about spammers
I'm deleting spam comments nearly every day. If you get snookered in to replying, thinking it's a real poster, and your comment gets deleted, my apologies.
You can normally spot them by their suspicious links.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
What a joy to watch the right freak out over Obama's Nobel
Medal. The best posts about it so far are, from the DNC:
“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize,” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse told POLITICO. “Republicans cheered when America failed to land the Olympics and now they are criticizing the President of the United States for receiving the Nobel Peace prize – an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride – unless of course you are the Republican Party.
“The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn. It’s no wonder only 20 percent of Americans admit to being Republicans anymore – it’s an embarrassing label to claim,”
and Andrew Sullivan via balloon-juice:
"If I’m using Politico’s tortured logic
, what the Nobel gang really did, basically, is give the prize to Polanski, right?"
Too funny. What's up with Republicans now days anyhow?
Even a lot of liberal-leaning Democrats
don't think that Obama really earned the Nobel Peace Prize. Frankly, I'm in agreement with them, because I myself, don't think that Obama earned the Nobel Peace Prize. Sure, he goes around the world making pretty speeches, with lots of fancy rhetoric, but our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are still going on, the situation in Afghanistan is escalating and extending, and Afghans are fleeing into Pakistan in droves. What the hell has Obama really done to earn it? Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. He's shown himself for what he is...a hypocrite and a phony. In addition to which, nothing has been accomplished in the ways of peace between Israelis and Palestinians, because Obama caved into AIPAC, like most of the other politicians.
A hypocrite and a phony?!?...dude...
C'mon. You're hyperventilating. Obama has managed to change the image of the USA to the world so much in the short 9 months he's been president that they gave him a Nobel Peace prize. Well that and his name isn't George W. Bush.
He'd be able to do a hell of a lot more if the opposition actually sat down & negotiated instead throw bombs & hissy fits.
Just because Obama's not G. W. Bush
doesn't mean that the world's perception of the United States has changed.
If the fact that Obama's not George W. Bush and the fact that he got elected POTUS, not to mention fancy speech around the world are the real reasons that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize (which I think they are), then the United States, as a country, is in even deeper trouble than lots of people realize. Just because the whole world supposedly loves Barack Obama doesn't mean things are hunky-dory. All that glitters ain't gold.
Really I don't think you know
what you are talking about.
It seems like for one day, or maybe just for five minutes you could take a second, to be proud of our country and our President.
He won the peace prize for the stated goal, the effort of furthering international relations, for the effort of gathering nations to build a coalition to halt a nuclear arms race and for making the effort to end torture and close Gitmo. These are goals that most people around the world admire. I don't know how you build the political will for these goals without speaking.
LIke it or not, the world generally admires this President. He has changed the complexion and tone of discourse by speaking with and about muslims in a way that reflects their right to dignity as human beings, recognizing that Islam is not an evil religion and muslims are not all crazy people on a rampage against America.
I'm only half stupid
So what?
What has Obama really and truly done, besides going around the world and making fancy speeches filled with pretty rhetoric? Nothing, as far as I'm concerned. The best way to improve our relations with the United States is to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan right now. The people in those countries don't want foreign occupiers in there, especially the United States. As for the idea that we should all be proud that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, and that he's done lots to promote peace and change the world's perception of us....sorry....no dice. I'm not buying it.
If there was a Nobel Prize for
***
Wait a sec, I will get my magic wand and just magically change reality.
*****Zap****
Now you are on the Nobel committee, and your vote alone picks the winner of the prize. Who would you chose ?
I'm only half stupid
I wouldn't have been so hasty in giving out the Nobel Prize---
But I'd choose Bernie Sanders, if I were to choose anybody, for the Nobel Prize.
What has Bernie done to promote
world peace, in your opinion?
I'm only half stupid
What has Obama really done to promote peace,
except to go around the world making fancy speeches that're filled with pretty rhetoric?
Nothing, as far as I'm concerned.
One thing Obama has done to promote peace
The change in the missile defense plans in Eastern Europe
Response
:
I'd also argue that he's doing a good job with Iran right now. Is there more to do? Absolutely, but claiming he's done nothing is a bit of an exaggeration.
All I can say is.....
Biiiiiiiiiig deal!
We're still at war in Iraq and Afghanstan, and Obama hasn't even begun to pull our troops out of those places.
Moreover, I never really thought he was good presidential material. Whether the case has been set for Obama or not, I stand by what I've said so far.
You asked for an example, I gave you one
I agree with you in that I want more even as I recognize that US policy does not turn on a dime and that politicians will be political and that leaders need to convince people that they want to follow where they lead.
But you asked for something beyond speeches (though the bully pulpit is a critical tool of a president) and lowering tension with Russia and making progress with Iran via negotiation and not threats definitely counts as "something".
Tensions with Russia were lowered a long time ago,
when Reagan and whoever was ruling the (former) Soviet Union back in the 1980's signed a peace treaty between them.
And they were raised back up again
During the conflict with Georgia and because of the whole missile shield. Every non-neo conservative agrees that the missile shield policy change greatly lowered that tension.
I have no issue with your belief that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel peace prize, I just think that your lack of sufficiency argument loses its punch when you claim that he has done absolutely nothing.
I think George W Bush did massively more harm than good in the world, but despite that, I wouldn't simply discount the increase in AIDS funding for Africa that happened during his tenure and call it 'nothing' even if I would have been extremely offended if he had received a Nobel Peace Prize based on that work.
Nice dodge
You're only underlining that there is no obvious selection for 2009. Obama's decision to substantially alter missile defense had real consequences: The sharp upward trend in all countries' (except Israel's) attitude towards the US cannot solely be tracked to Obama not being W, because the biggest bump happened after the Cairo speech. And people respond to pretty rhetoric, even if you don't.
Anyhoo, the case for Obama has already been laid out. I'm pretty sure the Nobel people have to give the prize to somebody. If you don't want to make the case for Sanders, then who?
I still have the right to the expression of my opinion,
even though it doesn't tally up with yours, ML's or most anybody else's here.
Obama has proven to be a hypocrite and a phony by escalating and extending our war in Afghanistan and into Pakistan as well, not to mention bailing out the banks and Wall Street. He's pretty much like his predecessors--he sold everybody down the river, whether you and everybody else who voted him realize it, or care to realize it, or not.
Honesty....
Of course you have a right to your opinion.
To be honest, it seems self evident that you are more anti-Obama than anything else. You have expressed your dislike of Obama, in almost every response to any subject. (?!)
The obvious example, is instead of giving reasons why you support Bernie Sanders for your choice as the Nobel Peace prize winner, you offer up, yet again, why you don't like Obama (with snide comments and side jabs about me).
Instead of celebrating, legislation in Congress, that will hold private contractors, like Haliburton, one of the biggest thieves of tax payer dollars (billions) more accountable, specifically because they squashed a gang rape prosecution, you offer up reasons why you don't like Obama (or me).
I think if you go back and check the records, you will find that Obama campaigned on Afghanistan being the right war. Iraq not so much.
The facts are that it was Hank Paulson, Bush's Secretary of Treasury that begged for the bank bailout in 08 before Obama was elected
The folks whom Obama has relied on for economic advice have been picked largely from Clinton's people. Some say that chosing Larry Summers, for example, was a mistake.
I'm only half stupid
I disagree with you, missliberties.
Afghanistan is not the "RIGHT" war, and, if Obama campaigned about Afghanistan being the "right" war, than he's a hypocrite and a phony, and hardly any better than his predecessor.
The Nobel committee is not require to give the prizes
There have been some years where the Nobel committee did not give a prize in a given category. The most famous is in 1948 where Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated just before the close of the nomination period and was thus not eligible to receive the peace prize. As a result, the committee declared that there would be no winner as "there was no suitable living candidate".
That said, given there criteria for this particular prize
I see both sides. I think the prize is being given both in recognition of the work he's done and a recognition that he has the capability to do a lot more and are urging him to do so.
I disagree with you too, knocienz.
Because I don't think that Obama has done any work that justifies him getting the Nobel Peace Prize.
Glenn Beck wants President Obama to give his Nobel to the 9/12
people. Here's my question: How generous is a re-gift? If the President were to turn around and give his medal to the 9/12 people (whomever they are) wouldn't they know this was a used medal? Would they feel slighted by getting something that second hand? Would they feel cheated? Why is Glenn Beck asking for the President to slight a group that is ostensibly his own creation? Does that mean that Glenn Beck wants to disparage his own 9/12 group?
Some people have asked.....
Newshoggers has a post: Making peace with enemies
www.newshoggers.com/blog/2009/10/making-peace-with-enemies.html
Which I thought has several truisms:
1) To make peace, you must either commit genocide or meet and talk with your enemies to find a mutually agreeable arrangment that often has your enemy gaining something for not fighting.
2) Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes...“Ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency,’’ said one US intelligence official in Washington who helped draft the assessments. “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.’’
3) So when the AP reports that Obama
is willing to countenance some type of settlement with some elements of the Taliban, that should be a no-brainer that to make peace one must make it with an enemy; and for two sides to agree, core interests will not be violated (given relative power differentials of course to define "core".)
He goes on to use the US Civil War & the current Iraqi situation as examples. It's a short post, go read it. It's good. Predictably, however sadly it's predictably, the right views any negotiated settlement in Afghanistan with the locals (Pashtuns particularly as they are the bulk of the Taliban) as defeat. Well, that's at least what they tell every media person they can. Now, I understand the need to further ones party, family, clan, town, state, etc...but this decrying a compromised peace in Afghanistan as strictly an electioneering jingoism is bullshit. I mean, what are conservatives proposing is the base guides to settlement? Eliminating the Taliban? Genocide. That wouldn't be a good thing. Prolonged occupation? Overlooking the fact that Afghanistan has never been controlled by anyone (it's true, even Ghengis Khan couldn't control Afghanistan. neither could Alexander, the Persians, the Brittish, the Soviets nor will we be able to), put it in your own perspective. How would US citizens act to an occupying power, no matter how 'just' they were. Guerilla war, that's how. Seeing other people do exactly what we would do and acting like they shouldn't is not only hypocritcal but it's dumb.
I suspect Obama is going to choose a middle way in Afghanistan. Build up some troops in some areas, increase funding to public works and start addressing the local leaders as their Federal structure is corrupt & despised outside of Kabul.
OK conservatives. It's your turn. How would you make peace in Afghanistan?
I'm not a conservative, but I'll say this:
The very best way to make peace in Afghanistan and Iraq is just get out of both Afghanistan and Iraq...NOW...once and for all, before we do any furthur damage.
Frankly, to be honest,
A) I'm really sick and tired of the condescending, nasty attitude(s) on the part of a certain unidentified and unnamed poster (I think this individual knows who/what I'm driving at) whose opinions and outlooks differ from mine.
B) Secondly, I think that if people are in the mood toi take a break from the rough and tumble world of politics and wish to write about something else (such as a movie(s), art, books, or whatever), they should be able to do so without being jumped on by the same condescending, nasty poster(s) that I'm referring to.
C) I know for a fact that I'm really getting sick and tired of politcs, and don't wish to get in any heavy discussions with people for too long, or too often. It's far too draining, psychologically speaking,
Just being honest here.
It's been said of many of the people who have passed through
here. Your certain someone isn't alone. Most of those other folk don't post here anymore. They've moved on to other sites, other interests. We don't have a large enough group to banter off different folks as much as a larger more critical mass site might. So you insulate yourself and don't take anything too personally.
Really, what does it matter if someone is a polar opposite here? It's not like any of us will convince any others of us to change their views and beliefs. Small points in a particular debate...sure. But wholesale beliefs. no.
GoRight used to drive me over the edge. Now I enjoy him even though he's another rarity here.
The opportunity of the commons
The views of Elinor Olstrom, the Nobel Prize winner are well worth discovering to those interested in the tensions between private and public governance, and how laws worth respecting evolve and can help create a strong community.
Her books include, "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action"
" In each of these cases her work has explored how between the atomized individual and the heavy-hand of government there is a range of voluntary, collective associations that over time can evolve efficient and equitable rules for the use of common resources. "
Intriguing! To find out more, click the link.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/10/elinor-ostr...
h/t to Adam from Freedom Democrats
I'm only half stupid
Must be a wordplay on
the Tragedy of the commons
dilemma, because it sounds kinda cacophonic. Both would suggest that individuals acting as part of a collective must always keep the larger goal in mind when acting in self-interest.
Health Care. What do you all have? Do you know how much
it costs you every year? No, I don't want to know....That would be prying too much. But since we now have the bill out of the Senate Finance Comittee (thank god that's over) with a Republican vote (is she or isn't she a RINO?) we all have to deal with it again.
So I pose the question so that everyone here can discuss this wrt the plans being discussed and how they'd affect you.
Disclosure....I work for Kaiser Permanente. I don't have to pay for my family's coverage in a per paycheck/per month type deal. It's part of the pay package, but I do end up having to pay income tax on it every year, and I know that figure.
But we have a far flung group here & insurance is different from one region to another. How much does your coverage cost you? Would a non-profit be cheaper for you?
One thing I don't understand...most business' here in the States highest costs are the cost of their employees. Insurance coverage has eaten into every business' profits. If a business could save money by covering their people for less, why are so many business groups against the Public Option proposal? Or is it all just a US Chamber of Comerce ploy to keep funding their insurance boys? Seems to me that the Chamber is working at cross purposes against the better interests of their members. Go figure.
Yup, they are.
That, and the public option's long-term fiscal advantages are harder to percieve. PO opponents are great at highlighting the drawbacks to everything about the PO. Add the natural fear of the unkown, and that's what you get.
As an aside, I've always thought that health insurance companies must be kind of depressing to work for, in that they ultimately don't provide a tangible good or service. Unlike other types of insurance, everyone needs healthcare sooner or later. It's often better for people to claim more for things like screenings and periodic checkups, but that costs someone money upfront.
In short, I find the private insurance model to be a terrible fit for healthcare. These companies don't actually provide healtcare. They don't advocate for doctors, patients or anyone besides their own shareholders. They're not even part of a mandated beaurocracy. In short they're a waste of resources for everyone involved. Maybe they'd be useful in some form for ensuring nonessential care, but what's wrong with simply using our tax dollars directly to make everyone healthy? We ensure basic safety (police, fire, defense), water supply, roads and judicial access that way. Why is basic healthcare less of a necessity than any of those things?
Anyhoo, since you work for one, I'd be interested in an insider's perspective.
Healthcare costs
I have an individual policy from Unicare that covers the spouse and myself. Healthy for our age group (mid 40's), fairly high deductible ($4000? I think), no preexisting or chronic conditions, etc. What I would consider a standard type of PPO policy. Unicare has responded promptly, pays claims without a hassle, and overall I've been pleased so far with the service I've received.
Right now, that policy costs $1500 a month ($18,000 a year). And it goes up on average twice a year.
That's an awful lot of money for "just in case." Think how else I could be enriching the economy with that kind of cash ;-)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Jeebus
Say, is that deductible 4000$ a month or a year? I'm surprised Unicare has had to pay anything claims at all.
Mine values out at about $5800 for two of us.
My copay's are $5 for anything which is nice. I was surprised, I tore my ACL skiing two winters ago and had it surgically replaced that summer. An outpatient operation where I was put under & the whole shot cost me a $5 copay & a $5 copay for the meds. The MRI early on was $5. I actually could have enrolled in a plan with no co-pays but we're really healthy & hardly ever go to a Dr. Wouldn't have been worth it.
Hey there PF...
...Seems like a high monthly and deductible.
We have myself, my wife, and 3 kids and pay $749 bucks a month and have a $1500 deductible with $20 copay's.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Ouch!!
The $20.00 co-pays alone don't sound so bad, but the fact that your monthly premiums and your deductible are that high is an absolute and total disgrace. Nobody, imho, should have to pay such a steep price for health care and health insurance!
Well look at poor PF...I'm feeling pretty lucky right about now.
n/t
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Group v Individual?
Is yours an individual policy, Centinel, or through your employer? Also, your age bracket plays a part, regardless of health status.
Also, although I didn't specify it, all the other "stuff" is what I'd consider normal (copays, drug discounts, etc. I think I pay a $30 copay and $10 for prescriptions that are on "the list"). But when I choose a policy, copay amounts are not a significant part of the evaluation.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I'm self employed, so it's all on me baby... ;-)
n/t
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
OK, so which age bracket?
If that's too personal, ignore the question ;-) Just trying to explore the regional variations in the oh so excellent health insurance system we've got going on here in the States.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
LOL, no problem...
...I was born in '64, I'm 45, my wife is 38, and I have 3 boys, 12, 5, and 3.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I find there enough posters overall
but we need more people posting at once. The past day's comments have all been between kniocienz and independantminded.
Guess it's time to write a diary.
Well I came back after a long gap
So i've got the energy for tilting at windmills. I'm sure that will ebb after a bit.
Will be out of pocket for several days
I'm doing the family thing this weekend. Don't buy any strange drugs from unknown posters while I'm gone ;-)
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
Oath Keepers...
Here is a group of retired law enforcement and military personel who have come together to form Oath Keepers
.
Pretty cool stuff!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Hmm...
I wonder how many of these oath-keepers were up in arms when this actually happened under a Republican president, now that they are so fearful of it happening under a Democrat. Did it bother you when Bush did it, Centinel?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes...
...regardless of what you might believe, I am not a Republican.
I appreciate traditional values, and am Constitutionally inclined perhaps, but still able to differentiate right from wrong.
Why are you now not so worried about it?
Hmmm.....
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Assumptions
Firstly, I asked you if you were bothered when Bush did it, no assumptions involved. You seem to be (incorrectly) assuming that I would not be bothered by it if it happened under Obama's watch. I'd point you to posts I have made in the past that would show you the incorrectness of your assumptions, but they are hidden on months-old Open Threads somewhere, so not easily accessible. I would most certainly be bothered bycertainly don't expect Obama to "disappear" American citizens, but then again, I didn't expect Bush to do it, either!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
"Did it bother you when (your
"Did it bother you when (your party) did it, Centinel?"
There, fixed the problem, you obviously meant that.
And not
"Did it bother you when (someone not with a (D) by their name) did it, Centinel?"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Is Fox the Republican party's Prada?
You know who Prada is, right? I'm sure you all do. Lots of news regarding the White House announcing that Fox is biased. It's funny to see the stretches different peoples are making out of it. So...two questions:
1) Is Fox News a republican party apparichnic like Prada was to the Soviet government of old? OK, in non slanted version- Is Fox a Republican Party marketing arm?
My thinking...Why yes. Duh!!
2) Is it OK to be openly and sharply biased?
Well....yes & no. Yes in that I don't think we should dictate content of data out there. Limitations? Well my libertarian side says no but I recognise the politeness of not openly formenting revolution or asking for assasination of public figures. I think Ballon Juice covers it really well here:
www.balloon-juice.com/
but I really like the link to Slate's Mickey Kaus article 'What's Your Beef with Fox, Mr. Dem-basher?'
www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/kausfiles/archive/2009/10/20/what-
s-your-beef-with-fox-mr-dem-basher.aspx 
My take is almost exactly:
"I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views)."
And that's one of the things that sticks in liberals like me's craw. Conservatives always claim to speak from the higher ground. More moral, more traditional & more upstanding than those DFH over there in the Democratic Party. Clearly they are just self gratifying themselves. If you're going to claim principle that means decrying when your own party is doing stuff too. But conservatives aren't alone. Democrats do the same thing. You see, I'm opinionated and I might not like yours but I'm not going to claim my opinions are morally better than yours. Just mine that's all. That's where modern culture is wrong. It's so much trying to declare a winner that it won't just allow legitimacy of multiple points of view and allow the melting pot to happen. And there's where my libertarian side kicks in. Living your life by your own guidelines is great. It isn't great when you try to push you guidelines on somebody else who isn't interested in following those guidelines. Here again, both major party's are guilty of that.
Please...
CNN, PBS, The Networks, NYT's, CNBC for ____ sake!
The liberal bias in media list goes on adinfinitum!
Yes the liberal media propaganda distribution machine is alive and well friend, and its so funny to see liberals trip out on FOX, and you all know why too right, because their ratings make all the other liberal outlets combined wonder why nobody's watching them, LOL!
Keep up the great reporting there kindness... ;-)
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Who's tripping out?
I don't see a lot of people tripping out about Fox, simply pointing out that it has a clear alliance with the Republican party. That's fine, that is there audience after all.
But that acknowledgement of their agenda seems to be causing conservatives to trip out with ridiculous Nixon comparisons.
Just watch your favorite liberal "news" outlet....
To suggest Fox is somehow a branch of the Republican Party is so lame a theoretical prostration and stretches ones credibility so thin that it makes it difficult to take anything else they propose seriously.
Sure Fox is just like every "news" organization, but their view is not liberal, and people tune in like its going out of style, which much to your dismay it is not, in fact more people watch fox then almost all the others combined!
So quit labeling people, casting aspersions, and reconciling your own political liabilities, and start owning up to the fact that the country is not the liberal campus you thought it to be last year when Obama was conning you and pretending to be a moderate!!!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The Fox Cult
To suggest that Fox News is NOT an arm of the opposition party is ludicrous to anyone who doesn't belong to the cult. Fox has pursued an extreme agenda to delegitimize this President, including promoting the false allegation that the President is not a US citizen.
This became glaringly obvious when Fox News helped sponsor and promote the Tea Party protests with round the clock advertising, dates for events, even supplying Fox cable hosts and producers to lead the rallies.
Fox has been complicit putting out as 'news' false allegations to drum up anti-government (Obama) rhetoric, going so far as to suggest that the tree of liberty needs watering. a coded message for violent action. That is not news or journalism, it is advocacy. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I'm only half stupid
LOL! You're joking surely...
...and CNN, MSNBC or the NYT's has not been "complicit" in the same sort of promotion of the liberal agenda?
Consider the overt character assassination of President Bush or the current rationalization of President Obama's conspicuous infringement of the US Constitution.
Grow up, one news organization telling the truth won't ruin your liberal universe, ...or will it... LOL!
If Fox is so bad, why do the numbers show it is by far the most popular news outfit in the country, by a long shot!
(Go ahead and tell us how stupid the American people are now, or that liberals don't watch news, or only rednecks watch Fox...)
You're so funny! LOL!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Think about it
Did Donna Brazil or Andrea Mitchell or anyone from any network, actively cite the dates and times for an anti-GOP rally, then mention that they would be starring as host of the event, while giving it free advertising?
CNN or any of your other favorite librul media targets would have had to not only cover but sponsor, an anti-Bush/impeach-Bush rally to equal the political agenda promoted by Fox.
I'm only half stupid
Further.....
Glenn Beck should be dismissed from Fox, for openly promoting violence.
He has poured gas on a citizen, boiled frogs, threatened with a baseball bat and a four by four and day dreamed about poisoning people.
I know it is difficult for you to be objective, but imagine a stunt by Paul Begala lighting a match to a citizen after he poured the contents of a gas can over him, while spewing anti-Bush rhetoric.
Imagine Rick Sanchez boiling frogs and claiming that is what Bush did to the people of New Orleans.
Imagine James Carville waving around a baseball bat and stating that Bush is coming after you.
Imagine John King holding a glass of wine that he claimed had been poisoned, next to a card board cut out of Mark Sanford, wishing that Mark would take a little swig.
Glenn Beck is off the deep end with his stunt journalism. His rhetoric is alarming and dangerous and violates any standard for reporting, news or even opinion with his implicit calls for violence.
I'm only half stupid
...Ya right...
...ya..that's it....its me...I'm the one who has trouble being..."objective".
Sure it is...(Shakes head in disbelief)
Yikes?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Talking about
me, is changing the subject. It's not about me.
I'm only half stupid
Just having this discussion liberals attempt to...
...passively evoke some sense of legitimacy.
Does Fox present the news, yes, do they approach it with a perspective, of course, and so does every other media outlet out there.
The laughable thing is you find no fault whatsoever with the vast body of disinformation and propaganda being disseminated by the media, and why is that ML, could it be because they are filtering everything through a leftist lens.
You do not like the way Glenn Beck presents his ideas because they are effective, and he is wildly popular, and sure that scares you alright, it scares you to think people are not continuing to just being herded like sheep and silently accepting what are unprecedented transgressions on American's, American business, and the United States Constitution.
To attack Fox is so typical of liberals, but in particular is is a hallmark of the Obama administration, they have always frowned upon any dissension and feared Fox from the get go.
But ML,to suggest a Kieth Olbermann is not as offensive to the sensibilities of the conservative mind, as a Glenn Beck may be to someone like you, or to not acknowledge that the overwhelmingly greatest proportion of news in this country has a liberal bias is sadly lacking any form of objective analysis, and amounts to little more than poorly timed and unpersuasive bellyaching.
This isn't the Soviet Union ML, it's ok to have a diffence of opinion in America, remember how hard you tried to promote that very idea only a few years back...hmmm...?
In terms of the constitution, there is very little relationship between the Constitution as ratified by the thirteen original states more than two centuries ago and the “constitutional law” imposed upon us since then. Instead of the system of state level decision makers and elected officials the Constitution was intended to create, we have had handed us a highly centralized system in which bureaucrats and appointed not elected officials make the important policies.
The Supreme Court uses a fig leaf of the Constitution to cover its naked usurpation of the rights and powers the Constitution explicitly reserves to the states and to the people, we have slid from the Constitution’s republican federal government with its very limited powers to an unrepublican “judgeocracy” with limitless powers and huge swaths of American law and society have been remade in the wake of Constitutionally weak Supreme Court rulings.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been twisted to use the Bill of Rights as a check on state power instead of on federal power, as originally intended, there is a radical disconnect between “constitutional law” and the rule of law, and it seems the very judges who created it receive the most attention in the history books and are celebrated for acting against the Constitution rather than for it!
Constitutional law is supposed to apply the Constitution’s plain meaning to prevent judges, presidents, and congresses from overstepping their authority. I want a return to the founding fathers’ vision of the Republic, I want the Constitution enforced in the way it was explained to the people at the time of its ratification, and I want the country to overcome this liberal "interpetation" idea about what the constitution and constitutional law is.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
You're kind of all over the place here
You know, I don't particularly mind Glenn Beck. He's just a clown spouting nonsense, and if it gets ratings, well the better to him. Side note: that doesn't make him popular in the sense of wide support like you would call a politician popular. I'm pretty darn sure he would have net disapproval.
Fox has gotten caught promoting tea parties instead of just covering them. Fox has the habit of "accidentally" labelling every politician caught in a scandal as a Democrat. Fox keeps repeating exaggerations (less polite term is "outright lies") about chamber of commerce membership. Hannity critized Obama for saying pretty much the opposite of what he actually said (about insurance executives being "bad people"). Fox does the cowardly question-headline thing about retarded topics such as the Terrorist Fist Jab. I defy you to find MSNBC or CNN doing something so idiotic
I have no doubt Olbermann irks conservatives as much as Beck (or in my case, Hannity Doocy and Kilmeade) irks liberals. I happen to find his voice impersonations very unfunny and I think he overemphasizes exposing right-wing hypocrisy at the expense of putting issues in context.
The critical differences between Olbermann and Maddow vs. say, O'Reilly and Beck is not tone, volume, politeness or even ideological standpoint. It's accuracy, work ethic, intellectual honesty and accountability. The former two have it in spades. Beck and O'Reilly seem to babble about whatever popped into their head that day, don't do any research, distort everthing they find inconvenient and change the subject whenever they're exposed as hacks.
Corph... Beck or Olbermann, same deal, different political slant
Consider some of Oralmann's Greatest Hits:
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
At least for Olbmeran...
He doesn't have a flock of people that I know that eat up the crazy stuff he says.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Umm, sure, he has no following...
...makes you wonder why MSNBC even keeps him on the payroll... ;-)
And what you say makes sense considering the realities of what the makeup of America REALLY is, and not what the ML's or the Kieth Olbermann's would likeyou to think it to be...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Sticking your finger in the wind
to see which way the wind blows? Who knew?
There was also a poll recently, WSJ/NBC poll that said Republicans are suffering with a 20% popularity rating.
More polling says that the public option is popular with over 60% of Americans.
More polls show Obama's popularity is rising, in spite of, or maybe because of Glenn Beck!
I'm only half stupid
You paying it lip service does not a poll make Madam... ;-)
Barack Obama sees worst poll rating drop in 50 years
The decline in Barack Obama's popularity since July has been the steepest of any president at the same stage of his first term for more than 50 years.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Clarifying and opining
If there was a graph of people's actual political views and not their self described views, I think that might look a lot different, and it surely would look different if there were more than 3 categories.
The liberal people I know, effectively don't watch Olberman.
The conservative people I know, a sizable minority eat up even a good portion of the crazy 82.357% of his shtick.
I can describe my knowledge of football as "well above average for a follower" that doesn't make it so.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ok, then lets arm wrestle for it...
WTF?
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
As to your Constitutional arguments
I want to applaud you for at least bringing up which amendments you're talking about (teabaggers seem to have trouble doing that).
I concurr that the 10th and 14th amendments have created a kind of dichotomy that pretty much annulls states' rights on anything significant (note: this is not Obama's fault). The Fed can simply tell the states "sorry, we have to ignore or override your law because another state passed something different and we have to uphold equal protection". And there's the vague interpretations of "providing for the general welfare".
But if you're so worried about Federally-imposed tyranny, why not statewide tyranny too? Would you have been OK with the deep South repealing civil rights legislation at the state level?
And finally, I would suggest that a document itself cannot prevent all three branches of Government from overstepping their authority. It's usually the judiciary that check the other two, or sometimes two of them gang up on the third. Which is OK in a sense because the judiciary can't take the initiative on anything.
Oh, and it's too late to complain with consistency for most of you. You failed to condemn 43's explicit 4th Amendment violations.
Ah, but we did assail Bush 43.
Not with the viciousness and hate mongering of say, a Kieth Olbermann perhaps, but many of us were disappointed and outraged by many of GW's policies.
As for the rest of your post, fortunately, in the words of Samuel Adams;
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
What exactly
does freedom mean to you.
Conservatives throw this word around endlessly.
Freedom from sickness.
Freedom to work for fair wages?
Freedom to chose a non state sponsored religon?
Freedom to turn on the faucet and have clean water come out?
Freedom to drive on the hiways safely?
Freedom to smoke marijuana?
Freedom to decide when you want to become a parent?
Or do you just want to be free of having to pay for any portion of maintaining the fiber of what keeps our society civil.
I'm only half stupid
What are you talking about ML? "Freedom"....
Freedom is not the appropriate descriptor here...
How about the self discipline to prevent sickness and behave socially responsibly and get educated, a job, maintain insurance, etc.
In America there is plenty of opportunity, be accountable enough to own your own piece, good or bad.
Again, choose what religion you like ML, I don't see synagogues being boarded up, or chain link fences being erected around Mosques in America.
Here again, freedom to turn on a faucet, what a wierd way to think, you have the opportunity to choose where to live, and to get involved in your local water district and run for office...And roads and water etc falls into a proper role of government as I've told you a zillion times but you keep just saying "street lights" over and over?
See....
I think you should have the freedom to make the choice to smoke pot, but there it ties in to I should not have to pay for your cancer treatments either! HA!
Where are you going here, does Obama want to control reproduction now too...? Somehow that doesn'r surprise me much.
You had better begin concerning yourself more with "our liberty", and less about "your freedoms", or there won't be much left of either.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Our liberty
You changed the subject again. First it was 'our freedoms'. Now it's 'our liberties.' Is there a distinction.
I don't find any of your answers satisfactory.
I won't go through your list.
Pray tell how do you stop the spread of tuberculosis? I guess in your world, your liberty would depend on locking away those too poor to afford the treatment, so they don't spread the disease to those who can afford it. Even responsible, affluent people can be exposed to tuberculosis.
Your liberties and the freedom to be well, could depend on providing access to treatment for the poor who could spread the disease.
I don't think contagious viruses check your bank account or your party affiliation before they invade their host.
I'm only half stupid
How does access for the poor to health care....
...relate to an unconstitutional bill making it mandatory to carry health care for all?
You are all over the place, you talk about roads, drug use, wages, religion, health care, water rights, etc, etc, etc, in some all too typical abstract attempt at making a inherently flawed point, and expect what?
I'm sorry if you find my responses "unsatisfactory" ML, but certainly the sentiment is quite mutual.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The bottom line is that
health care is not unconstitutional.
Why you presume so is baffling.
You may want to regress in time to the 1850's or the 1750's, but in this modern age we have social security, and medicare, which will not be revoked or repealed.
Do you seriously think that folks are gonna cut millions of old people from the health care roles when seniors are the largest voting block.
One can argue that the constitution has been bent and pulled over the years, sometimes out of bounds, but that, sir, goes back to the intentions of the founders, to have three branches of government, to provide checks and balances.
I can appreciate your passion, and your frustration and your dedication to your point of view. But constantly invoking words like the constitution or freedom, is about as meaningless as wearing a flag pin manufactured in China.
There is no basis to assume that health care does not promote the overall general welfare of the nation, both individually and economically. Our societies institutions are not constitutionally prohibited from making our countries people, well, safe, educated, ready to compete, and therefore strong.
I'm only half stupid
What A Cop Out!
To suggest that the general welfare clause is a catch all for federal intervention in all things that could be construed as "general welfare" is born out of sheer ignorance of the subject matter at hand, pure and simple.
The alternative to a government of enumerated powers is, of course, a government of unenumerated powers. According to your intellectually deficient interpretation the Constitution would had to of said "Congress shall have all powers not specifically prohibited elsewhere in this Constitution."
Certainly, if the Founders had meant this purpose to include any action that might possibly benefit citizens generally, the Constitution itself could have been limited to that solitary statement.
Please show me below where it grants Congress the right to mandate the purchase of health care, or anything else for that matter as a prerequisite to be a lawful abiding citizen.
You can not, because it is not a constitutional power of government, period, discussion over.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Oops I guess the right to
life, isn't a part of our rights as defined by the constitution, according to you.
You totally skipped over the little problem with repealing social security and medicare.
It's ironic that we cite the number of soldiers who die on foreign lands, in a war, with great sadness and ceremony......, yet completely ignore how many citizens of the United States die every day because they are denied health care.
We have a fundamental disagreement on the constitutionality of health care and I don't see the difference in views being bridged anytime soon, if ever.
I think the general welfare applies to health as a right to see a doctor if you are sick, regardless of class or status, to every citizen, whether they are in the military or not.
I'm only half stupid
...ok.
n/t
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Regarding something such as tuberculosis;
No matter if a patient with tuberculosis is rich, poor, or middle class, anybody with TB, regardless of who s/he is, or what socioeconomic background they're from, imho, must be given an ultimatim for the sake of themselves, and for society at large:
A) Be forced to undergo a community treatment program for TB (meaning a program of necessary antibiotics, etc.), in order to prevent the spread of infection
or
B) Be confined to the contagious ward of a hospital, where treatment for TB will be administered by force, whether the patient likes it or not.
Not enough
he violated his Oath of Office, and the libertarian-leaning Rs should have been the first to the docket with impeachment resolutions. I don't know what you personally did about it, but this sudden rediscovery of constitutional values coinciding with a Democratic president getting elected leaves me skeptical of your motives. Especially since whatever transgressions Obama may be committing pale in comparison to Bush's.
But party mattered more than principle, and now a horrible precedant has been set.
I've been a lifelong advocate of constitutional rule...
...as well as its subsequent restrained federal role.
Actually Corph, I believe Barack Obama has grossly violated the Constitution, and and done so with unprecedented regard.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Which part?
Also, can you first say whether you agree about my assessment of Bush's transgression?
If you can set out a uniform standard, I can argue (or concurr) with that.
Ok, let's just start with...
President Obama’s oversight of the census is in direct violation of Article 1 Section 2 of the constitution which states that the house is responsible for the census. Obama’s plan to include sampling in the census taking violates the same article which calls for an “actual” enumeration.
He czar policy is absurd, and no I didn't agree with it when Regan did it.
He is taking control of entities that belong in the legislative branch, he is violating the checks and balances of government.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Channeling Bachmann now?
Relevant portion of Art I, Section II:
It mandates the Census (Enumeration) but there is no phrasing to the effect that "The House shall have the sole authority to conduct the Enumeration" or anything like that. Congress gets to pass laws and allocate funds for the Census, but has no authority to execute it (that's why we have an executive branch). The only reason the Census is mentioned in Art. I Sect. II is that it's the basis for allocating House seats.
As to the direct counting method vs. sampling, the Constitution does not address that at all. The word "actual" is only there because the Enumeration had not yet been conducted; it did not refer to the practice of counting each citizen individually. Neither method is completely accurate. The problem with an individual head counts (besides cost) is that they tend to systematically undercount inner-city minorities and people who move a lot. It has an unintentional systemic bias.
Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science
too partisan for you?
So of course this has to turn into a partisan issue because these people disproportionnately vote Democratic. But instead of arguing the relative statistical merits, Republicans (Bachmann here) invent conspiracies and specious claims about counting illegal aliens.
And you don't like his czar policy, even though in most cases it's Fox News who'se been labelling all these Federal employees as "czars". OK, but it's not unconstitutional. And he had fewer than Bush 43*.
* I'm aware that you weren't too fond of Dubya's policies either. Thing is, people who share your perspective nominated the guy, got him elected twice and excused his glaring cross-spectrum shortcomings with petty generalizations and heaps of dishonesty. They don't even care about consistency, which makes it trivially easy for the Daily Show to put side by side clips of the same Fox News Pundit praising a Republican and trashing a Democrat for doing the exact same thing. They get no benefit of the doubt from me.
Well sam adams made top
Well sam adams made top honors a few times at the beer of the month clubs
i'm part of so nothing but good things to say about them.
Normally...
...I'd delete this as obvious spam, but at least this is good spam! Too bad Massachusetts has it's Puritanical laws against mailing alcohol, or I would consider joining such a club.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Corph, not sure I agree with your 14th amendment interpretation
I assume you are referring to this section...
While the first section certainly curtails the 10th amendment (as was its intent after all) I'm not sure how equal protection applies across different states; i.e. outside its jurisdiction. s there a SCOTUS case to which you are referring? (Oh, and clearly there are equal representation issue, but those are different)
Oh my...
Equal protection, due process... Pretty phraseology, but do you have the slightest idea what you're even talking about, really?
Sounds like maybe you need a little education
yourself...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
I don't have a case in mind
I think the 14th is mostly used as rhetorical justification for the Federal Government to avoid having to deal with state sovereingty. Hard to see how laws like NCLB pass that test, though. Maybe because states could opt out of it.
I can't think of any state challenging a Federal law on 10th Amendment grounds. I presume it's because the Fed can play hardball in terms of witholding things like highway funds if the states don't play along.
You presume correctly... ;-)
n/t
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
The 14th amendment was intended to limit state sovereignty
Because the states were using said sovereignty to favor one set of individuals (say... white men) over others (say Black men). Personally, I think it should have made the 19th amendment unnecessary.
Without getting into the wisdom of NCLB, if individual states were providing substantially different levels of education by setting up funding mechanisms for public schools based on say... property values, then you could certainly make a reasonable case that there is an equal protection issue. As a result, the Federal government would be empowered by the 14th to rectify the situation.
Yes, the 14th gives massive authority to the Federal government... as was its pretty clear intent.
14th Amendment...
Now it is used by those who would assume some rationale for anchor babies and every other such thing...
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Your quote
is unsubstantiated babble
Who'se perverting the meaning of the 14th and refusing to discuss it? I'm not even sure what interpretation is being referred to. Someone like me who'se not familiar with case law since Dredd is no more enlightened by this snooty condescention.
I think his use of the term "Anchor Babies" says all
that really needs to be said about his perspective. I'll admit to not being a lawyer, and just giving my lay interpretation. But if I need legal interpretation assistance, I'll ask my dad... or mom... or brother... who I'm sure will point out where case law makes my perspective irrelevant.
What I won't do is get my perspective from some hack who outright states that White Male Citizens are a different class of citizens than those who received citizenship (lower case) from the 14th amendment. Particulary when said hack insists that the constitution means what the writers meant it to mean and no Supreme Court Justice has a say in that... and then proceeds to cite a Supreme Court Justice to prove that it means what he thinks it means.
I agree with you, it is unsubstantiated babble. :-)
You are without question the worlds foremost scholar on...
...what "you think" is fair, or just, however that has little or nothing to do with what is true
, false, right or wrong.
The Constitution is what it is, whether you like it, or not.
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
knocienz, Sorry I haven't
knocienz,
Sorry I haven't replied to your most recent comment on that other thread. I know you've sent me your email address before, but please send again so I can let you know when I've replied. I'm at PoliticoNow [at] aol [dot]com.
Again
Your are changing the subject.
Your argument seems to be look over there at someone else, don't look at what Beck is actually doing and saying.
Beck used his program to sponsor an anti-government rally, beating the drums of revolt on his show, advertising where and when the rally (s) would take place, and hosting these events. The point is that is not news. It crosses the line of political advocacy.
Olberman would have to have sponsored, and hosted an impeach Bush rally advertising it daily on his show, and promising to be the host of an event in San Francisco. Then he would have to cover the rally on his show, as 'news'.
All Obama's team said, was that Fox is not news.
Keith Olberman never boiled a frog, waved around a baseball bat, poured the contents of a gas can on a citizen, or day dreamed about poisoning anyone, while spewing anti-Bush rhetoric. These are all words, language, actions, of and by Glenn Beck, that feed unstable minds to believe that violent action is their last resort, (before Obama destroys the world!) That is the implication Beck is making.
As for Bush as 'thug in chief' (using Beck's description of Obama) he never granted on interview with the NYT (why weren't they whining incesseantly like Fox) he had Dan Rather fired, and Bush freaked out when Richard Engle reported that Iraq was devolving in a civil war, to the point that team Bush refused to do any interviews with NBC or affiliates.
To be fair, if you and Glenn Beck are claiming that Obama is a thug for saying that Fox isn't a news outlet, then you should describe Bush as a thug for refusing interviews with the NYT, and for boycotting NBC.
The difference here is Fox News is having a hey day playing the victim. Dana Perino compared Obama description of Fox as 'talk radio news', like being hit over the head with a shovel. Oh poor Fox. Obama is being so mean to us. I say Fox should man up and stop whining, for gawds sake.
I'm only half stupid
Really......
Glenn Beck is wildly popular! I've tried it. I don't like it. He makes my teeth hurt.
Loved the bit about artwork in NY being spooky subliminal communist messages.
Say have you seen the symbol for UPS!! It looks just like an ACORN!
That means...... the US is going to turn Soviet .....with drive by brown paper package delivery!
What is really in those brown packages anyway. Yikes! Get out the chalk board! Draw a line. UPS Delivery is a communist conspiracy to take over America.
Heroin is also wildly popular. Likely more popular than Glenn Beck. That doesn't mean it's good for the well being of our society.
I'm only half stupid
Lets ask ourselves...
...is this me not addressing some point, or are you obsessing on a TV network or a broadcasting personality?
I think its evident...quite the later... ;-)
You want Fox to "man up and stop belly aching", this whole topic is born out of liberals very portrayal of that sentiment.
Too much...lol You guys are just too funny.
Oh, and ya, I'd say Beck is definitely wildly popular by any measure, and especially when compared to any of the networks or personalities you find so palatable.
So if it "makes your teeth hurt", it must just be a manifestation of a personal problem and you should run down to the local county clinic, stand in line or come back in three weeks to have some liberal dentist extract those teeth, unless you are of a certain age, then it just is not cost effective and you'll just have to live with it!...LOL!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
You know that this
doesn't actually happen, right? Neither Medicare nor any other single-payer system does that kind of cost-effective estimate. It's a silly parade of horribles
cooked up by AHIP PR people and regurgitated by Republican mouth-breathers in Congress.
Your table: I'm assuming it's viewers in thousands, but is it total viewers or the demo? I'm surprised Maddow has overtaken Olbermann.
I think the original point was that Fox is Pravda.
And I'm not bothered by Pravda. I give it all the credit it deserves, which is the same I give Fox....all the credit it deserves. It has ratings. No one is denying there isn't a segment of the population that loves that stuff.
But as a news source they are simply a marketing arm. Compare what they state the behaviour of Obama's presidency is to what they held bush43 accountable for. Obama is already more communist than Stalin AND more fascist than Hitler. Now that's an achievement! Where the bush43 regime trampled traditional conservative principles (local control vs federal contol, smaller govt, more personal liberties & freedoms, telling the truth, financial disipline) bush43 did none of those things. They in fact did the exact opposite & yet Fox (et all) declared dubya & Darth the new Reagan and living saints.
See and that's where principles are separate from values. You can't trade principles out for stuff like you can with values. Fox claims the higher ground but it is unprincipled. it sold you out unconditionally just cause the guys running the show claimed they represented your values, which now that a Democratic President is in office, those principles have now changed to represent what they 'used' to represent. Go figure.
Popularity isn't the same as integrity.