Tea Party Movement

[raz0rbladez909]

I've been recently hearing more and more on this new movement, and now am watching some stuff on tv regarding some of the people involved including Sarah Palin. Whats the story on this? I'm not one to watch the news too much ever since celebs have become a top story but I'm wanting to find out more about this.

[zeitgeist]

A bunch of people that are upset with the Obama administration and his spending and basically want him out of office

there are like a bajillion articles you can find on google

[ronmcdon]

My impression is that it's a bunch of ultra-right wing nuts,
more along the lines of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Fox-new supporters etc.

They do want Obama out of office, but often they don't have the best thought out reasons.

[Csomme]

You're an idiot^

You know nothing about it and just replies to reply. Go read something bro.

[ronmcdon]

You're an idiot^

You know nothing about it and just replies to reply. Go read something bro.

No, that idiot would be you.
At least learn some grammar and address the OP's question.

[ineedone]

The leader is Dick Army... yes, A army of dicks leads the tea party. They wonder why people call them "tea-baggers." It is just loads of fun... get it... loads... hehehehehe

[cc4usmc]

I don't really follow them, although I've seen some of Beck's videos and often agree with him. I can't really comment on how far "right" they might be, but people might think they're so far "right" because we're already so far to the "left". If you think the eagle is flyin straight, you're nuts.

[TheWolf]

It's basically a group of people who think the government has completely gone off course. They think it's absurd to have welfare cell phones. That most entitlement programs have gone off course and need to be reigned in. That the department of education is really the department of redundancy department. Nothing in washington, whether we're racing to the top or leaving no one behind, improves local education. State and city leaders have a better grip on it and should be able to handle it. They think that deficits are bad and debt is worse. The national debt should be eliminated by proper financial planning, not some pie in the sky dream. Balancing a budget does NOT equal success if you put off pension obligations till next year Mr. Clinton. They think unions are communists. Many think you should only have to pay taxes on the income you spend. They think that arizona should have the right to govern itself and kick out illegals. They think the answer to government's budget is to spend less not tax more. That we should either let the military off the chain in afghanistan or go home. No more of this sissy fighting. Have the grunts lead a sherman march over there killing and burning everything in their way. If your dressed like a taliban and are holding a AK then you're an enemy. No Questions. They're soldiers not cops.

Many believe the job the federal gov't is only to protect the coast and deliver the mail. Everything else can be done at a state level.

They believe that people should be responsible for themselves. That generations of welfare rats are done. No more free hand outs and mandatory drug testing. They believe in the value of family. In the sanctity of life and the right to own firearms, multiple ones. The right to defend yourselves and your family. They've pretty much had enough with all this political nonsense, politically correctness, and namby pamby BS. They don't think they "need" to wear purple in florida because some gay guy jumped off a bridge in new york.

It's time to go in and gut the system. Clean it up. Make it sustainable.

[raz0rbladez909]

It's basically a group of people who think the government has completely gone off course. They think it's absurd to have welfare cell phones. That most entitlement programs have gone off course and need to be reigned in. That the department of education is really the department of redundancy department. Nothing in washington, whether we're racing to the top or leaving no one behind, improves local education. State and city leaders have a better grip on it and should be able to handle it. They think that deficits are bad and debt is worse. The national debt should be eliminated by proper financial planning, not some pie in the sky dream. Balancing a budget does NOT equal success if you put off pension obligations till next year Mr. Clinton. They think unions are communists. Many think you should only have to pay taxes on the income you spend. They think that arizona should have the right to govern itself and kick out illegals. They think the answer to government's budget is to spend less not tax more. That we should either let the military off the chain in afghanistan or go home. No more of this sissy fighting. Have the grunts lead a sherman march over there killing and burning everything in their way. If your dressed like a taliban and are holding a AK then you're an enemy. No Questions. They're soldiers not cops.

Many believe the job the federal gov't is only to protect the coast and deliver the mail. Everything else can be done at a state level.

They believe that people should be responsible for themselves. That generations of welfare rats are done. No more free hand outs and mandatory drug testing. They believe in the value of family. In the sanctity of life and the right to own firearms, multiple ones. The right to defend yourselves and your family. They've pretty much had enough with all this political nonsense, politically correctness, and namby pamby BS. They don't think they "need" to wear purple in florida because some gay guy jumped off a bridge in new york.

It's time to go in and gut the system. Clean it up. Make it sustainable.

I can definitely see the appeal, I know I definitely need to do more research on this but it does seem like a lot of the points you bring up seem to be what I believe in. Know of any good RELIABLE resources for more info?

[KOUKIboy]

The tea party is just a bunch of extreme conservatives AKA republicans, who are bunch of ignorant fu@ks. They are not satisfied how Obama is handling the economy, healthcare, etc..But there asking for miracles here, I mean bush left this country in the shitter...Its like Bush was driving a BMW and wrapped around a pole gave the keys to Obama and told him "fix it"..Its impossible, it will take some years for the US to get out of the shitter and its deficit....

[cdlong]

I'd love to respond to more/all of your post, but I'll stick with the part I know. I'm not sure how much is what you support and how much is just tea party talking points.

That we should either let the military off the chain in afghanistan or go home. No more of this sissy fighting. Have the grunts lead a sherman march over there killing and burning everything in their way.

This is a whole Loud Noises thread on its own, I'll be brief. Anyone that thinks that has either never been to Afghanistan or has no knowledge of military strategy. There's no sissy fighting going on. We're killing insurgents at a pretty decent rate. The problem is they keep making more. We keep making more when we do dumb stuff. It pisses off moderates and activates inactive Taliban supporters. A Sherman march would do nothing except kill a lot of civilians and piss off the survivors and the rest of the region.

The only limits I can think of are the limits on air strikes. Of course the tactial commanders on the ground don't like it, but it clearly fits the saying, "you may have won the battle but you lost the war." To win the war, we may need to lose a few battles.

If your dressed like a taliban and are holding a AK then you're an enemy. No Questions. They're soldiers not cops.

I don't think we have any problem shooting bad guys. But if it were that cleac cut, we would have been done a long time ago.

[raz0rbladez909]

The tea party is just a bunch of extreme conservatives AKA republicans, who are bunch of ignorant fu@ks. They are not satisfied how Obama is handling the economy, healthcare, etc..But there asking for miracles here, I mean bush left this country in the shitter...Its like Bush was driving a BMW and wrapped around a pole gave the keys to Obama and told him "fix it"..Its impossible, it will take some years for the US to get out of the shitter and its deficit....

Can you at least come up with something to back up your opinion? I don't really care about what the Bush administration did/didn't do. It's done, it's over with now focus on right now, what has the current president accomplished/done besides given the military its lowest payraise in a long time?

[ineedone]

Where was the teaparty when Bush was in office? Oh right, the patriot act was completely in line with the constitution! And he was totally not expanding the federal government and demolishing a surplus... right... wait? It is a bunch of people blabbering on about nothing that concerns them or understand. They vote against their own interest, they have no understanding of the constitution (insert Christine O'Donnell and company!), and apparently they all have the same issues as billionaires (the Koch Brothers, two of the richest people in the world, fund them). That is the teaparty.

[TheWolf]

I can definitely see the appeal, I know I definitely need to do more research on this but it does seem like a lot of the points you bring up seem to be what I believe in. Know of any good RELIABLE resources for more info?

The best thing to do is goto your local tea party meeting one night. Here we have one on the first and third monday of every month at the town hall. They usually have local business leaders come and speak about how washington policy effects them. That is the best way to get information about your local tea party movement.

[WanganRunner]

Like so many other conservative movements, the underlying truths of tea philosophy will be overridden by the stupid shit their standard bearers say in public.

Vowing to spend fewer taxpayer dollars is great, I think we can all get behind that, but no one is going to vote for you (nationally) if:

-You can't demonstrate that you understand the consequences of spending cuts
-You are a witch
-You want to repeal the Civil Rights Act
-You say shit like "you betcha" in a debate

Conservatives have the messiest electoral coalition in history, made up of a bunch of marginalized groups that are really only united by anger. As a result of this messy coalition, they have a tendency to shit where they eat and then pay the price for it electorally.

If your party demographics are primarily older, like the GOP/Tea's are, you CANNOT make an electoral case for slashing entitlement spending because half of your voting base is collecting social security. This is the only kind of spending cut that really matters, and until we raise the retirement age, cut benefits, or materially raise taxes, the deficit isn't going anywhere.

The modern GOP is a case of decent ideology gone wrong via bundling. The idea of lowering spending is a great one but their various electoral compromises have bound them from implementing it in a fashion that will be effectual.

You can't tax cut your way out of a deficit. Stimulative tax cuts face a very real wall of diminishing returns, particularly at high income levels. After awhile, people just save or invest overseas and stop pumping it into the economy, and then you're just cutting taxes by borrowing and not seeing any benefit from it.

[95KA-Turbo]

The tea party was started by young libertarians, not republicans. The big named republicans are only involved because they want votes. Most of the ideas behind the tea party are too conservative to be republican ideas.

People say they're 'crazy' or 'nuts' but all they're really asking for is for the Feds to stop giving and taking personal liberties and freedoms, that's not their job, they're supposed to be protecting everything outlined in the Bill of Rights.

That being said, there are certainly a group of crazies in this movement, they make for better news (which is nothing more then entertainment these days, there isn't a single bit of unbiased information out there).

[WanganRunner]

Those nuts are the problem.

For whatever reason, conservatives in general and libertarians in particular seem to pick up more than their fair share of crazy supporters. These people undermine the credibility of the movement and the ideology as a whole with their ridiculous statements.


Reference 2008: It doesn't matter how much more experience you have than your opponent if your running mate claims that her proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy acumen.

When you mix credible with crazy, people only see crazy.

There are crazy liberals too, but the Dems have marginalized them pretty well. They end up in Green or other fringe parties.

[ineedone]

The tea party was started by young libertarians, not republicans. The big named republicans are only involved because they want votes. Most of the ideas behind the tea party are too conservative to be republican ideas.

That is cute! Look the "original" Teapartyish group is the "Club for Growth" which is not run by young libertarians. I feel bad for libertarians, the leaders of your party (Ron Paul) do not even live by the morals they preach on to you (Term limits anyone?). The teaparty is a arm of the Republican party, whether you want to believe it or not. Besides, everyone knows a "young" person would have never chosen a name for their group that is so closely associated with dipping your balls on someones chin. Teabaggers was way to easy.

People say they're 'crazy' or 'nuts' but all they're really asking for is for the Feds to stop giving and taking personal liberties and freedoms, that's not their job, they're supposed to be protecting everything outlined in the Bill of Rights.

What freedom/liberty have you lost under Obama? I only ask because we lost a lot more freedom/liberty under Bush 2, and I only remember the libtards crying foul (Think the patriot act).

The Bill of Rights??? umm... I am pretty sure it is the constitution (not just the bill or rights) that you are suppose to protect and uphold. And I have a very strong suspicion that 90% of the teaparty has no idea what the constitution says and/or means and how it even begins to apply to the way this country works.

The question is not what in the constitution says the government can do "X" but what in the constitution says the government CANNOT do "X."


That being said, there are certainly a group of crazies in this movement, they make for better news (which is nothing more then entertainment these days, there isn't a single bit of unbiased information out there).

It is not that they are necessarily crazy, it is that they have no idea what they represent or even what they are saying. They certainly have come up with great slogans, but find me one that has a real solution to any of the issues, there just exist no substance.

[J3123MY]

Tea Party = libertarian?

But if Sarah Palin is in it... that already gives them a bad name. lol.

[Corbic]

What freedom/liberty have you lost under Obama?

The freedom not to have mandated health insurance.

[Corbic]

Those nuts are the problem.

For whatever reason, conservatives in general and libertarians in particular seem to pick up more than their fair share of crazy supporters. These people undermine the credibility of the movement and the ideology as a whole with their ridiculous statements.
.

Yes cause Nancy Pelosi and Barny Frank are pillars of rational, level headed, mainstream people.

Because no one would ever consider a group of college drop outs, who spent years roaming across America with the original intent of murdering police officers and setting off bombs in public areas... to bring the "horror of Vietnam" home in hopes of changes the minds of America... would call them "radical".

Because it wasn't just 40 years ago that openly calling your self a Communist would have been grounds to send you to prison for life.

Politics is a standard plot graph, their are extremes in every camp. As a whole, the US is leftward of center, and far lefter then we ever where 200 years ago. The most Right person today would be still left, or just center of a 1800 Debate.

Europe moves up and down however, and has been left of Center for 100+ years.

Adolf Hitler, Joesph Stalin, Che, Mao, et al would be in the extreme Authoritarian Left. I would argue Obama and crew are square center in that category. Hippies would be in the Libertarian Left group, as they are all "paranoid about the man" and want "conflict free coffee" or whatever.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/543px-Political_chart.svg.png


How Much Government vs. What that Government wants. Obama sold him self as a Left Libertarian. He would post laws and bills online before they are voted on, shut down Secrete Government operations like GitMo and have open Civil Trials, pull out of Iraqi and Afghan, stop corruption and wasteful spending.

Instead they sneak/jam through Healthcare, Spending Packages, they still do not post bills or do line by line vittos, he appoints obscure individuals to points of authority with no Congressional oversight, Gitmo, Patriot Act, et al are still in place. And emails warning of Veterans and "Right Wingers" are coming out of Homeland Security even though we have Pakistanis trying to blow up time square with their SUVs.

[ineedone]

The freedom not to have mandated health insurance.

Weak... whether or not if you believe healthcare is a right or a privilege, the truth is the way the system worked was the people who had healthcare would still be paying for the people without. When someone without healthcare goes into the hospital, then can not pay the bill, the people with healthcare premiums are raised.

And show me where in the constitution the government can not do healthcare. Good luck!

[Corbic]

Weak... whether or not if you believe healthcare is a right or a privilege, the truth is the way the system worked was the people who had healthcare would still be paying for the people without. When someone without healthcare goes into the hospital, then can not pay the bill, the people with healthcare premiums are raised.

And show me where in the constitution the government can not do healthcare. Good luck!

Where does it say you can have healthcare?

All I know is my premiums have gone up 8% as a result of Obamacare, this is a first in 3 years. Nice.

[raz0rbladez909]

Weak... whether or not if you believe healthcare is a right or a privilege, the truth is the way the system worked was the people who had healthcare would still be paying for the people without. When someone without healthcare goes into the hospital, then can not pay the bill, the people with healthcare premiums are raised.

And show me where in the constitution the government can not do healthcare. Good luck!

Ok this isn't a thread on healthcare, if you want that, make your own thread. At least try to stay on topic in off-topic, I'm not trying to make this into an Anti-Obama thread like what every other thread turns into. Ideally, some well educated posts would be more appreciated then one person bashing another thanks

[cdlong]

The thing that bugs me is that the original tea party was all about taxation without representation. You can't make the same correlation now. Just because the guy you wanted in office didn't win doesn't mean you aren't represented.

I lean toward libertarian, as does the new tea party, but I just can't get behind some of their policies on the social side. They're not libertarian, they're conservative, just like the GOP.

[ronmcdon]

Those nuts are the problem.

For whatever reason, conservatives in general and libertarians in particular seem to pick up more than their fair share of crazy supporters. These people undermine the credibility of the movement and the ideology as a whole with their ridiculous statements.


Reference 2008: It doesn't matter how much more experience you have than your opponent if your running mate claims that her proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy acumen.

When you mix credible with crazy, people only see crazy.

There are crazy liberals too, but the Dems have marginalized them pretty well. They end up in Green or other fringe parties.

That's how I feel, and thus it's the reason why I'm so resentful of the said rabble.
It really gives the conservatives a bad name and appears to alienate the moderates.

The term 'libertarian' also has a bad rep too.
Seems like a lot of conservatives just like to conveniently call themselves that to distance themselves from Bush.
Look at Glenn Beck for instance, who is a self-proclaimed Libertarian.
I don't find that remotely plausible.

If you're a staunch supporter of the Democratic party,
the tea party is actually a wonderful strategic boon.

[kingkilburn]

And show me where in the constitution the government can not do healthcare. Good luck!

That's not how the Constitution works. The Federal government is limited to only what the Constitution specifically allows. There is no interpretation to be had. That is why every thing under the sun gets thrown into inter state commerce(which is bullshit btw)

The State governments are only limited not to over step the Federal government in it's areas of authority.


Based on that the Feds can not provide or mandate healthcare while the State governments can.



Also the Pres. can appoint whoever to whatever position he/she wants and congress doesn't even have to know that a position was created.

EDIT
Current tea party = republican. Some where along the way the republicans found a new group of loonies(old group was bible thumpers) the vote for them. Unfortunately they stole and distorted the message of the Libertarians and the image of the og Tea Party to win over the new sheeple.
I'm all for total tax reform and libertarianism but I want nothing to do with
http://www.feministe.us/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/IMG_8866-780259.JPG
http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/code-red-obamacare-300x207.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Cn61JM4kNR8/Sl0k_J3MY7I/AAAAAAAAAYk/3O_ewY8yH5M/s1600/Copy%2Bof%2Bobamacare.JPG

[ineedone]

That's not how the Constitution works. The Federal government is limited to only what the Constitution specifically allows. There is no interpretation to be had. That is why every thing under the sun gets thrown into inter state commerce(which is bullshit btw)

Again, what in the Constitution says that the government CAN NOT do health care. The constitution is highly interpreted, that is how we get separation of church and state and a long list of other things that we now accept as constitutional (gender discrimination, civil rights, abortion, etc.). So if you can show where in the constitution the government is not allowed to do health care we can go from there. They can do interstate commerce (civil rights) they can tax (IRS) and there exist nothing to say they can not mandate

Here is some light reading on the matter

"The authors are wrong on two counts. First, an individual mandate is almost certainly the kind of economic activity that the Court would uphold under Congress's Commerce Clause authority under Raich, Lopez, and United States v. Morrison. These cases allow Congress to regulate activities that have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce, and they look to the commercial nature of the activity and to the connection between the activity and interstate commerce (among other considerations). An individual mandate is almost surely commercial in nature--in requiring folks to buy health insurance, it requires a commercial exchange. Rivkin and Casey argue that the mandate is not commercial in nature, because it's triggered simply by "being an American." This may be true, but it misses the point of the regulation: It requires Americans to engage in a commercial exchange. This is the definition of commerce.

Moreover, the individual mandate is closely related to interstate commerce. The whole argument for an individual mandate is to get health care consumers to internalize their costs, and not spread them to the larger interstate economy. A health insurance mandate is almost certainly within Congress's Commerce Clause powers, whether Congress calls it an "excise tax" or something else.

Second, Rivkin and Casey misunderstand the Taxing Power. Congress can adopt an excise tax to an end that is within its other constitutional powers, as here. But even if Congress is acting outside its other articulated powers, the Court has interpreted the Taxing Power quite broadly, all but eliminating any distinction between a "penalty" and revenue-producing "tax." See United States v. Kahriger (upholding a federal tax on gambling under Congress's Taxing Power) (overturned on other grounds).

The Supreme Court may be on a path to limiting congressional authority under the Commerce Clause, the Taxing Clause, or any clause. But even so, the individual mandate all too squarely falls within the recent and settled jurisprudence."

The State governments are only limited not to over step the Federal government in it's areas of authority. Based on that the Feds can not provide or mandate healthcare while the State governments can.

Well, that is certainly not true.



Also the Pres. can appoint whoever to whatever position he/she wants and congress doesn't even have to know that a position was created.

This is true, and he/she can also delegate powers to agencies he/she creates. Same as with congress.

Here is a nice link to a Con Law professor blog http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/09/is-an-individual-health-insurance-mandate-constitutional.html

[ineedone]

Read my previous post.

Where does it say you can have healthcare?

All I know is my premiums have gone up 8% as a result of Obamacare, this is a first in 3 years. Nice.

Not sure how you missed the 119% increases in healthcare, but I would say 8% is a lot better then the average else was eating every year. Either way, this is not about healthcare...

Paying-the-Price-How-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Are-Eating-Up-Middle-Class-Incomes.aspx (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Data-Briefs/2009/Aug/Paying-the-Price-How-Health-Insurance-Premiums-Are-Eating-Up-Middle-Class-Incomes.aspx)

Employer-Sponsored Insurance Premiums Rose 119% Over Past Decade - BusinessWeek (http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/money_politics/archives/2009/08/employer-sponso.html)

[kingkilburn]

Sorry ineedone but you are absolutely incorrect.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Separation of church and state is not a constitutional matter it is just accepted political dogma from Thomas Jefferson. All the Constitution says is that the Federal government will not sponsor or endorse one religion over another.

Gender discrimination and civil rights aren't "understood" to be constitutional issue. They clearly are and on top of that were amended into the Constitution.


Interstate commerce as it is used now is a farce. It was originally meant to prevent one state from raising tariffs on another and to regulate currency through out the union. That is it.



I am ignoring your light reading with out a source.

[ineedone]

Sorry ineedone, you are absolutely correct. Fixed that one for ya! Okay, now to the serious stuff...



Separation of church and state is not a constitutional matter it is just accepted political dogma from Thomas Jefferson. All the Constitution says is that the Federal government will not sponsor or endorse one religion over another.

The establishment cause of the first amendment. Read that. I do not need to add onto the decades worth of case history that has firmly established that that clause creates a separation of church and state. This is not in any real contention. THE only real disagreement hangs on those literal words "separation of church and state" not existing in the constitution. However, if you really believe that the constitution can never be interpreted (as in, a living document so to say) to represent the times we live in, you are in some big trouble.



Gender discrimination and civil rights aren't "understood" to be constitutional issue. They clearly are and on top of that were amended into the Constitution.

Well, you are wrongish. Though I agree that both civil rights and gender discrimination are constitutional issues, Justice Scalia does differ. He is considered the prominent "textualist" of the constitution. And his view is that gender was not in it so it is not a constitutional thing, so legislatures should change it if they want.

ThinkProgress » Scalia Says Constitution Does Not Prevent Gender Discrimination (http://thinkprogress.org/2010/09/20/scalia-women/) I know it is on think progress, ignore the commentary and focus on the things Scalia was quoted as saying. They are not as "radical" as thinkprogres tries to make it out to be.

Oh, and if your interested in his actual dissents where he supports this view of no constitutional issue with gender discrimination, have fun reading this whopper... his dissent is near the bottom. FindLaw | Cases and Codes (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=u20026)

Interstate commerce as it is used now is a farce. It was originally meant to prevent one state from raising tariffs on another and to regulate currency through out the union. That is it.

Uh, no.



I am ignoring your light reading with out a source.

The source was at the bottom of the post, but here it is again Constitutional Law Prof Blog: Is an Individual Health Insurance Mandate Constitutional? (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/conlaw/2009/09/is-an-individual-health-insurance-mandate-constitutional.html)

And here is the actual authors bio The John Marshall Law School - Steven Schwinn (http://www.jmls.edu/directory/steven_schwinn.shtml#affiliations)

If you are not pleased, I have more.

[Corbic]

The thing that bugs me is that the original tea party was all about taxation without representation. You can't make the same correlation now. Just because the guy you wanted in office didn't win doesn't mean you aren't represented.

I lean toward libertarian, as does the new tea party, but I just can't get behind some of their policies on the social side. They're not libertarian, they're conservative, just like the GOP.


It's still the point though. Your guy gets in and still votes against what you want and he promised to do.

[evomike]

The tea party is a movement that was stolen from the people who started it and completely changed what it was about.

[evomike]

Tea Party ‘founder’: Palin, Gingrich a ‘joke’ | Raw Story (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/tea-party-founder-slams-tea-party/)

[kingkilburn]

If this is how you choose to debate then I am done with you.

Nice side stepping of the main point there and you are still wrong on all points.



Also the source goes with what was used or at least labeled so the reader knows were to look.

[ineedone]

If this is how you choose to debate then I am done with you.

Nice side stepping of the main point there and you are still wrong on all points.



Also the source goes with what was used or at least labeled so the reader knows were to look.

Wait, what? What did I side step? How am I wrong? Are you done because you really are wrong? I do not understand. Are you mad that Christine O'Donnell did not win?

[kingkilburn]

You side stepped the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm done because I don't like where this is going to go. And no not because you think I'm wrong.


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_108497&v=oHpud3QmLzM&feature=iv

[ineedone]

You side stepped the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

I'm done because I don't like where this is going to go. And no not because you think I'm wrong.


http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_108497&v=oHpud3QmLzM&feature=iv


... oh god...

Ever hear of US. v Darby? here ya go!

- The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers

It affirmed the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which power "can neither be enlarged nor diminished by the exercise or non-exercise of state power."

United States v. Darby Lumber Co. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Darby)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/health/policy/15health.html

VA being a special case because of their state laws, the rest will follow MI. Eventually if the VA case gets to the SC, with the make up of the court, and assuming they rule on party lines (which is contrary to the notion of being a judge anyway... another topic for that though) you get a 4-4 with a possible question mark on Kennedy, who will most likely roll with the Breyer, Ginsburg and the likes.

However, if the justices decided on how they say their judicial philosophy is, you can not get around Darby, and you would probably get a lop sided decision that it is constitutional, however, I am sure Scalia and the likes will dissent in some part.

BUT, I do not think it will be granted cert. to be heard. AND all of this circles back to the original post as to whether the government can mandate healthcare or impose a tax. Does that wrap it up enough?

[kingkilburn]

US v Darby basically says that the Federal government can regulate health care but no where does it show that they can also mandate it. It has nothing to do with the 10th amendment disallowing them to start there own insurance company.


If the Federal government wanted social medicine(which I am not opposed to) it should have funded each state making a program to their(the federal government's) standard, the same as federally funded public school.

[cc4usmc]

You two sound like you're using the Constitution like a check list.

"Nope, that's not on the Constitution, can't do that. Oh but this is, so go ahead."

[kingkilburn]

It is a checklist of sorts and while there are things in it that I disagree with until it is changed I will hold to it.

[cc4usmc]

It is a checklist of sorts and while there are things in it that I disagree with until it is changed I will hold to it.

Agreed, but, do either of you actually know anything about the people who wrote the Constitution? Or the people who influenced them? Just out of curiosity.

[kingkilburn]

Being a history and polisci major that would be a yes :)

[ESmorz]

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/teabonics%20impeah.jpg

[kingkilburn]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/wolfbrigade/thanksfox.jpg

There are so many of these stupid misspelled signs.

[ineedone]

Agreed, but, do either of you actually know anything about the people who wrote the Constitution? Or the people who influenced them? Just out of curiosity.

I heard it was aliens.

...I am guessing constitutional law is not enough to actually know how the constitution works? I mean yeah, it is a tough class, but damn.

But what makes you the expert? Even among the most scholarly of scholars there is debate about the constitution. The truth is that the only people who really know what they meant when they wrote what they wrote are themselves. psst... that is why we have a legal system and lawyers. However, if you claim to know exactly what they meant, please enlighten us all!

kingkilburn - the whole point of a mandate is for regulation, that is the point of the "light reading" read the entire article if you really do not agree. The federal government did not start their own healthcare provider (I too wish we were single payer/public option with a little bit of our existing system - ps that too would be constitutional if done).

In reality the 10th amendment carries with it almost no weight. The only time there has been a successful 10th amendment case as the defense of marriage act, and I think 1 other.

The constitution is not a checklist, but a foundation. That is why I keep saying to you you can not approach as issue with the question "where in the constitution does it say you can do this" it is "where does it say you can not do this."


On another note, Michael Moore said something interesting last night, which I kind of agreed with. We are heading to a next presidential election where there is a good chance that we will have 4 legitimate candidates on the ticket. Left, Dem-Repub, Right. Or how I would phrase it, Coffee party, Dem-suck, Repub-suck, Tea party. Anyone want to start the Mario Party?:keke:

[Corbic]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/wolfbrigade/thanksfox.jpg

There are so many of these stupid misspelled signs.

Your point, is that actually a "teaparty/republican" or maybe just a "liberal/democratic" trying to make the "enemy" look like assholes/hillrats?

Even if it is a "Tea/Repub", that speaks more to the Lib/Dem/Union controlled school systems, no?

[jspaeth]

Being a history and polisci major that would be a yes :)


In my personal opinion, political science is the dumbest major ever...history is cool, but pol sci = dumb (nothing personal against you).


I am at Princeton currently, home of the "Woodrow Wilson School for Public Policy" (whatever that means....people teaching you HOW YOU SHOULD THINK?).......all of these people are into politics and political science and what have you.....I constantly have to listen to their stupid, ideological liberal thoughts.


The reason I say it is dumb is because how can someone TEACH YOU WHAT TO THINK?

Like 90% of the faculty in any political science department at any school are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

What this means is that people who go to school to study political science are basically being fed the party line and "bred" into "good little liberal thinkers".


It really bothers me that you can be educated on POLITICS......I feel that it is something that should come from within, from your own PERSONAL views and opinions.


It is really sad that 90% of political science and history professors are liberals, because anyone seeking to go into those fields are given ONE side of the story basically.

[ineedone]

In my personal opinion, political science is the dumbest major ever...history is cool, but pol sci = dumb (nothing personal against you).


I am at Princeton currently, home of the "Woodrow Wilson School for Public Policy" (whatever that means....people teaching you HOW YOU SHOULD THINK?).......all of these people are into politics and political science and what have you.....I constantly have to listen to their stupid, ideological liberal thoughts.


The reason I say it is dumb is because how can someone TEACH YOU WHAT TO THINK?

Like 90% of the faculty in any political science department at any school are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS.

What this means is that people who go to school to study political science are basically being fed the party line and "bred" into "good little liberal thinkers".


It really bothers me that you can be educated on POLITICS......I feel that it is something that should come from within, from your own PERSONAL views and opinions.


It is really sad that 90% of political science and history professors are liberals, because anyone seeking to go into those fields are given ONE side of the story basically.

There is also Mice with Human Brains!!!!!

I went to one of the most conservative schools (in economics at least - George Mason University) and I learned a lot. Disagreed with most of it, but in no way was I forced to believe anything. It is always better, in my opinion, learning about what you disagree with than just reaffirming what you already feel/know. By the way, where did all these conservative supreme court justices come from? Harvard, Yale, Princeton... same places of all those liberal justices...

Here is what happens when you do not know about the other side - How I Became A Keynesian | The New Republic (http://www.tnr.com/article/how-i-became-keynesian)

Posner is the conservative god in economics... and well... now... Keynesian. It is a bit sickening someone of that intellect would just neglect the other side for so long. That is scary.

[slw240sx]

The thing that bugs me is that the original tea party was all about taxation without representation. You can't make the same correlation now. Just because the guy you wanted in office didn't win doesn't mean you aren't represented.

I lean toward libertarian, as does the new tea party, but I just can't get behind some of their policies on the social side. They're not libertarian, they're conservative, just like the GOP.



The teaparty movement is all a marketing ploy. when your product isnt selling and you have surplus to move you rebrand it and make it all new and shiny and then it starts selling again. The republicans are great at branding and marketing to the masses, last election year though they had alot of division and a lack of solid contenders and the media marketing just couldn't cope with a young black candidate from the opposite party when things have been so bad with the old white rule.

politics are no longer about whats best for you an i. its whats best for the party contributors. the candidates are just putting on a marketing extravaganza to get there. i highly doubt any of them really even care whats going on in normal MERICA. they have never lived in everyday MERICA they are all from a wealthy class and have probably never had to deal with the hardships that real life present to working class and poverty class peoples. their struggles are how to hide income from the tax man so they can afford that resort home in aspen or their summer homes around the world. To them this is all a popularity race to a office that will pay them millions in salary whether or not their salary on paper is 40-60K a year. why else would meg Whitman of eBay fame pump a 140 million of personal money into a campaign for an office that will pay her maybe a 100K a year on paper? she just wants that political fame because thats what rich people and socialites want, the fame in their own class set.

[cc4usmc]

I heard it was aliens.

...I am guessing constitutional law is not enough to actually know how the constitution works? I mean yeah, it is a tough class, but damn.


Did I ask if you knew how the constitution works? No, I asked you if you knew anything about the people who wrote it. If you're trying to tell me that because you took a class on "Constitutional Law", you don't need to know anything about the aliens that wrote it, then just say it. Quit being a smart ass.


But what makes you the expert? Even among the most scholarly of scholars there is debate about the constitution. The truth is that the only people who really know what they meant when they wrote what they wrote are themselves. psst... that is why we have a legal system and lawyers. However, if you claim to know exactly what they meant, please enlighten us all!

Did I claim to be an expert? I asked about your knowledge out of pure curiosity, and I even stated that. Sure, I might have read a book or two about the Founding Fathers, but nothing SOO substantial is a class on Constitutional Law. That's why you don't see me in here arguing, because I don't feel that my knowledge is substantial enough to provide valid argument.

I will leave you with this though..

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of the, they must become happy."

That quote is referring confiscatory taxation and deficit spending.

If you care, you'll find the person behind that quote. You two have fun in here. :wavey:

[kingkilburn]

kingkilburn - the whole point of a mandate is for regulation, that is the point of the "light reading" read the entire article if you really do not agree. The federal government did not start their own healthcare provider (I too wish we were single payer/public option with a little bit of our existing system - ps that too would be constitutional if done).

They can mandate the regulation of an industry but they can not force me to buy a product.



The constitution is not a checklist, but a foundation. That is why I keep saying to you you can not approach as issue with the question "where in the constitution does it say you can do this" it is "where does it say you can not do this."

I can now see why your understanding of the Constitution is so ass backwards compared to mine. You're coming from a law background based on what the Supreme Court has done. I'm coming from a political theory background and all I'm concerned with is what was intended by the writer/editors of the document.

I couldn't care less what the courts have done. There are quite a few cases where they have clearly gone against what was intended and pushed either their own agenda or the agendas of the other branches. The fact that the Patriot Act still stands as law has caused me to lose all faith in the Supreme Court.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

P.S. The fact that the Supreme Court doesn't strongly enforce the 10th Amendment doesn't take away from what it says and it very clearly states it's intent.

In my personal opinion, political science is the dumbest major ever...history is cool, but pol sci = dumb (nothing personal against you).

Most of my polisci classes have been more about political theory and the mechanics of government. I have had just as many conservative teachers as liberal.

Personally I'd rather have a teacher who is very obviously and openly biased. It makes it easier to see the flaws in their judgment.

[Corbic]

They can mandate the regulation of an industry but they can not force me to buy a product.



.

Additionally, they kept citing "30 million Americans are without health insurance".

First, so what. 100 years ago 100% of Americans where without Health Insurance. IIRC, 100% of North Korean's have Heath Insurance.

Second, over 10% of America is out of work... correlation? Course not.


Bring on Cap & Trade so Silicon Valley, Hollywood and Wallstreet get rich while everyone else becomes even more poor.

[Corbic]

I

On another note, Michael Moore said something interesting last night, which I kind of agreed with. We are heading to a next presidential election where there is a good chance that we will have 4 legitimate candidates on the ticket. Left, Dem-Repub, Right. Or how I would phrase it, Coffee party, Dem-suck, Repub-suck, Tea party. Anyone want to start the Mario Party?:keke:

By the mere fact that you would Cite Michael Moore as a source for anything other than stupidity and willful ignorance means you are far left of center and all arguments from you should be viewed as such.

[ineedone]

Did I ask if you knew how the constitution works? No, I asked you if you knew anything about the people who wrote it. If you're trying to tell me that because you took a class on "Constitutional Law", you don't need to know anything about the aliens that wrote it, then just say it. Quit being a smart ass.

Oh, come on, I was just joking around. And con law is no easy matter. But to back up my con law ill raise you Fed Tax, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, and Civil Procedure. I have had my fair share of working with the constitution in a academic sense at least.


Did I claim to be an expert? I asked about your knowledge out of pure curiosity, and I even stated that. Sure, I might have read a book or two about the Founding Fathers, but nothing SOO substantial is a class on Constitutional Law. That's why you don't see me in here arguing, because I don't feel that my knowledge is substantial enough to provide valid argument.

I will leave you with this though..

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of the, they must become happy."

That quote is referring confiscatory taxation and deficit spending.

If you care, you'll find the person behind that quote. You two have fun in here. :wavey:

The same guy that said this "Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

Play again?

[ineedone]

They can mandate the regulation of an industry but they can not force me to buy a product.

Well, if you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance. I know that is not the best example, but in a roundabout sense it is analogous. So yes, they can "force" you to buy something. Whether that be through fines or taxes...


I can now see why your understanding of the Constitution is so ass backwards compared to mine. You're coming from a law background based on what the Supreme Court has done. I'm coming from a political theory background and all I'm concerned with is what was intended by the writer/editors of the document.

Yes, that is very true. Law school, and well, seeing things in a legal sense is a completely different thing then what you would learn in a "theoretical" environment. But we do operate within the same 4 basic areas (Text,Intent,Realism,Modern Dynamics). Text/Intent being the more "conservative" way to view it, "Realism/Modern Dynamics" being the more liberal (or pragmatic) way to view it. I think now you can see how difficult the constitution really is! but this is a good thing!

I couldn't care less what the courts have done. There are quite a few cases where they have clearly gone against what was intended and pushed either their own agenda or the agendas of the other branches. The fact that the Patriot Act still stands as law has caused me to lose all faith in the Supreme Court.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Very true in a sense. However, you have to accept that your view is not necessarily the only "right" view. In theory we think of the justices as being the "least wrong" out of all of us, and therefore able to make the best decisions. I agree with you, Patriot Act is atrocious.

And it is not that I disagree with you, it is that the way you approach the issues is not how they are approach in the legal world. I may agree with your conclusions, just not the way you get there!

P.S. The fact that the Supreme Court doesn't strongly enforce the 10th Amendment doesn't take away from what it says and it very clearly states it's intent.

Most of my polisci classes have been more about political theory and the mechanics of government. I have had just as many conservative teachers as liberal.

Personally I'd rather have a teacher who is very obviously and openly biased. It makes it easier to see the flaws in their judgment.

Just a thought, if the intent was so clear, then why has no justice seen it that way? I know, its a brainscrew to say the least... but hey, it is fun.

Knowing the other sides argument better than them is the best way to win a debate/argument!

[ineedone]

By the mere fact that you would Cite Michael Moore as a source for anything other than stupidity and willful ignorance means you are far left of center and all arguments from you should be viewed as such.

Can you read? or did you just see Michael Moore and your head just exploded? All I said was that he made an interesting point, that I do not disagree with. And how can anyone, in this political environment, disagree with that statement?

[cc4usmc]

Oh, come on, I was just joking around. And con law is no easy matter. But to back up my con law ill raise you Fed Tax, Administrative Law, Criminal Procedure, and Civil Procedure. I have had my fair share of working with the constitution in a academic sense at least.


I guess I shouldn't have added the quotations, that's probably why you thought I was suggesting that it was easy. So you probably know less than I do then?


The same guy that said this "Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see."

Play again?

Allegedly said.

Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/some-my-finest-hours-have-been-spent-my-back-veranda-smoking-hemp-quotation) *

Was that comment just to show that you know who stated the comment I posted, or were you trying to discredit Thomas Jefferson because he may or many not have smoked weed?


* I'd be happy to provide more links that discredit statement if you'd like.

[jspaeth]

Well, if you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance. I know that is not the best example, but in a roundabout sense it is analogous. So yes, they can "force" you to buy something. Whether that be through fines or taxes...

The key issue here is that by driving on the road, a person could easily injure another person, so your insurance is primarily to cover OTHERS in case YOU hurt them.

However, that logic does not translate over to people.

By being alive, and possibly getting cancer or a broken leg, I am not a threat to anyone in any way, shape or form.

[ineedone]

I guess I shouldn't have added the quotations, that's probably why you thought I was suggesting that it was easy. So you probably know less than I do then?

I have read the federalist papers too... but that really does not make anyone an expert on the constitution or its founders. Just knowing the history of a founder still can not place you inside their head.


Allegedly said.

Some of my finest hours have been spent on my back veranda, smoking hemp... (Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/some-my-finest-hours-have-been-spent-my-back-veranda-smoking-hemp-quotation) *

Apparently it is in the Jefferson Diaries/Memoirs, but honestly, I really really hope it is true because that just seems to be one of the coolest images in my head. Either way, I know my Jefferson man!

Was that comment just to show that you know who stated the comment I posted, or were you trying to discredit Thomas Jefferson because he may or many not have smoked weed?


* I'd be happy to provide more links that discredit statement if you'd like.

No, I would have to say he was one of my favs, but people do tend to ignore the writings/quotes of his that do not coincide with their own belief as to what he was or what he meant. He is a paradox, in my opinion at least.

[ineedone]

The key issue here is that by driving on the road, a person could easily injure another person, so your insurance is primarily to cover OTHERS in case YOU hurt them.

However, that logic does not translate over to people.

By being alive, and possibly getting cancer or a broken leg, I am not a threat to anyone in any way, shape or form.

It most certainly does translate. No one can absolutely say that they will never be involved in an accident, or develop a disease/cancer. Now if you allow people to not purchase healthcare, and an accident or anything of the sorts happens, problems arise. I highly doubt anyone can foot the bill for something of that sort, and, most likely will file for bankruptcy or just never pay. That leaves the hospital with "x" dollars unpaid, the cost transfers to the health insurance companies, who then raise your premiums. Now, hospitals, especially non-profit hospitals that have emergency rooms, must take you whether you have insurance or not. So yes, you can definitely "harm" someone in a monetary shape/form. Either way, you are "forced" to pay for others healthcare who can not or do not purchase their own.

[cc4usmc]

I have read the federalist papers too... but that really does not make anyone an expert on the constitution or its founders. Just knowing the history of a founder still can not place you inside their head.

I'm not talking about a single man. I'm talking about the Founding Fathers. I only quoted Jefferson because the quote because it was somewhat related to the thread. A book(s) might not put you in their head, but a book(s) will tell you the direction they wanted to go so that you can better interpret the Constitution.

From that quote alone, imo, you can conclude that Jefferson would never agree with Welfare or the new Health Care plan. Of course it wasn't just Jefferson who believed that, I just can't provide quotes from others off the top of my head, let alone more supporting information to back that. I don't go to school for this, I read these books for pleasure. So again, I'm not an expert, it's just what I believe.


Apparently it is in the Jefferson Diaries/Memoirs, but honestly, I really really hope it is true because that just seems to be one of the coolest images in my head. Either way, I know my Jefferson man!


Like I said, I can provide many likes that say that quote is false.

Anyway, I'm out...at least for the night.

[fckillerbee]

Keep on with the debate....it's a good read. Just so you guys know. If you have enough money, you don't have to have to pay for insurance...you just put down a cash deposit at the dmv....sounds like a load of shit....but you won't have to pay for insurance. no one I know will do this.....but it is available.

and for the person that said about breaking your leg and not hurting anyone....what if you get sick....like swin flu sick...your telling me you are at no risk to anyone...i'm sure the gov will use this one to counter your statement.




Insurance Requirements for Vehicle Registration (http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/brochures/fast_facts/ffvr18.htm)

Types of financial responsibility


A motor vehicle liability insurance policy
A cash deposit of $35,000 with DMV
A DMV issued self-insurance certificate
A surety bond for $35,000 from a company licensed to do business in California.

[kingkilburn]

Well, if you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance. I know that is not the best example, but in a roundabout sense it is analogous. So yes, they can "force" you to buy something. Whether that be through fines or taxes...


That is the state government, being coerced by the Feds because they can't do it themselves(legally).

[ineedone]

I'm not talking about a single man. I'm talking about the Founding Fathers. I only quoted Jefferson because the quote because it was somewhat related to the thread. A book(s) might not put you in their head, but a book(s) will tell you the direction they wanted to go so that you can better interpret the Constitution.

From that quote alone, imo, you can conclude that Jefferson would never agree with Welfare or the new Health Care plan. Of course it wasn't just Jefferson who believed that, I just can't provide quotes from others off the top of my head, let alone more supporting information to back that. I don't go to school for this, I read these books for pleasure. So again, I'm not an expert, it's just what I believe.

“If we’re going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry”. - Thomas Jefferson

This quote is often cited for the right to education, it could also be the model for the right to healthcare.

[Corbic]

Well, if you have a car, you are forced to buy car insurance. I know that is not the best example, but in a roundabout sense it is analogous. So yes, they can "force" you to buy something. Whether that be through fines or taxes...
!

No. No one is forced to drive or own a car. You can own and drive one, without insurance, legally on any closed course/private property.

But the "agreement" is, if you wish to operate a motorvehicle on shared public roads, you need insurance.

Also, the level of insurance is only mandated by the state, not by the FedGov. There is no "insurance tax" because you have "too much coverage", the is no "public option" and no penalities if you don't own a car and don't want insurance.


Auto/Property insurance work quite well with agreeable rates and the companies providing coverage are typical prosperous (unlike Ded service (mail, Medicare, SS, medicade).


Maybe that should have been the "sollution". Allow medical insurance companies to compete across state boarders, and let them provide service based on risk.


Why should a 49 year old man, working at wallmart, 350lbs, chain smoker; pay the same as a 21 year old girl who is in shape and works as an aerobics instructor.

[jspaeth]

Why should a 49 year old man, working at wallmart, 350lbs, chain smoker; pay the same as a 21 year old girl who is in shape and works as an aerobics instructor.

This is the most relevant thing I've read in the whole thread.

[ineedone]

No. No one is forced to drive or own a car. You can own and drive one, without insurance, legally on any closed course/private property.

Do you even read the things you quote? I started it off with "this is not the best example" obviously the government does not force you to own and operate a vehicle on public roads. However, unless you live in a major city, I doubt you can get by without having a vehicle. But that was not the argument. Where the analogy starts is when someone has a car, that will be potentially used on a public road.

But the "agreement" is, if you wish to operate a motorvehicle on shared public roads, you need insurance.

Also, the level of insurance is only mandated by the state, not by the FedGov. There is no "insurance tax" because you have "too much coverage", the is no "public option" and no penalities if you don't own a car and don't want insurance.

If you are pulled over, or involved in an accident and you do not have insurance, there damn sure is a penalty. Ps. the police is part of the government, therefore, it is the government (state or federal) that exercises the "penalty" for lack of insurance. Again, you need to realize that I was not saying this is completely analogous, and that yes, there are major differences because people can hypothetically choose to not own/operate a vehicle. However, lets work on the assumption that the general population does need to own or operate a vehicle on a public road at some point in their lifetime.


Auto/Property insurance work quite well with agreeable rates and the companies providing coverage are typical prosperous (unlike Ded service (mail, Medicare, SS, medicade).

Property insurance works well? I guess you forgot about Katrina. What happened there was people were told they would not be covered by their insurance because they did not have "hurricane" insurance, however, they did have "flood" insurance. Explain that one?

Auto insurance companies are not looked at upstanding members of the community either, ever hear of anyone enjoying having their auto insurance agent appraise their vehicle after a accident? The whole business model is to find something that will allow them to say you violated some term of the contract so they do not have to pay.

To say any "insurance" works well is a huge stretch. I am not saying that it is always flawed and it is all dirty/corrupt/slimey but I would be hard pressed to find someone who thinks that the industry is awesome.


Maybe that should have been the "sollution". Allow medical insurance companies to compete across state boarders, and let them provide service based on risk.

Pre-existing conditions, heard of those? Health care should not be operated on a profit basis, at least that is my view, it should be operated as it was initially intended. The original health care systems were operated through the church. I am no fan of the church, but, I can not argue that there have been some things they have done that were great.


Why should a 49 year old man, working at wallmart, 350lbs, chain smoker; pay the same as a 21 year old girl who is in shape and works as an aerobics instructor.

Can they both fall over and die for unexpected reasons? You can not prevent certain diseases/accidents. I know plenty of old, fat, unhealthy people who never had a medical problem, and I know plenty that do have medical problems. However, waiting until a serious problem arises then having to pay for that, is much more expensive then that same person having the ability to have ongoing medical care which may prevent a serious medical problem down the road.

Also, since we love the car analogy so much, why should someone who never uses a public road be forced to pay (through taxes obviously) for the maintaining of those roads?

[cc4usmc]

“If we’re going to have a successful democratic society, we have to have a well educated and healthy citizenry”. - Thomas Jefferson

This quote is often cited for the right to education, it could also be the model for the right to healthcare.

Everyone already has the right to health care. Now we're just paying for the people who can't afford it. Right? Those same people on Welfare maybe?


Here is an excerpt from one of my books:

Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep convictions that assisting those in need had to be done through means which might be called "calculated" compassion. Highlights from their writings suggest the following:

1. Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned achievement"
3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder"
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is his family; then the church; next the community; finally the country, and, in disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.


And as far as your quote goes, if I didn't know any better, I would have guess that he was referring to his time. The Founders knew that in order to keep the American eagle from tipping to either side, they had to educate the people. They wanted their fundamentals to carry on.

"No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness....Preach....a crusade against the ignorance' establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [of misgovernment]."
Thomas Jefferson

And that's what happened. They made it law that if your community had at least 50 families in it you had to have a free public grammar school. If it was 100 families or more, they were also required to have a secondary school.

Check this out

Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States (http://lexrex.com/catalog/catechism/catech.htm)

They used to teach the Constitution to children. Pretty neat huh? Does that happen anymore? Nope.

[kingkilburn]

This debate is just ridiculous. Now you(ineedone) are just reaching for straws with ideas that are neither based in the Constitution or legal precedent.


I am happy to be done with this. lol

[Corbic]

Can they both fall over and die for unexpected reasons?

That is life insurance, not health insurance. That too is based on demographics and research data.

[Corbic]

This is the most relevant thing I've read in the whole thread.

Thank you. The only way to encourage people to be healthy is to "Reward" them for it.

If being 50lbs over weight and smoking is costing you an extra $100 a month, maybe you'll lose weight and drop the habit. If you don't have that incentive, then why would you live a healthier lifestyle if you know when you do have a heart attack, need insulin shots, have to get your lungs cut our or go through cancer treatment... shit, its all covered, no worries.

[ineedone]

Everyone already has the right to health care. Now we're just paying for the people who can't afford it. Right? Those same people on Welfare maybe?

We pay for public education, whether or not you go to public school. I am merely saying people argue that quote is the justification for a public education system, and by that you could argue that healthcare should act the same.


Here is an excerpt from one of my books:

Nearly all of the Founders seem to have acquired deep convictions that assisting those in need had to be done through means which might be called "calculated" compassion. Highlights from their writings suggest the following:

1. Do not help the needy completely. Merely help them to help themselves.
2. Give the poor the satisfaction of "earned achievement"
3. Allow the poor to climb the "appreciation ladder"
4. Where emergency help is provided, do not prolong it to the point where it becomes habitual.
5. Strictly enforce the scale of "fixed responsibility." The first and foremost level of responsibility is with the individual himself; the second level is his family; then the church; next the community; finally the country, and, in disaster or emergency, the state. Under no circumstances is the federal government to become involved in public welfare. The Founders felt it would corrupt the government and also the poor. No Constitutional authority exists for the federal government to participate in charity or welfare.

Remember the times they lived in, and how they themselves were hypocrites of the things they believed. Slavery being a huge one. That is why it is literally impossible to truly know what they meant. It is also why most believe federalism to be figuratively dead. Though there are those that believe some of it still is around.

And as far as your quote goes, if I didn't know any better, I would have guess that he was referring to his time. The Founders knew that in order to keep the American eagle from tipping to either side, they had to educate the people. They wanted their fundamentals to carry on.

"No other sure foundation can be devised for the preservation of freedom and happiness....Preach....a crusade against the ignorance' establish and improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [of misgovernment]."
Thomas Jefferson

And that's what happened. They made it law that if your community had at least 50 families in it you had to have a free public grammar school. If it was 100 families or more, they were also required to have a secondary school.

Check this out

Elementary Catechism on the Constitution of the United States (http://lexrex.com/catalog/catechism/catech.htm)

They used to teach the Constitution to children. Pretty neat huh? Does that happen anymore? Nope.

I would not doubt it to be true that people seeking to become citizens (immigrants both legal and "illegal") know the constitution better than the majority of the population.

Who is William Huff? I have never heard of the guy, not quite sure how I feel about the things that I pulled up on him, but interesting none the less. Is this the same guy though THREE TITLES [3] for the PRICE OF ONE. (http://lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm)?

I know the war is racket (Butler) and I have seen the speech that the soldier in the bottom video gives. But if you listen to him, he is preaching socialism in a sense, not that I disagree with him in the slightest either way.

[ineedone]

This debate is just ridiculous. Now you(ineedone) are just reaching for straws with ideas that are neither based in the Constitution or legal precedent.


I am happy to be done with this. lol

Reaching for straws? and legal precedent? Your the one that can not get over that the 10th amendment is nothing but a truism (legal precedent!).

[ineedone]

That is life insurance, not health insurance. That too is based on demographics and research data.

Merely "working out" and being "healthy" does not correlate into not having "pre-existing" conditions. Women were being denied their benefits because of yeast infections... because clearly that is a "pre-existing" condition.

Thank you. The only way to encourage people to be healthy is to "Reward" them for it.

If being 50lbs over weight and smoking is costing you an extra $100 a month, maybe you'll lose weight and drop the habit. If you don't have that incentive, then why would you live a healthier lifestyle if you know when you do have a heart attack, need insulin shots, have to get your lungs cut our or go through cancer treatment... shit, its all covered, no worries.

Because losing weight is that easy for everyone? How do you begin to determine what is "overweight" or what is "unhealthy" are you going to be the one to make sure no one smokes cigs or eats bad foods? Are you going to be the one to determine who can eat what and when? Look, you can not base your arguments on the extremes, that is not how the world works. Focus on gray area of the issue. Where does the line exist from when you go from health - unhealthy. From normal - overweight.

I am assuming your knowledge on the whole issue is elementary at best, so read this article so you are not so scared of SOOOOOCCCIALIZZZED MEEEDDDDIIICINNNNEEE!!!!! (I said that in the spooky voice by the way) The Many Myths Of European Health Care - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/opinion/main3105523.shtml)

[cc4usmc]

We pay for public education, whether or not you go to public school. I am merely saying people argue that quote is the justification for a public education system, and by that you could argue that healthcare should act the same.


And how much financial influence does the Federal Gov have on public education? According to

Federal Role in Education (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

only about 10.5% of the $1.1 trillion (in 09-10) can from the Federal Gov. The majority comes from the State, local and private sources, just like it was intended. If you CHOOSE not to go to public school, that's YOUR decision. If you CHOOSE not to pay for your own health care, that's also YOUR decision. If you CHOOSE not to take care of yourself and end up needing health care, that's YOUR fault. But now they don't have to worry about that, because it will come from everyone's pocket.

Here is some information about the earliest form of Federal Heath Care:

One of the earliest health care proposals at the federal level was the 1854 Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane, which would have established asylums for the indigent insane, as well as the blind, deaf, and dumb, via federal land grants to the states. This bill was proposed by activist Dorothea Dix, which passed both houses of congress, but was vetoed by president Franklin Pierce. Pierce argued that the federal government should not commit itself to social welfare, which he believed was properly the responsibility of the states."*1

President Pierce was doing EXACTLY what was intended by the Founding Fathers.


Remember the times they lived in, and how they themselves were hypocrites of the things they believed. Slavery being a huge one. That is why it is literally impossible to truly know what they meant. It is also why most believe federalism to be figuratively dead. Though there are those that believe some of it still is around.

Again, you're not reading the right book. President Pierce read the right book.


Who is William Huff?


Don't pay any attention to Huff, that's the "Revised Edition." Look at the original, dated 1828.


Because losing weight is that easy for everyone?


Most people are obese due to their own actions, so certainly they can lose the weight. They just have to have the desire to do so.

Obesity is most commonly caused by a combination of excessive dietary calories, lack of physical activity, and genetic susceptibility, although a few cases are caused primarily by genes, endocrine disorders, medications or psychiatric illness.*2

And those cases related to genes are most likely due to obese parents. You know you've seen obese couples and their kids are just as obese. :eek3:

Obesity is a leading preventable cause of death worldwide, with increasing prevalence in adults and children, and authorities view it as one of the most serious public health problems of the 21st century.*2

If it's preventable, then it's something people can control. Do they CHOOSE to? Most don't.

And I shouldn't have to point out that being obese is the cause for many additional health issues.

How do you begin to determine what is "overweight" or what is "unhealthy"


It's called the Body Mass Index.

Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Weight: Body Mass Index (BMI) | DNPAO | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/)

Here are a couple more links about Obesity.

The Surgeon General?s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation Fact Sheet (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/obesityvision/obesityvision_factsheet.html)
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics | DNPAO | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html)


are you going to be the one to make sure no one smokes cigs or eats bad foods? Are you going to be the one to determine who can eat what and when?

It's nobody's job but the obese persons to lose weight. It's called "Personal Responsibility," and this country lacks is hard core. The Founding Fathers probably would have called it "Public Virtue."

The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute: The Foundation of Public Virtue (http://wjmi.blogspot.com/2009/03/foundation-of-public-virtue.html)


Ok, I'm done here. I can't keep spending so much time going back and forth, although it has been fun. Honestly.

*1 History of health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States )
*2 Obesity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity)

[ineedone]

And how much financial influence does the Federal Gov have on public education? According to

Federal Role in Education (http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html)

only about 10.5% of the $1.1 trillion (in 09-10) can from the Federal Gov. The majority comes from the State, local and private sources, just like it was intended. If you CHOOSE not to go to public school, that's YOUR decision. If you CHOOSE not to pay for your own health care, that's also YOUR decision. If you CHOOSE not to take care of yourself and end up needing health care, that's YOUR fault. But now they don't have to worry about that, because it will come from everyone's pocket.

Again, I am merely pointing out that money does in fact come from your wallet and go to a federal system which funds public education. I do believe though that property taxes are the major funding for public schools (on the state level). No one can CHOOSE to not pay taxes, no one can CHOOSE where there tax dollars will go.
Here is some information about the earliest form of Federal Heath Care:



President Pierce was doing EXACTLY what was intended by the Founding Fathers.

Can we both agree that the issue faces President Pierce, in no way, reflect the same issues we face today?




Again, you're not reading the right book. President Pierce read the right book.



Don't pay any attention to Huff, that's the "Revised Edition." Look at the original, dated 1828.

What? I did not get that from a book. I got that from how the government and more importantly, how the law, functions in modern society. I would even go as far to say that we now have a 4th branch of government (Agencies within the APA that have sub agencies, think SEC and their sub parts) which neither the judiciary or the legislature has any way to check and the Executive has no power to fire. This would be clearly against what the founders wanted correct? I would also argue that the original principals of federalism are inherently/logistically impossible to strictly adhere to in modern society.



Most people are obese due to their own actions, so certainly they can lose the weight. They just have to have the desire to do so.



And those cases related to genes are most likely due to obese parents. You know you've seen obese couples and their kids are just as obese. :eek3:



If it's preventable, then it's something people can control. Do they CHOOSE to? Most don't.

And I shouldn't have to point out that being obese is the cause for many additional health issues.

You can not fault children for their parents. You also need to take into consideration poverty as well as the resources available to them. It is no secret that people who live below the poverty line do not have access to fruits and vegetables. Most of their diet consist of saturated fats and high sodium not only because that is what they may choose to eat, but also because they may be the only thing available to eat. Just think, when was the last time you saw a decent grocery store in the hood. Again, I am not trying to make excuses, just merely stating that it is an issue that is extremely complex and not as simple as "eat healthy" and "exercise." I think we can agree on that.


It's called the Body Mass Index.

Healthy Weight: Assessing Your Weight: Body Mass Index (BMI) | DNPAO | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/)

It is widely known that the BMI of most athletes will classify them as "overweight" or "unhealthy" and it is an arbitrary test. I did a lot of research on BMI back in undergrad and found that it is only fairly accurate when you use it on the "average" person. If you are slightly above or below average height, the BMI is nor representative of the actual person. You would literally have to require everyone to go through a extensive medical exam to truly determine whether or not they are healthy. It is almost unique to every individual.
Here are a couple more links about Obesity.

The Surgeon General?s Vision for a Healthy and Fit Nation Fact Sheet (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/obesityvision/obesityvision_factsheet.html)
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics | DNPAO | CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html)



It's nobody's job but the obese persons to lose weight. It's called "Personal Responsibility," and this country lacks is hard core. The Founding Fathers probably would have called it "Public Virtue."

The Washington, Jefferson & Madison Institute: The Foundation of Public Virtue (http://wjmi.blogspot.com/2009/03/foundation-of-public-virtue.html)

The is a sweeping generalization, though I may agree with you in some instances, I do realize that there is an infinite number of factors that also may attribute to it.

Personally, I train MMA, I played D1 soccer, and have been "athletic" my entire life. However, I have a buddy who has never lifted a day in his life and the kid is twice the size of me and cut. He eats like shit too. To the eye we would look equally as healthy, but we know that is not the truth.

Ok, I'm done here. I can't keep spending so much time going back and forth, although it has been fun. Honestly.

*1 History of health care reform in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_health_care_reform_in_the_United_States )
*2 Obesity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity)

It has been fun! It is great to have intellectual debates with informed people. Too many times on this forum it is reduced to some joker with no clue, and no grasp of grammar. However, I will gladly keep countering, clarifying, or agreeing!

[supervenom]

Tea Party movement...? They are a bunch of freakin morons. They complain and complain but have no answers! They make it seem as if they had control, things would be rainbows and sunshine. But, they only say things like that because all of their rhetoric doesn't have to stand up to real world situations. They say they have step one figured out, but then what. The plan is always good until it isn't. They would have screwed up royally. And then would have shrugged their shoulders and said, oops. Like little Bush.

TOTAL FUCKING MORONS!!!

[raz0rbladez909]

Tea Party movement...? They are a bunch of freakin morons. They complain and complain but have no answers! They make it seem as if they had control, things would be rainbows and sunshine. But, they only say things like that because all of their rhetoric doesn't have to stand up to real world situations. They say they have step one figured out, but then what. The plan is always good until it isn't. They would have screwed up royally. And then would have shrugged their shoulders and said, oops. Like little Bush.

TOTAL FUCKING MORONS!!!

If that isn't opinionated I don't know what is; You forget that there are idiots in all camps whether it Rep, Dem, or any other party, and those are the ones that usually end up on TV. I like the discussion, Kingkilburn, CC4USMC, and ineedone were having, and it is what I meant to bring around, but just running in here and bashing a specific party with no real reason has no relevance here. At least provide some FACTS

[zeitgeist]

Just to put this in here.

Everyone should go and read what the original Tea party was all about. It wasnt about taxation without representation.

And the people that were dumping the tea into the harbour werent your all around stand up citizens like american history books have made it out to be

[kingkilburn]

Rebellious people rarely are.

[Dr.Fate]

They used to teach the Constitution to children. Pretty neat huh? Does that happen anymore? Nope.[/QUOTE]

That's a damn shame! I don't care what side you are on left or right, The Constitution is something that should be taught in school along with Spanish & French.
When I was in grade school in Chicago, The FULL UNDERSTANDING of the U.S. Constitution was a requirement just to graduate the 9th grade! Even in Catholic or Public schools.

[ericcastro]

I just call em Poor Loser's.

They lost the election, so instead of trying again, they try and quite and go off to play a different game.

Perfect example of the kind of people they seem to be.
Also, from my experince with them, they aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
And they seem to be a little crazy as well, talking about stock piling guns to take over the government with.

Im actually waiting for an anti terrorist group to take some of them down.