Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Yeah, well America had a pretty good run didn't she?

A study of history shows that no power (nation) stays on top of the world forever. World power will always balance out, usually at the great misfortune of the former "superpower". We [the US] are not the exception to this rule.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tslust

A study of history shows that no power (nation) stays on top of the world forever. World power will always balance out, usually at the great misfortune of the former "superpower". We [the US] are not the exception to this rule.

The sad thing is that there's no reason America can't continue its status. Apathy is our only downfall. Just plain old laziness.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Apathy is our only downfall. Just plain old laziness.

That's the biggest reason for the fall of the Roman Empire. The people stopped caring. They didn't care about the political corruption, they didn't care about their declining economy, they didn't care about illegal immigration (yes, it was a problem back then too), they didn't care about maintaining the army, they didn't care about the rule of law.

It's amazing how little people learn from history.

[TracyCoxx]

We all know how great Obama is, but did you ever realize he was THIS GOOD?

If the Republicans pick Ron Paul as their candidate (which I strongly doubt), I'm switching parties. "Insane" foreign policy, my ass—his is the most rational I've ever heard of! As for his economic views, well...regulation or not, there seems to be negligible difference. The federal government might as well itself be a Fortune 500 corporation. And as much as I'm for states' rights, I worry that it might merely result in state governments intruding on liberties instead of the federal.
I dunno, though...I smell hypocrisy on him somewhere. That's how things work on Capitol Hill. Even if he's as honest as he seems, as President, he'd be hard-pressed to get things done with Congress and the S.C. jerking him around and the media smearing him. We'd have to follow up by voting more independents into the other two branches when the midterms come 'round, and there aren't many. Cleaning house just isn't that simple. The bastards could impeach him on some trumped-up charges if they had to, but it'd be easier to just tie his hands. The greedheads aren't gonna let one guy upset the applecart, no matter how many people support him.

[Enoch Root]

Found this on youtube somehow. Thought it was funny to see Newt Gingrich get all moral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_0...acFOAAAAAAACAA

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Found this on youtube somehow. Thought it was funny to see Newt Gingrich get all moral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yf_0...acFOAAAAAAACAA

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

He's absolutely right. Is this the most pressing issue in the presidential race? Hardly. Why is it asked then? To take out another target liberals fear.

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

This is the man who was cheating on his wife while leading the charge to impeach Clinton? The man who got his wife to divorce him while she was riddled and weak with cancer? The idea that this man puts on the mantle of unadulterated purity, of some kind of virtuous defender is just silly.

We all err. It's not the end of the world. And I get it: some people sometimes fall out of love and fall in love with someone else and can't figure out how to deal with the marriage that has now ended because they fell in love with someone else. But when you are a member of a party that portrays itself as "moral," as defenders of some "Christian morality" or something and then you too err, you can't expect others to just accept your act and righteous plea for privacy and understanding.

Newt is known for not exactly being chaste and going after Clinton. That's the thrust of my having posted the video. I found his act funny. It was well written. It was also cynical.

I should have been clearer about my intentions. Then again you probably surmised them but hey, anything to perpetuate the idea that conservatives are persecuted.

Good points. Like many other beacons of christian morality (catholic priests who sexually abuse little boys, Falwell, etc) he's a hypocrite. I knew during the Lewinsky thing that it was more about getting Clinton out of office than morals and I was against the GOP trying to impeach Clinton over BS like that. I'm not concerned with who Clinton receives sexual favors from, and I'm not concerned with who Gingrich divorces or marries. It has nothing to do with balancing the budget or my freedoms or about anything I want the government to improve on. Which, again, is why it was ridiculous to open a presidential debate over jr high bs like that. There's real issues to discuss.

[Enoch Root]

Reginald D Hunter (an American comedian) on Batman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l1PMVvfjDM

[TracyCoxx]

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

RIP Andrew Breitbart,
you will be missed!

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

Alex Pareene, writing on Salon.com, categorizes Breitbart's "contributions" quite well:

• Scalp-hunting

Pareene describes this as "the elevation and demonization of some usually obscure liberal figure done in the hopes of getting them nationally shamed and fired." As an example, he cites the Shirley Sherrod video -- which "blew up in Breitbart's face -- and notes that this kind of false demonization is so much more successful when you do it "with dead people, like Saul Alinsky" (whose famous book, notably, is required reading for many of the Tea Party leaders, and not to "know one's enemy" but as an organizing guide).

• The false "proof"

Pareene notes, "It is a sad fact of online publishing that some ridiculous portion of readers only read the headlines and look at the pictures before moving on." He describes how Breitbart's websites exploit this fact: "'OBAMA MARCHES WITH NEW BLACK PANTHERS,' or something like that, goes the headline. The story can?t support the claim. It doesn?t matter. The headline means it?s true for the majority of the readership."

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

The full video was shown on Sean Hannity's show on Fox "News" Channel. He had Breitbart.com editor-in-chief Joel Pollak on as a guest. Pollak described Bell as the "Jeremiah Wright of academia."

You see, once you've said that, and counting on no one to pay much more attention, you've got the "headline" Breitbart was after. It's a headline that throws a bomb into civil discourse and upsets real discussion about real issues.

Yeah, Tracy Coxx, you should be very proud of your view that he will be "missed."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Notably, Breitbart's last, great "contribution" to our political discourse has just hit the streets. It's the video that he boasted would take down the president. In it, Obama -- then the president of Harvard Law Review -- is speaking at a peaceful rally on the Harvard campus in support of Derek Bell, the first black professor at the Law School. The rally was called in support of getting Harvard to offer tenure to black professors.

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Congratulations. You already know the answers to these rhetorical questions, but it is a notable, new way of dodging the substance of the post about Breitbart.

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

The current topic, with Breitbart dead and his video just released is the video. That is the substance, and you did address this in your response. Your frustration with the way people digest news is just that - your frustration, and not the current topic. So rather than whine about it I went straight to the relevant part of your posting.

You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I will respond later this morning to the bulk of your post; right now, I must leave for a short while. But the relevant part of my post that you did not answer is this:

I wish an early death upon no one, but it seems to me that anyone who would miss the provocateur Andrew Breitbart's uncivil, vitriolic, and patently false "contributions" to public discourse is revealing things about herself or himself that I would think that person would want to keep private.

And that is what you continue to ignore.

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Really? lol sorry I didn't consider that relevant at all

Of course, you didn't, because then you might actually have to answer for the destructive nature of Breitbart's participation in our national political discourse. And as we know, that part of your political perspective, expressed so often on this site, is not something you can defend ... at least judging from the fact that you ignore it whenever called out, or start whining about how you're being abused.

[smc]

To clarify, the protest in question was not to get tenure but to support Derrick Bell's call for greater diversity in the faculty and granting of tenure to minorities. Now, on to answer Tracy Coxx, as promised earlier.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Harvard should absolutely not deny tenure based on race. At the same time, they should not grant tenure based on race. Both those actions are by definition, racist.

Ensuring diversity in a university faculty has long required some form of affirmative action in hiring and tenure-granting. Your characterization of this as "racist" suggests that there is no real point in trying to have a real discussion about the issue, unless you are willing to acknowledge the disadvantage that people of color have generally had because of the discrimination they have suffered from an early age, which results in far fewer potential professors.

By the way, Derrick Bell was granted tenure (before the protest in the "Breitbart video," because he was an eminent scholar, first and foremost. Affirmative action for tenure is not about granting exclusively on the basis of race, but on making an extra effort to find qualified candidates who will bring diversity to a faculty ... because such diversity strengthens the educational process for students.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

But anyways, I'll grant that it's important to Obama that a black professor have tenure. It's interesting that he throws all his support behind this guy though. Is it because he identifies with prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

Obama, like most of the Harvard Law School students, identified with Bell's call for diversity in the faculty ... precisely because they saw it as good for their own educations.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

... You're quick to dismiss the two possible answers I listed rather than refuting them. I guess you're accepting at least one of them. Your response is that of the media's - ignore it and hope that it goes away. The president is endorsing a guy with this extremist racist ideology and the media is going to just shrug. This is the same media who stormed Alaska when Sarah Palin was announced as McCain's running mate and paid hackers for her emails and did exhaustive investigations on her family.

What a crock of shit. What a poor attempt to change the subject by making it about the media and bringing up Sarah Palin. (By the way, I think that the stuff about Sarah Palin's family was disgusting and shameful to have released publicly, regardless of whether any of it was true).

You should have worked with Breitbart, because by calling Bell "a guy with this extreme racist ideology" and then saying the "president is endorsing" him, you have done exactly what Breitbart did with the smear of Shirley Sherrod (I refer those interested to Google the words Breitbart and Sherrod)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Oh well, that's my particular frustration if anyone cares. Breitbart is out of the way. Obama can go back to having MediaMatters dictate stories for the news outlets and strong arm all opposition for the rest of the election.

Get out much? How's the view with your head in the sand? The idea that "MediaMatters dictates stories for the news outlets" and that the opposition is being strong-armed is nothing but talking points. It's not real discussion Prove your patently false claim.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Back to one of the relevant topics. What does everyone think about Obama's support for Bell? Is it because he identifies with an extremist like prof Bell, or is it just because prof. Bell happens to be the only choice at the time and any black professor would do?

I refer all to the points above. Bell's tenure was not in question. And define "extremist" in this context. I think it means anyone who doesn't correspond to the TracyCoxx world view.

[Enoch Root]

Occupy Oakland:

http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/01...veloping-story

[GRH]

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

SMC,

I'm curious how far you think affirmative action should be extended within academia. As you know, I live in Maine, and it is a VERY white state. Based on 2010 census data, over 95% of the Maine population is white. The remaining ~5% is divided almost equally between blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc.

With these numbers in mind, if the racial profile of the academic institution is to match the wider state demographics, then approximately 1 out of every 100 professors should be black. One should be Asian, etc.

Is this acceptable? Given that we are a "white state," should our academic institution mirror the broader demographic that exists here? Or should the school go out of its way to ensure a "more diverse" institution than exists in the broader population? And if the answer is to be "more diverse" than our native population-- how far is enough? Two black professors out of every hundred? Three? Five?

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

These are complex questions that would be better answered in a conversation than in the context of postings here, primarily because a conversation affords a greater likelihood of avoiding the tendency to polemicize. But I will make an effort.

First, I think it?s important to be very clear about what is meant by ?affirmative action,? because those who oppose it have succeeded in branding it with a very negative term -- ?reverse discrimination? -- that is, in my view, patently false.

In essence, affirmative action is the umbrella term for initiatives and public policies that have been established to aid in eliminating past and present discrimination based on (primarily) race, (often) gender, and (less common) religion and national origin. Executive Orders and later interpretations by the courts of federal affirmative action policies have made abundantly clear that anyone benefiting from affirmative action must have relevant and valid educational or job qualifications. That is why the ?unwarranted preferences? argument is invalid, in my view. Currently, there are nearly 100,000 employment discrimination cases pending before the federal Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, and less than 2 percent are about ?reverse discrimination,? so I think that puts the ?RD? argument to rest.

(By the way, in Canada, job-related affirmative action goes by the name ?employment equity.? It?s about fairness.)

Affirmative action exists because despite Constitutional guarantees of equality, discrimination -- especially on the basis of race and gender -- has become an entrenched part of American society. This means that, for example, a young black woman is likely to go to an inferior school compared to her white counterpart, because discrimination (writ large, in employment of her parents, and so on) relegates her to a neighborhood with fewer resources, and thus to a poorer school, and thus to less educational opportunity, and on it goes. These things accumulate to hold her back from achievement, not because of some inherent inferiority but because the things typically used to measure success are biased against those with her set of experiences (consider, for example, the SAT tests). Thus, to level the playing field, a university might give her a chance to win admission over someone who ?had it easier.?

Note that this is a very simplistic example.

At its core, and this is something few want to admit, affirmative action is about taking on the white male power structure directly. So, while liberal supporters of affirmative action may balk at saying what I am about to say, I have no problem doing so: when a young black woman is given a slot in a college class despite lower grades, lower test scores, and less compelling resume experiences (e.g., being a ?Big Sister? versus that trip to Honduras to rebuild houses after a natural disaster) than the white male she (indirectly) displaced, society is paying back her race and gender for hundreds of years of discrimination. And society OWES THAT DEBT, until the discrimination at the institutional level is eradicated.

I?m not big on quoting U.S. presidents, but two of them actually make this case very eloquently. In 1961, President Kennedy signed an executive order mandating that beneficiaries of federal monies ?take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.? In essence, he was saying that we as a nation were not only going to talk about racial equality, and desegration, but walk the walk.

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act expanded affirmative action, and President Johnson said this:

?You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ?now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.? You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ?you are free to compete with all the others,? and still justly believe you have been completely fair ... This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity?not just legal equity but human ability?not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result."

Now, to your specific questions, GRH, which are as much about the purpose of diversity as they are about affirmative action.

You are correct about the racial composition of the population my neighbor New England state, Maine. Should the University of Maine reflect that composition exactly. I think not. The reason is that the objective of affirmative action is not only to level the playing field, but also introduce diversity to the institution. Students benefit from living and learning in a diverse environment. Businesses DEMAND this from graduates -- which is why so many leading corporations filed amicus briefs when the University of Michigan?s affirmative actions were challenged in court a couple of years back.

I would not be so bold as to pretend I know what the numbers ought to be. I believe that if people are of good will, genuinely committed to fairness and diversity, things will work out as they ought to be. There is some point of critical mass, but it is different in every context.

I'm not asking this to be condescending or anything-- I'm really curious. I value diversity (especially in academia), but I've always had a tough time with affirmative action. I don't entirely disagree with it; however, neither do I completely endorse said policies.

I could, of course, say much more. I hope this starts a worthwhile discourse.

[transjen]

The GOP are screaming cut spending do away with medicare
And yet thanks to goverment cadliac heathplans that all the sen and house plus unsurpeme court presidents and vice presidents enjoy at tax players exprnse
The American people [tax payers] just got a good today as we had to pay for Dick Cheneys heart transplant
A few hundred k to keep that MF alive
Jerseygirl Jen

[TracyCoxx]

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

Thanks for stopping by to play again, Tracy Coxx. It's always refreshing to see the consistency in your game. If you don't have an answer when your factually challenged, provocation-riddled posts are responded to, you simply ignore them. Kudos for making such fine contributions to the community.

[transjen]

Who ever believes that this unsupreme court will make there ruling based on the law and not party dogma stand on your head and spin
The block of five already know how they would vote even before a sign word was said want proof just look at Thomas who just sat there not making a peep or asking one single question
It'll be another five to four vote with the five in lock step just like there five to four vote giving America the biggest in 2000 with putting W in the white house
Where's the GOP's outrage about activest judges? as none are more activest judges then the gang of five who can careless about law and only care about there parties dogma
the supreme court should be done away with all together
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Who ever believes that this unsupreme court will make there ruling based on the law and not party dogma stand on your head and spin
The block of five already know how they would vote even before a sign word was said want proof just look at Thomas who just sat there not making a peep or asking one single question
It'll be another five to four vote with the five in lock step just like there five to four vote giving America the biggest in 2000 with putting W in the white house
Where's the GOP's outrage about activest judges? as none are more activest judges then the gang of five who can careless about law and only care about there parties dogma
the supreme court should be done away with all together
Jerseygirl Jen

C'mon, Jen, you know that a judge is only an "activist judge" when he or she disagrees with the right-wing ideologues. Otherwise, they are "constitutionalists."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by transjen

the supreme court should be done away with all together
Jerseygirl Jen

LOL yeah, that'll happen.

Btw, here's a few numbers for you Jen.

Obama says Obamacare will cost $900 Billion over the next decade.
Then the congressional budget office says it will actually cost $1.76 Trillion.
Quite a bit more eh? But hold on to your socks. It was recently learned that the number went up to $2.6 trillion over the next decade.

Oh if it were only that cheap. They continued looking into it and the number is up to $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This comes from Obama's own numbers when combined with existing medicare and medicaid funding shortfalls.

This is what happens when you take a democrat's word when she says "You'll have to pass it to find out what's in it."

This bill alone, that was put together behind closed doors, and delivered to congress in the form of a 2000+ page bill that you know good & well no one had a chance to read but a fraction of it, will double our national debt within 10 years. Our current debt level and problems with passing a budget already took us from a 5 star rating to 4 stars for the first time in history. What effect do you think this will have?

I can look into your future though. When the next republican comes into office, you'll be cursing their name because of the $17T debt that developed during their terms LOL.

[ila]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Keeping my fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will do the right thing & kick out Obamacare... with that and hopefully a favorable election in 2012 and maybe this whole thing will just become a bad memory.

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

I've been following the news of this court case from my side of the border. According to one legal analyst in the US, Obama's proposal does not fall withing the jurisdiction of your federal government. However, it would be legal for any state to implement such a program.

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Right, like Mitt Romney's healthcare program for his state. States are test-beds where things like this can be tried out, although I don't see the point since once you bring it up to the federal level it becomes unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Don't take my word for it. Take Obama's... well at least the one on the right
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOaLLdpVzAs

Of course, neither of the two words "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" appear even one time in the video you posted. But don't let that get in the way of trying to make your point ... a point that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

As for the "individual mandate," irrespective of whether Obama changed his position on it, are you willing to admit to the fact that the concept was first developed by Republicans back in 1989 and introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare plan later. And that when it was introduced by Republicans, the penalty for failure to buy insurance was actually a fine equal to the lowest-cost premium available on the market for insurance, and being forced to enroll in a plan, and an escalating penalty over time for refusal (unlike the measly penalty in so-called "ObamaCare"). Or, as is typical, will you simply ignore the fact or, even more typical, just go on to some other topic and pretend I never posted this?

[GRH]

The Constitution empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce. Now whether you believe this power should be interpreted broadly or narrowly may depend on your political stripes; however, the Court's earlier rulings in Wickard and Raich so broadened the interpretation of what constitutes "regulating interstate commerce" that I'd personally consider ANYTHING fair game. Normal judicial interpretation would be bound by precedent set by the earlier Court rulings-- but I'm sure the block of 5 are figuring a technical loophole so that they can say Wickard, et al. does not in fact apply.

What's interesting is, Congress could have EASILY mandated a flat tax on EVERY citizen (let's call it the Health Care Tax). They could have then offered an offsetting tax credit (equal to the original tax) for anyone that had qualifying health insurance. This would have easily fallen under Congressional authority to tax. This would have had the same practical effect as the insurance mandate. A lot of the Constitutionality of the mandate hinges upon whether it is in fact a tax or a penalty. The political distaste for being seen as "raising taxes" is coming home to bite the Democrats in the butt. If they had the foresight to simply levy a tax (and call it that), this bill wouldn't be in Court today (at least for the individual mandate).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

As for the "individual mandate," irrespective of whether Obama changed his position on it, are you willing to admit to the fact that the concept was first developed by Republicans back in 1989 and introduced in the U.S. Senate as an alternative to the Clinton healthcare plan later. And that when it was introduced by Republicans, the penalty for failure to buy insurance was actually a fine equal to the lowest-cost premium available on the market for insurance, and being forced to enroll in a plan, and an escalating penalty over time for refusal (unlike the measly penalty in so-called "ObamaCare").

I don't care who came up with it first. It's unconstitutional. Mitt Romney forced it upon his state. How many republicans do you see supporting that now?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I don't care who came up with it first. It's unconstitutional. Mitt Romney forced it upon his state. How many republicans do you see supporting that now?

Well dodged. Again, you ignore the original point I made about the Supreme Court, and try -- by simply ignoring the challenge -- to make it seem as if Obama himself ever called the individual mandate "unconstitutional."

As for Republicans supporting it ... well, there is hypocrisy in politics, isn't there. The opposition isn't principled; it's for political expediency.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Well dodged. Again, you ignore the original point I made about the Supreme Court, and try -- by simply ignoring the challenge -- to make it seem as if Obama himself ever called the individual mandate "unconstitutional."

What this nonsense? Where you try and claim that only a few ideologues and ME think the health care bill is unconstitutional? I didn't think it was serious enough to comment on, but of you insist, see the attachment.

Originally Posted by smc

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

Even the majority of democrats must admit that the bill is unconstitutional.

edit: it wouldn't attach. Tlb says it's not a valid image for some reason.
Here's the url instead
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...qljhlh9b9q.gif

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What this nonsense? Where you try and claim that only a few ideologues and ME think the health care bill is unconstitutional? I didn't think it was serious enough to comment on, but of you insist, see the attachment.

Isn't it just grand to read things in a manner where you see only what you want to see, rather than what someone really wrote? That way, you can argue whichever point you want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

1. I NEVER, EVER used the word "only" where you ascribe it to me.

2. I wrote about the SUBJECTIVITY of determining the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of things that aren't specifically mentioned in the constitution.

Anyone who reads the exchange can see that. So, keep trying to put words in my mouth. It doesn't change the truth.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Even the majority of democrats must admit that the bill is unconstitutional.

edit: it wouldn't attach. Tlb says it's not a valid image for some reason.
Here's the url instead
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...qljhlh9b9q.gif

As for the opinion of the American people, it is an acknowledged fact among all serious followers of politics that the polls on this issue are heavily influenced as much by how the debate has been framed by partisan messengers, or how some have failed to frame the debate, as anything else. This is typical with such polls. Reasonable people can reasonably conclude that the poll you cite is no different than all the polls showing that people who opposed ALL government involvement in healthcare before the Affordable Care Act was passed were also highly like to agree with the statement "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare."

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Isn't it just grand to read things in a manner where you see only what you want to see, rather than what someone really wrote? That way, you can argue whichever point you want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

Originally Posted by smc

1. I NEVER, EVER used the word "only" where you ascribe it to me.

Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by smc

As for the opinion of the American people, it is an acknowledged fact among all serious followers of politics that the polls on this issue are heavily influenced as much by how the debate has been framed by partisan messengers, or how some have failed to frame the debate, as anything else. This is typical with such polls. Reasonable people can reasonably conclude that the poll you cite is no different than all the polls showing that people who opposed ALL government involvement in healthcare before the Affordable Care Act was passed were also highly like to agree with the statement "Keep your government hands off of my Medicare."

I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think you're getting our debating styles confused.

Translation: "I will just imply that smc did what I did, and hope that it will confuse everyone and make it seem like a non-issue. Truth be damned!" -- Tracy Coxx

(Yes, and before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Granted, you didn't say only, but you did say "Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court." I didn't see anyone else in your list of who considers it unconstitutional.

Translation: "I wonder how it will work if instead of addressing the real substance of what smc wrote, which he has now stated more than once, I keep up this same line and try to avoid answering the point about the subjectivity of determining the 'constitutionality' of something?" -- TracyCoxx

(Again, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think reasonable people would be able to see that the poll includes groups other than those who oppose ALL government involvement in healthcare and that Democrats also think that forcing all Americans to buy health insurance is unconstitutional.

Translation: "Hey, maybe it can work again? I will avoid the substantive point smc makes about how the terms of debate influence polls, and just restate my earlier point. That way, people will think I'm actually discussing when I'm not." -- TracyCoxx

(For a third time, before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth so as to deflect the discussion once again away from the real issue, I acknowledge that this is a rhetorical device I am using.)

You really do display tremendous cowardice when it comes to debating. Perhaps you should run for public office ... you'd fit right in with most candidates of both major parties.

(And just to be clear, before you go whining to others about how you've been insulted, I characterized your debating style, not you.)

[TracyCoxx]

Translation of your translations: I'm going to read things in a manner where I see only what I want to see, rather than what TracyCoxx really wrote. That way, I can argue whichever point I want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

Let's cut the crap. Do you really think anyone believes you're accurately paraphrasing my position? Do you really believe they haven't noticed that you're dodging the discussion again .

We're off topic and back on to familiar whining territory. Let me know when you're ready to discuss things reasonably.

And now for your predictable response complaining of dodging, sophistry etc to which I'll say seriously... Back on topic.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Translation of your translations: I'm going to read things in a manner where I see only what I want to see, rather than what TracyCoxx really wrote. That way, I can argue whichever point I want, regardless of anything, put words in the mouths of others, and try to get away with shifting the focus.

Let's cut the crap. Do you really think anyone believes you're accurately paraphrasing my position? Do you really believe they haven't noticed that you're dodging the discussion again .

We're off topic and back on to familiar whining territory. Let me know when you're ready to discuss things reasonably.

And now for your predictable response complaining of dodging, sophistry etc to which I'll say seriously... Back on topic.

Yes, back on topic. Go back to what I wrote about the subjectivity of determining the "constitutionality" of something and respond to it. Otherwise, quit your bullshitting and admit that you changed the subject, not me.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, back on topic. Go back to what I wrote about the subjectivity of determining the "constitutionality" of something and respond to it.

Ok back on topic...

Originally Posted by smc

Unconstitutional in YOUR opinion, and that of some ideologues on the Supreme Court. Whether they are on the "left" or "right," those who rule on the constitutionality of these sorts of things (unlike, say, the equal protection clause), where the Founders are not around to chime in, are doing so based as much on subjective interpretation as objective fact.

It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok back on topic...



It's not opinion. There simply is no power granted to the government by the constitution to force citizens to purchase or otherwise obtain a good or service. If the Constitution does not restrict the government from doing something, does that mean it's constitutional for them to do it? No. For example, the mandate to pay income tax was found to be unconstitutional in 1895 because that power was not granted to the government. The Constitution had to be amended via the 16th amendment go give the government power to collect income taxes.

The Affordable Care Act would impose a penalty, not a tax, on individuals who do not get health insurance. That power is nowhere in the constitution. If the government really wanted that power they would have to amend the constitution.

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax. Some argue that it IS simply because it happens to be collected by the IRS. But that, logically, does not AUTOMATICALLY make it a tax. Hence, my point about subjectivity. The justices must opine as to what it is. As I wrote earlier, the Founding Fathers are not here to weigh in, and who knows ... perhaps they would not have seen it as a tax, according to their understanding of what "tax" means.

Further, the Constitution does allow the government to regulate interstate commerce. Some argue that this penalty falls under that allowance. Again, it is a subjective judgment that must be made.

[GRH]

That's an excellent point smc about the subjectivity of determining the supposed "Constitutionality" of things not explicitly granted or forbidden to the government. Personally, do I think it's wise governance to go mandating the purchase of certain independent, third party products/services? No, not really. However, reading our current Constitution also does not lead me to feel such regulation is outside the realm of what Congress can legally do.

The commerce clause reads pretty broadly to me-- and it has been interpreted in such a way historically. For anyone (aka. Tracy) who feels that this is such an obviously unConstitutional issue, I want to know why you feel that the precedent of Wickard can be ignored in this case? Some of the Supreme Court justices were mockingly asking questions if the Affordable Care Act's logical conclusion was that the government could mandate buying broccoli, etc. Personally, I don't think it matters if this is the end conclusion of such "mandates." I find that such market regulation to not be forbidden by the Constitution.

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

You say it is a penalty, not a tax, and that the government has no power to impose such a penalty. Yet, one issue before the Court is, in fact, whether the penalty is a tax.

It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

I take it that Tracy finds the individual mandate repulsive because it "mandates" the purchase of insurance through the use of coercive penalties (taxes?). Whether this is Constitutional or not has yet to be determined. But you can't deny the broad power to tax, can you? Congress has the power to tax income via the hallowed Constitution. It would be perfectly Constitutional for Congress to levy a healthcare tax on EVERYONE...Then offer an offsetting tax credit to anyone that holds an acceptable health insurance policy. This would have the same income effect-- people would be financially incentivized via the tax code to purchase insurance. However it would not selectively impose a penalty?/tax? on someone who chooses to not do something (even though the private insurance market routinely penalizes market participants for inaction).

I'm going to work so I'll answer the rest of your post later, but I'll respond to this part. If they had replaced penalties with taxes then they would have had a lot stronger case in the supreme court. But they didn't...

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

It is an issue before the court because that is the only argument Obama's administration has that would make it constitutional. They don't have a leg to stand on though. Now it may be subjective in the sense that certain justices are biased. Such as Sotomayor, who would have been one of the ones who would argue the case to the supreme court for the administration. Why hasn't she recused herself? If Sotomayor, or any justice, explains their ruling based on what can be found in the constitution, then I wouldn't call it a biased ruling. But someone like her, who would have been instrumental in arguing the case to the supreme court that she now is part of is obviously a conflict of interest.

My point about subjectivity is not about bias per se. Of course, bias plays a role in subjective judgment. But as I have stated over and again in this particular discussion, my point is about the inherent subjectivity -- independent of all other things -- of deciding the so-called "constitutionality" of anything that is not specifically referenced in the Constitution. I was criticizing the definitive statement "it is unconstitutional" being used by you, or anyone else prior to a ruling, as a statement of fact, rather than "my judgment, based on the arguments, is that this is constitutional," which is a statement of opinion. And, after all, isn't what the Supreme Court issues an OPINION?

As for recusal, why shouldn't Clarence Thomas recuse himself, too? He and his wife have both benefited from specific political contributions made to his wife's organization from people who have made their particular desire to see the Affordable Care Act overturned. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

[transjen]

Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
Jerseygirl Jen

[smc]

Originally Posted by transjen

Everyone knows how the GOP hate goverment ran/sponsered health insurence, but notice how many of em has turned down there's and wentout to buy private insurence
But the GOP should bring a camera crew in to Dick Cheney's private room and have him tell the Americian people how bad goverment ran/sponsered health insurence is and how we will all hate it and will miss and be better off with the current private heath insurence ran mess we all get by
Cheney can then go on about how the goverment ran/sponsered healthcare paid all the bills for his heart transplant [a bill must private insurence compnies won't cover] but you won't like it and you'll be happier with buying your own health insurence from a private provider but Cheney will suffer with goverment ran health insurence he gets for free
Jerseygirl Jen

Excellent. I hear the insurance Cheney has also fully covers getting accidentally shot in the face by a "friend."