Tracy, you've put words in my mouth. I was making no statement about whether you have a point in this current conversation...Only pointing out prior behavior and how it perhaps inflames this whole back-and-forth. Admittedly, you have done a better (perhaps not perfect...but who's perfect?) job of addressing my points/conversations. The whole dynamic between you and smc...It's comical at times. I will admit my own bias in that I share political disposition with smc on more topics than with you, so perhaps I'm drawn to taking his side more often than not. That said...You do come across as a troll quite often.

Quite frankly, I think you're both acting a bit childish. I'm so over this current conversation that I'm going to tune this thread out until it meanders into a discussion that I once again care to follow.

smc...
I posted a hitler spoof video, and then you asked me if I repudiate all of my ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons (between obama & hitler).

You have not pointed out any comparison in the video between obama and hitler. You've certainly agreed that I never said anything like that. It's really odd that you would suddenly blurt out such an off topic and inflamatory question. The only reason you've given is this:
Which is a general statement that because you think GOP candidates sympathize with the Tea Party, they must automatically agree with Tea Party supporters who carry obama/hitler signs. That may be a subject for this thread, in your own twisted reasoning, but it still does not explain what it has to do with the hitler spoof video I posted that makes no such comparison. With these off topic inflamatory remarks of your, I'd say you're trolling again.

Why, do you think I would have any reason to say the following about tslust:
You're not making any sense again.

I'm oppressed? News to me. But I will not respond to your trolling. And since you still cannot say how your question has anything to do with the video you popped a gasket over that apparently is exactly what it was.

omg... this is disgusting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqkWhFcSA

Even Michelle cringed

Culturally legitimate for someone not raised as an American, who is now for some reason an American president.

You never did show that your question about obama/hitler comparisons were anything more than an off topic inflamatory remark and have yet to show any link to the video I posted that somehow prompted your question.

Fucking amazing. Well done Tracy. I even applauded you for being so subtle. It's not "culturally legitimate" because he was not raised as an American. It's culturally legitimate because it's meat like any other.

And you really must give up this pretense about smc posting off topic remarks. He made it quite clear that it is troubling for you to have posted a video about Hitler reacting to Obama not because it made an explicit link between the two men but that they both were part of the video and that it was you of all people posting it.

I find it funny how the GOP cling to there Obama/Hitler BS when if you read your non Rush/Ann history books you will find that Hitler and the Nazis grabed power thru the use of hatred/fear which is the GOP trump card ever election cycle
:eek: Jeerseygirl Jen

I do believe that an American president should be raised as an American. Sue me. No need to play the race card. Last I checked there were several races in America.

Who in the GOP clings to their obama/hitler bs? I have never made any such comparison and I can think of many reasons to get rid of BO that have nothing to do with hitler. (other than a video I saw where Obama ate Hitler's dog... just sad). Do you know any GOP candidates who spew obama/hitler BS? Let's not pretend that democrats didn't frequently compare Bush to hitler. And for the inevitable smc reply, not denouncing is not the same as spewing hitler bs. Not that they haven't denounced what some people have said about obama & hitler, I don't know. I'm just saying it's not the same.

Hopefully I've correctly stated my thoughts on this, but if not, perhaps some kind person will tell you what I really meant to say.

Not in American culture it isn't. It's meat like any other in some non-american cultures.

His problem was that it was me of all people who posted it? LOL Actually I think you hit the nail on the head. I will not disagree with you there.

And when asked, smc did not say the video had anything to do with an obama/hitler comparison. He said it was just generally ok to raise that issue in this thread because:
It apparently had nothing to do with the video, and therefore nothing to do with me posting the video - other than, of course, it was me who posted the video. Good catch.

You didn't surmise any big thing Tracy. You are known for being provocative, which smc repeated recently, so between that and the Obama/Hitler comparisons that have been made by the Tea party the posting of the video is suspect at best. You are not the victim here and you insult everyone by trying to portray yourself as such when a good reading of the posts reveals you.

You are a hell of a poker player for doubling down on this parochial nonsense.

Give it a rest will you? I've been reading this Obama/Hitler stuff for too many days now.

You brought it up again in post 310. I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you as well.

the Obama/Hitler BS from the GOP
Let's start with the queen of the Tea party wack-a-dos Sarah Palin while doing her cause fear bus tour spoke about Obamacare claiming that every senior would have to go before a death panel before recieving an ok for any healthcare and then said you know who else had deathpanels? that's right Adolf Hitler and the Nazis
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

I don't understand... I asked who in the GOP makes obama/hitler comparisons. You give a Sarah Palin example where she does not actually compare obama to hitler. Who made the comparison? You did. Actually her deathpanel jab sounds more like a comparison to Obama's own science czar, John Holdren.

Careful with this guilt by association line you're talking. Obama's worked hard to distance himself from all those shady characters like his anti-American "pastor", his terrorist friends and mentors and his communist mentors. And heck, we'd have to take another look at the the Democratic party too with the way they turn the other cheek about the new black panthers and the election manipulating acorn organization. Obama and the Democratics don't really support those people, do they?

I can understand why you don't want to admit that Sarah Palin is part of the GOP but GOP she is and like Romney she's a snake and does it in a indirect way and therefore can cliam she was taken out of context all the time knowing her followers got the message and the next day FOX AND RUSH spend the whole next day spreading her message along
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Mitt the bully
 

reported on CNN today
When Mitt attend his fancy prepschool he was a bully as he and five of his buddies beat up another student and the reason was because they felt that student was gay :eek: so Mitt being the compassionate Morman felt him and his buddies had every right to beat up a gay student
just got to love these GOP members who always talk about fellowing the teaching of the bible
So perhaps someone here can tell me the chapter and verse in the bible where GOD commands Thou shall beat the living daylights out of gays and transgendered
:confused: Jerseygirl Jen

Jen, that's taking the story entirely out of context. The student ended up being gay, but Romney's bullying can't be definitively linked to the student's sexuality. According to Romney (for whatever that's worth), the kid came out years later.

This is typical election year BS. I place about as much weight on this as the fact that Obama smoked reefer in college. Big deal. People are VERY different from their high school/adolescent years and the maturity of adulthood.

With that said, it wouldn't surprise me if Romney didn't sport a streak of homophobia (like many Republicans), but you can't really use juvenile incidents to prove it. There's a reason that juvenile criminal records are sealed...Kids do dumb shit when they're young. You're making this out to be a much bigger deal than it really is.

So because the kid was gay and Mitt's gaydar was working properly make Mitt not a bully and excusses him and his friends , well it does matter once a bully always a bully and it shows how he feels about others who don't think like himeveryone has the right to freedom only as long as you think and do as he doesthis lets others see his morman values and his views on freedom which is anyone not living in his narrow view has no right to live as they want

:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Actually it went on for as long as it did because of your insistence that I answer a question that had nothing to do with the spoof video I posted, and was only as you claim relevant to the thread. So I am still wondering why, if it had nothing to do with the video i posted, why are you insisting on an answer from me? In other words, how did I get tangled up in your subtopic?

Sorry smc, I'm not going to let you get away with this bs. The record is here for all to see:
You say that I said you're accusing me of making a comparison (between Obama and Hitler). An assumption on my part because it's the only reason I could think of that you'd be pestering me about it. Ok, you're not accusing me of making a comparison. Fine. Like your quote above says, you're raising a question about the comparison in the context of the GOP, which you say is legitimate to the thread. If you said "that video you posted compares Obama to Hitler (which it doesn't) I ask you, Tracy Coxx, do you repudiate all of your ideological cothinkers on so many issues who have made such comparisons?" That I can see, if you erroneously thought the video made the comparison. But it doesn't and you never said it did, so I'm sorry, I am unable to make the connection from what you say is a legitimate thread discussion to my specific posting of that video. And I will treat it as the off-topic (in the context of the video I posted) inflammatory remark (i.e. troll-like remark) that it is. Better luck next time.

By the way, this is a simple yes-or-no question.

So are you saying now that you can separate the fact that some people have compared Obama to Hitler from my posting of a simple hitler spoof video?

Are you not now accusing me, as this post implies:
of posting a video that personally attacks you and others who have lost family members and loved ones to this monster? If so, I will answer your question.

And your latest bans demonstrates once again why it's not worth having a serious discussion with you. You, as always, are free to discuss what you want here. You will do it without me though. There's other far more interesting people here to talk to and I should take advantage of that while they're still around.

You're wrong. smc has banned anyone recently.

He likes to keep his hands clean and have others do it for him. Either way, there are far more interesting people here to talk to and I should take advantage of that while they're still around.

He had nothing to do with it and never had anyone do it for him.

ila, you are wasting your time. For TracyCoxx, the truth is never going to get in the way of making a "point." Meanwhile, I am left to wonder why TracyCoxx is allowed to make such a slanderous claim even after it has been refuted

Yeah... Like that

Exactly. You made the false claim. Now you double down. Tell the site owner in your next email that I called you a liar for the specific post and your doubling down on the false accusation ... an irrefutable fact. You were told by a moderator that what you posted wasn't true, and you still made the claim.. And you can add that I called your continued refusal to disavow the link made by your co-thinkers between Hitler and Obama, from which your latest crap posts are yet another dodge, an act of political cowardice ... which you have in a quantity that is truly staggering.

Click on "Contact Us" below to lodge your latest whining "I am the victim" PM to the site owner.

To clear things up and so there is no ambiguity whatsoever, the site owner and I were the only ones involved in the last bans. No one suggested it, demanded it, or even hinted at it. We did it as forum rules were broken and not for the first time by the affected individuals. Action had to be taken and it was.

Now it is time to put this thread back on the topic for which it was intended.

Woah... D?j? vu all over again

not to try and be dense, but what specific issue are you talking about? Yeah I know it's a knock on big evil corporations, but what about it?

It's about corporations being "people," which is obvious even to you ... as are the implications in our political system.

I think Mitt says it pretty simply:
"Corporations are people my friend... Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?"

Those earnings go to people. Then they get taxed on those earnings. If you tax the corporation as well, you're taxing those people twice. As for your cartoon... A woman would be far more likely to give birth to a sole proprietorship don't you think?

In Obama's latest ads he's saying he's for insourcing. Yet his policies say otherwise. What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

Oh, sorry. When you lead your response with "It's about corporations being "people" I thought that was the real question. I was going to thank you for this new rational dialog we've been having the last few days. Let's keep it going rather than devolving into our usual BS. Other than the way the implications to our political system question was downplayed in your response, it didn't occur to me to respond because, other than the sides the left and right have obviously taken I see no other implications. But please fill me in.

I know you wouldn't make the same mistake I made when I didn't answer your other question, so I'll wait for your answer to "What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?"

I'm sorry, too, because I really can't follow what you write in the quote just above. Please clarify. I'm serious; I don't get the next-to-last sentence in the paragraph.

You are trying to change the subject, as usual. We can have a discussion about corporate tax rates and other criteria that might be reasonable for corporations to decide where to do business. But answer the question: do you think corporations are people in that they should have the same rights afforded to individuals (such as "free speech" as defined in Citizens United, coupled with the "right" to be completely secretive about who is actually exercising that "right")?

Perhaps I was too vague. But I see from your last post perhaps what you're talking about when you say political implications. Your talking about corporations and free speech?
Just as corporations are made up of people, and therefore already taxed, they also have the right to free speech. I know this is an issue for you and you asked me about my views on this a while back and I answered it the same way. Deja vu all over again. I think just as Hollywood puts out movies laced with the left viewpoint time after time, and the media presents the left viewpoint time after time, corporations (as the people they consist of do) have the right to free speech as well. Your argument may be that corporate speech may be banned because corporations enjoy certain privileges afforded by law. But the government may not require the surrender of constitutional rights in exchange for state-furnished benefits, like barring criticism of Congress by residents of public housing. Extrapolate from there and you can forbid newspapers from making endorsements. Media companies are exempt from the ban. Why should newspapers be free to spend money urging support of a candidate while other companies are not?

You're saying we can talk about other criteria that decides where a corporation does business and remain on "subject" but not how corporate taxes influence where corporations do business? No I think that's part of the equation. Sure you can tax corporations or any other entity to its knees but there are consequences and that is part of the subject. Please answer the question.

What corporation looking at this map would want to do business in the USA?

I find your analogy to Hollywood movies to be rather specious, and I contend that there are umpteen movies that espouse what some might call the "right viewpoint," but be that as it may ... Here's a big difference. In a Hollywood movie, who is funding the message and stating the message is clear. When a corporation funds a political advertisement, it is not even remotely as transparent. So, would you at least agree that the transparency should be there for the corporate funders?

Your question is an attempt to introduce something to the equation that is tangential. Whether a corporation wants to do business here or there has nothing whatsoever to do with whether a corporation and a person are equal by definition and thus have equal "rights." I could put a map of impoverished places in the world, where all water is unpotable, disease is rampant, there are no educational opportunities, and food is scarce, and ask "What person would want to live here?" Does the answer have anything to do with our subject? Of course not.

Nevertheless, since based on experience one might reasonably assume you will pretend not to see the point and accuse me of not answering your question now asked multiple times, I will state that I don't think corporate taxes are high enough in this country. Now, you can take that up as a way of avoiding the subject I first raised ... it is my gift to you, because you are always so deserving.

(Yes, that's sarcasm.)

Heaven forbid a voter actually try and read between the lines and think about what's really been said. Yes I agree it would be nice to know who's behind the message... but Constitutionally, I can't see the reasoning behind that.

You posted your cartoon about giving birth to a corporation and referenced Romney. I didn't know what Romney said about corporations being people so I googled it and found something on him talking about corporate taxes. I assumed corporate taxes were what you were talking about. And when I think about corporate taxes, whether or not the government should tax corporations is the first thing I think about and the second is the competitiveness of our corporations. You must admit we think very differently. Don't think I'm purposely trying to tick you off. I just don't see things the same way you do or have the same concerns as you.

No, it doesn't, if your comment and cartoon was about the rights of a corporation. I assumed it was about taxes though. Does that mean you will not answer my question about corporate taxes?

That's why we have a Constitution that's meant to be interpreted. In this case, the interests of democracy might be a compelling reason to mandate such transparency.

I find it really, really, really, really hard to believe that you never saw the video of Romney in Iowa saying "corporations are people" and then giving a completely illogical followup to his comment that is the equivalent of saying that anything that does something for people or gives something to people is thus itself people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A

I do not think corporations pay enough taxes. Eliminate every one of the ridiculous loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes -- you know what I'm talking about -- and eliminate every ridiculous subsidy that gives our tax dollars to corporations that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profit, and perhaps I'll take a new look at the corporate tax rate. Until then, the argument is a bunch of crap, as I see it.

To hear some right wingers talk, you'd think they have a real aversion to something called facts. Where is the federal corporate tax rate 40%? Oh, you must be lumping in state and local tax rates to the "statutory minimum" federal rate of 35%. Yep, that's right, the federal tax rate is only 35%. And it only applies to businesses making over $18 million of taxable income. Income between $335,000 and $10 million is taxed at a flat rate of 34%. Income below the $335,000 threshold is taxed less.

It's certainly conceivable that if state and local taxes are added to the federal tax rate, a FEW corporations may pay in the neighborhood of 40%. But this is far from universally true-- if for no other reason that some state (and many municipalities) don't have corporate taxes at all.

Further, even if every state did have corporate tax to levy, still, the vast majority of corporations would pay nowhere near 40%. Those who know anything about business know that the effective tax rate (aka. the actual rate that a corporation ends up paying after factoring in deductions, credits, etc.) is 19%. Obviously, the distribution of deductions and credits is not even by business or industry-- under the current tax code, some corporations end up paying close to the federal "minimum" rate, others pay hardly any tax at all.

What does all this mean? That our tax code is definitely convoluted. But it also means that it's disingenuous to lay out a blanket percentage of tax rate as if it's fact that applies equally to all.

I think if you do that, whatever corporations that are still here in the US will scatter to the 4 corners of the globe and that will be it for our economy.

Kind of like what Steve Ballmer was talking about when tax increases were proposed in 2009:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aAKluP7yIwJY

whatever that is... and they'll leave with all their patents. I know plenty of humans whose needs are met. If you're talking about meeting the needs of illegal aliens, I'm not interested. They're taking away resources from citizens of this country who need the resources while you've got the government actively trying to put people on food stamps who don't need them.

What was that for?

I'd be interested in details. But with all due respect, tslust, it's difficult to take seriously in a political discussion anyone who identifies her or his location as "United Socialist States of America." And it's not because that's just silly, Tea Party-esque drivel, but because if you don't even really know what socialism is, or if you're going to pretend that the United States is socialist, how can we discuss politics?

I didn't say a word about undocumented workers, but your attempt to change the subject (I know, you'll argue that I used the word "human" and so anything is game) is transparent.

But I have to hand it to you, TracyCoxx, you're relentless. I admire your willingness to go to the mat every single time with your provocative behavior. Sometimes I think the Internet was created for anonymous people like you who never have to face their audiences. As I've posted many times before, I believe with everything I'm made of that you would be used to mop the floor in a real debate. I refer readers to other posts for an explanation of why, lest I use the description that sends you off whining to the site owner.


Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s. Since I believe you love the corporations more than you love the average American, I am suggesting that you can scatter to one of the four corners of the globe (your words) when the corporations do the same.

Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy. Why am I worried about the economy? For the sake of corporations? No. For the average American. I know, why use simple logic when you can fire off a sarcastic one liner?

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you. When the Supreme Court recently ruled on the Affordable Care Act, you decided that despite that the Court is the supreme governing body that is tasked with determining Constitutionality, and did it's job, the fact that you disagree means you get to choose what is constitutional. As I wrote then about you as a "friend" of the Constitution, "The sworn enemies of the United States would have better luck bringing down the nation by encouraging more of these types of friends than through conventional warfare."

And I suggest that a different type of economy would be better for the average American. But why acknowledge that you knew I meant that, since I've been pretty explicit, when you can fire off another one of your provocative bullshit posts.

What difference would it make, considering all the jobs they've moved overseas? If they leave entirely, then we can close all the loopholes and start over. If they're going to give all their job opportunities to foreigners and avoid paying all their taxes while everyone else gets punished for doing the same, then they're not welcome here. "Corporations are people, too?" Well, by that logic, there shouldn't be anything wrong with letting a Fortune 500 CEO run for and serve in public office while retaining his corporate job!

My criticisms of the court ruling were based entirely on what was in the Constitution.

You're saying that is what you meant when you saidThis doesn't suggest a different type of economy. This suggests that I leave the US.

You don't have to wait until corporations leave to close a loophole.

Yeah, except for conflict of interest. You say things without any thought to consequences.

If corporations are people, it's time we start treating them like people. When laws are broken by corporations (or the agents of the corporation), I don't want to see this "settlement" bullshit that the FDA, SEC, FCC, etc. will engage in. I want the corporations taken to court, tried, and if convicted, I want their corporate charters revoked (or the stockholders can be wiped out and the corporate assets liquidated to the highest bidder).

I see this as a double standard. In terms of speech, corporations are viewed as "collections" of people...This collection of people is entitled to spend money and speak for the whole (regardless of whether the individual shareholders agree). But when this same collection of people breaks the law (even if it's individuals within the corporate entity), suddenly the "collective" mindset breaks down. The corporation isn't held accountable; instead, the individual agents acting on its behalf are held accountable (and only sometimes at that).

It's nothing original, but I love the statement: I'll start believing that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods


2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

"Government ownership and administrationship" hmm, does that sound familiar (banks, mortgage firms, automobile companies, wall street, the medical industry, need I go on)?

:lol: The unSupreme Court's decision on obamacare(if it's such a gerat system then why are they [government workers] and unions exempt?) was not Constitutional. That's not simply my opinion, that's what the document says. I ask youl where in the Constitution does it empower the Federal government to run health care? Where in the Constitution does it empower the unSupreme Court to change the wording of existing legislation?

One further question, if it is deemed Constitutional for the Federal government to "tax" people for not getting health insurance then what will be next? Will they "tax" anyone who fails to buy a new Chevy hybrid?

You can post all the definitions you want, but your profile identifies your location as "Location: Federal District of Missouri, United Socialist States of America." So, prove with your definitions that we live in a "Socialist" country, where the preponderance of economic activity fits your definition. (And, by the way, it's ownership AND administration, not ownership OR administration.)

The argument that the United States is socialist is simply ridiculous. Every capitalist country in the world has some elements of the economy that have "socialistic" characteristics, but to say this is a socialist country is beyond asinine. I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idiotic, and you -- having proven yourself in post after post to have a level of seriousness and intelligence beyond such an idiocy -- ought to be embarrassed, too.



Like TracyCoxx, you simply post again and again that the ruling by the Supreme Court is wrong. You're both welcome to your opinion that the Court made a mistake, but over and again both of you reveal that you do not support the U.S. system of government -- because the Supreme Court gets to make its decisions whether you think the Constitution "empowers" it to do this or that. It is the final arbiter of what is Constitutional, not you, and not TracyCoxx. You either have to accept how it works as a system, or state without equivocation that you want to overthrow the Constitutional system established. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite. Look that word up, like you did "socialist."

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I recognize that the concepts of capitalism, socialism, even communism and facism are abstract and therefore theoretical. You will not, and possibly perhaps should not, find these concepts applied in a purist form..

You must remember, as I've stated before, I am a very firm advocate of State's Rights. The ever-expanding Federal government makes me chafe (well that and starch in my thong;)). I abhore the burdensome "top down" model - I know that some may not see it as such - that is currently so pervasive throught DC. People and buisness would be better served with less centralized controll over their lives. I'm not saying there should be a total free-for-all where there's anarchy in the streets and the buisness or corporations are simply steamrolling anyone they want to. The Federal government needs to be rolled back to it's originally intended size.

(BTW, in case you forgot my questions?:kiss:)

Rather than argue with you about the degree of abstractness in these concepts (I speculate that I don't think they are nearly as abstract as do you), I will instead pose a query: if the term "socialist" is abstract, why then do you apply it concretely to describe the United States? In addition: what is the point at which the United States economy, in its preponderance, switched from capitalist to socialist? I ask these questions in all seriousness, particularly the second of the two.

I am not trying to avoid your questions. I thought I answered the first and second ones several times, even if not directly. My answer is that I do not know where in the Constitution the federal government is empowered to run health care. I am not a Constitutional scholar. More important, though, is that the U.S. Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to make that determination. And it empowers the Court, through its rulings, to address the wording of legislation in whatever way the Court ITSELF deems to be Constitutional. You continue to disagree with the Constitutional authority given to the Court to do so, and then when challenged on that point you simply ignore it. By calling it the unSupreme Court, you disrespect the very system you claim to support.

I would also argue that the Affordable Care Act does now empower the government to RUN health care, by any definition of RUN.

As for your third and fourth question: I don't know what will be next, since I don't accept the terms of your description of what the Court ruled. As for your question about hybrid cars, I will answer by turning the question around. When will the Court rule that it is unconstitutional for the government to give my tax dollars to subsidize oil companies and use its power to keep gasoline prices artificially low so as to encourage the continued use of unsustainable fuels and the automobiles that burn those fuels?

I have long felt that the Federal government has taken far too much power unto itself. It has been a steady weathering away of State's Rights and personal liberties for many years. But I'll admit that obamacare, where some blowhard a thousand miles away is demanding that I buy a service otherwise they'll penalize or rather tax me, has kinda pushed me over the edge. If I had a black toga, I'd be wearing it.

In my opinion the big shift from a capitalist based system toward a socialist one came with the rise of the unions and during the Great Depression. Granted, at the time, unions were necessary and there are even some places where they could do some good. I'm not saying to wipe out all unions, just the national and international affiliations. The Great Depression had several causes, and some viewed it as "the failure of capitalism". It was at that point that the Federal government began to introduce some national social programs. Also it saw Congress surrender monitary controll to the Federal Reserve Bank.

There is no Constitutional basis for the Federal government to take controll of health care. In Articles One and Two, there is a clear list of what powers the Federal government is to have. In the Tenth Ammendment it says, "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." therefore according to the Constitution, health care is not the domain of the Federal government.

You seem to have a very broad definition of the Third Article. Honestly, judical review is not listed as one of the unSupreme Court (If you are offended by this, then I'm sorry. But why didn't I ever see your distain towards some of the more left leaning members who use the same term to disparage Bush and conservatives?) powers. I can see where that has been interprited as part of their powers, however it is not listed in the Constitution. They most certainly do not have the Constitutional authority to rewrite legislation. For argument's sake, if the unelected nine were to rule that all Americans must purchase only 2% milk, what would you do?

The honest answer, about two days after hell freezes over.:lol:

I believe that most subsidizes can be done away with. My question is why do we continue to purchase oil from the Saudis when there are plenty of other sources? It would be a good idea to provide meaningful investments into researching alternative fuels.

Then don't. What? Do you need a 12 step program to stop?

We are asking legitimate questions. Questions that you apparently don't know the answer too other than "because the Supreme Court said so". If you don't know an answer, it's ok not to answer the question.

We do accept the system. The system is that the supreme court makes rulings based on the constitution. I do not see that they have in this case.

First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you. By the way, are you aware that TracyCoxx speaks for you in the post just above mine? I'm wondering whether that is with your specific permission.

To your post, tslust ...

Words matter, and despite your much appreciated answer to the question I posed you still use the term socialism to describe something that isn’t even remotely socialist. You described the term “socialist” as abstract in an earlier post. Do I understand correctly that, in the concrete, you reserve the right to describe as socialist an entire country regardless of how much “socialism” (i.e., national government “intervention” in economic affairs might exist)? If so, than is every capitalist country in the world actually a socialist country? Do you advocate zero government intervention in the economy? And, by extension, do you think that all things that are created for public use should be built by the private sector? How would you reconcile the public use with the private desire to make these things inaccessible or charge fees for their use? And what about regulation? Isn’t regulation of economic activity socialism? Should there be completely unfettered capitalism?

These are serious questions, even if the cartoon below is tongue-in-cheek.



I don’t remember anyone calling Bush “unSupreme,” but your point is taken. If it makes you feel better to use the term “unSupreme,” go ahead. Using such words does nothing to bolster an argument, and only makes arguments look rather childish ... in my opinion.

To the point regarding “constitutionality,” though, I guess I'll try one last time to make my point, which at this stage of the discussion I must admit I think is being deliberately ignored. My point (and you will either respond or not): the Supreme Court is, in essence, given the power to determine its own powers. Yes, you can quote the Constitution, but our system is set up in a way that thwarts the literal interpretation of the Constitution in that the Court itself can rule that it has powers. My point all along has been that this is how it works, and you either support the system or you don’t. The Court has ruled many times in ways that seem to go against what the Constitution, taking its words literally, might mean. Most scholars of the U.S. Constitution use the word “beauty” to describe how the Founding Fathers made it so “wise” men and women would use their judgment.

Do they get it wrong? Sure, often. They ruled that Blacks were less than whole persons, for instance.

Look, I don’t like the Affordable Care Act. I have quoted Lawrence O’Donnell, in agreement, calling it the Insurance Industry Profit Protection Act. But you know, tslust, that anything not strictly stated in the Constitution is open to Court interpretation. You can say you disagree when the Court does this and agree when the Court does that, in fulfilling its interpretative mandate, but if you support the system than you have to agree that sometimes you’ll agree and sometimes you’ll disagree with the Court’s decision. The Court’s interpretative mandate to DECIDE is constitutional. Again, that has been my point all along.

As for your “argument’s sake” question, I won’t answer for a very simple reason. It belittles the argument to compare healthcare and 2% milk, on so many levels. It does not cost society anything based on my decision of which kind of milk to purchase. I pay when the guy next door doesn’t have health insurance. That alone makes your analogy ridiculous. Ask something of substance if you want to have this debate.

By the way, do you now advocate electing the justices of the Supreme Court? That is the implication of how your 2% milk question is initially posed.


Well, I'm glad to read that, but do you believe that most subsidies SHOULD be done away with? That’s the far more important question.

Finally, "provide meaningful investments" by ... the government?! My god, wouldn't that be socialism?!

Your wittiness is rivaled only by your sophistry.

I know you like to put words in people's mouth, but I've made my point again and again, including in my response just above to tslust. I also know that you like to ignore what people actually write when it doesn't suit your purposes. So have your fun. As we both know from the Internet, people get off on all sorts of weird things.

Again, my point is made in the response to tslust above. Apparently, you now speak for tslust. I would think tslust, who actually takes this stuff seriously, would not want to give that kind of carte blanche to someone who doesn't, but the Web is a place of infinite surprise.

Show me how it's done smc. Respond to my post in Thoughts on Today's Political Landscape that's been sitting there unanswered by you for 2 weeks. No scratch that. You've demonstrated before that you are unable to answer with a thoughtful response. Preferring to use responses such as "boo-fucking-hoo". Why don't you start leading by example.

Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...
I never realized that you sought permission to answer for all the hundreds of people you've answered for when I addressed them. I am impressed!

You may have looked at my post, but you didn't read it. Seriously... it's ok not to answer if you do not know the answer. Or if you must answer, a simple "I don't know" will suffice.

You can ignore what I write until the cows come home, and cast aspersions, and try to paint me as having deliberately ignored a post in another thread, but you're the troll and not me.

Your post in the other thread will be answered when I'm done writing this post. I don't remember seeing it, which is probably why I didn't answer. Unlike some people, I masturbate to pictures online, not just things I myself have written, so I might have been busy.

(Yes, go whine to the site owner that I insulted you. I have decided to do you a solid by giving you as many direct opportunities to whine to the site owner as possible, so you don't have to spend time writing compelling arguments about how something that wasn't really an insult actually is.)


]

A time-honored trick: throw that which you are accused of back at the accuser, rather than deal with the substance. The differences will be clear to anyone who has the time to look at the full, complete record of your posts and mine, in toto, but I doubt anyone will do so. It's not worth the trouble.

Wow, you're so clever, trying to make it look like I don't know something, or that I'm refusing to answer your questions. But the reality is that I did answer. I have written that unlike you, I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar. I have written that I accept the Supreme Court's decision because they get to make it. I think the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I also happen not to like the Affordable Care Act, as I've also written. I think we should have single-payer healthcare, Medicare for all.

Now, I'm going to the other thread to deal with that post that you are implying I deliberately ignored ... despite that you have no proof. I could point out all the things, again, that you've never actually answered, but I have other things to do after logging off. For instance, I'm going to search for a manual that explains how to be the best possible troll, because you're slipping. I'll send you the link.

I believe that the buisness should, for the most part, be allowed to function on their own. I don't think there should be zero government intervention, some regulation is good for the consumers. I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about with the public use and private sector production. I don't believe it would be possible to impliment "pure" capitalism. As for government meddling into buisness, I believe that so long as the general public isn't put in danger by a buisness' practiecs (either through health concerns or lack of ecconomic incentives reasulting in degradation of services, ie monopolies) the government shouldn't get involved.

It's not that I don't understand your position. The fact is that the Court upheald the idea that the Federal government has the authority to demand that the citizens must purchase a product. And that is blatantly against the Constitution. I suppose that one could argue that the individual mandate/tax is in effect a Bill of Attainder and therefore void. The 2% analogy stems from the question of how much further will the Federal government go. What will they demand that we buy next?

I have no problem with the selection process of Judical nominees. However I would like to see them made more accountable to the people. It's interesting to note that in Article Three, Section I, it says: "...The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,..." Does that mean the Constitution gives us a way to get rid of judges that we see as bad? IMHO If enough people sign a petition (like about 40%) saying that Ruberts is a bad justice and is not doing his job; then the question of whether he should be retained or not as a justice would be put on the ballot of the next National election. If 51% vote him out, then he has to go.

It is in the Constitution, "To promote the Progress of Science..." That being said, there's too much waste and too much money being poured down holes with nothing to show for it. That's why I said meaningful investments.

Hear, hear! :respect: