GOP'ish candidates

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

Simply put, it was a play on the old "love it or leave it" bullshit hurled in the 1960s.

Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Says the guy who wants to change the Constitution.

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."

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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?

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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

Originally Posted by smc

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.

You're saying that is what you meant when you said

Originally Posted by smc

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.

This doesn't suggest a different type of economy. This suggests that I leave the US.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

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?

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)?

Originally Posted by smc

Yes, I do. But I have more respect for the Constitution than you.

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

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)?

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.

Originally Posted by tslust

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?

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."

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

(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,

[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?)

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?

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

[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..

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.

Originally Posted by tslust

(BTW, in case you forgot my questions?)

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?

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

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 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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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?

Originally Posted by smc

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?

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

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.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I'm embarrassed even to be engaging in a discussion about something so patently idiotic

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

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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

Your wittiness is rivaled only by your sophistry.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

What did I say about taxing corporations? Tax them too much and they'll leave and that wouldn't be good for the economy.

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!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by St. Araqiel

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.

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

Originally Posted by St. Araqiel

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!

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

[GRH]

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.

Originally Posted by GRH

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.

Hear, hear!