GOP'ish candidates

[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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by tslust

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.

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.

Originally Posted by tslust

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?

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.

Originally Posted by tslust

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.

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?!

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

First, thank you for a thoughtful post in response. TracyCoxx could take some lessons from you.

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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.

Let's see.... how does that go now? Oh yes...

Originally Posted by smc

NOTICE ABOVE that [smc] once again seems to reserve some right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum, in public threads, and by inference wants anyone who [smc] doesn't agree with to be denied the right to participate in those public conversations.

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!

Originally Posted by smc

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.

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.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by smc

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?

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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?

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.

Originally Posted by smc

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

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.

[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.