GOP'ish candidates

[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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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.)

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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!

]

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.

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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.

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.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

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!

Oh, I forgot that I wanted to address this quote more directly.

Hundreds? Seriously? More important, though, I defy you to find a single post of mine where I reserve the right to post one-to-one conversations on this Forum. Find one. I dare you.

I, on the other hand, can find many posts of yours where you have complained that I intervened in, or interrupted, or had the nerve to participate in, an open thread -- open meaning anyone can participate.

So, in the tradition of TracyCoxx, I want an apology for attributing to me something that I have never done. ... Not really -- I don't want an apology. Because an apology from you would be meaningless. An apology from someone who serially makes up stuff like what I quote above is meaningless.

[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.