Politics
- Started
- Last post
- 33,771 Responses
- ********0
- ********0
- bliznutty0
Ok.. the cat is out of the bag and there is no denial.
If you didn't vote for Obama or oppose his Health Care Bill - then you are fucking RACIST
- BonSeff0
- i heard him say he RESPECTS Obama for accepting Wilson's apology this morninglocustsloth
- Of course it was in the context of bashing Jimmy Carter, which is his fav pasttimelocustsloth
- ukit0
No dumbass...more like if you believe he was born in Kenya and run around like a jackass waving signs at a Glenn Beck rally while dressed as a teabag
-then you are fucking racist
- PonyBoy0
8888
- BonSeff0
those ignorant 9/12 rednecks got owned by this satire and didn't even know it, fucking classic
- BonSeff0
We don't know what the hell satire is or means for that matter..
sincerely,
the south- i'm speechless, is that really how you think?bliznutty
- if you are speechless, then STFUBonSeff
- you're basically stereotyping the south as ignorant.. ironic wouldn't you say?bliznutty
- It is hilarious to hear you talk about ignorant, don't you believe in FEMA death camps?ukit
- hey even the north koreans steroetype the south as ignorant idiots..ha see what i did********
- ukit0
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20…
Obama birth certificate challenge thrown out of court
- TheBlueOne0
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) today in congress: "...these czars are an affront to the Constitution. They’re anti-democratic. They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country. They are a poor way to manage the government and they seem to me to be the principal symptom of this administrations eight-month record of too many Washington takeovers."
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) to Congress in 2003: “President Bush talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome.”
And again in 2003: "Within a few weeks the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar...who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be."
No, please, do go on you lying sack of bullshit.
Die fucker
- TBO chill on the "die" rhetoric. Jesus dude..zenmasterfoo
- bizczarPonyBoy
- no no nono... I'm with tbo...
DEATH TO 'EM! :DPonyBoy - Hahaha...I didn't mean that, it got included on my copy and paste from something else I was writing about a metal bandTheBlueOne
- Makes me sound all AngryMob and shit, right?TheBlueOne
- robotron3k0
Get your swine flu shot, it was all the rage in 76!
- bliznutty0
Is Obamacare Consitutional?
The Ninth and 10th Amendments, which limit Congress's powers only to those granted in the Constitution. One of those powers—the power "to regulate" interstate commerce—is the favorite hook on which Congress hangs its hat in order to justify the regulation of anything it wants to control.
Unfortunately, a notoriously tendentious New Deal-era Supreme Court decision has given Congress a green light to use the Commerce Clause to regulate noncommercial, and even purely local, private behavior. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the Supreme Court held that a farmer who grew wheat just for the consumption of his own family violated federal agricultural guidelines enacted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. Though the wheat did not move across state lines—indeed, it never left his farm—the Court held that if other similarly situated farmers were permitted to do the same it, might have an aggregate effect on interstate commerce.
James Madison, who argued that to regulate meant to keep regular, would have shuddered at such circular reasoning. Madison's understanding was the commonly held one in 1789, since the principle reason for the Constitutional Convention was to establish a central government that would prevent ruinous state-imposed tariffs that favored in-state businesses. It would do so by assuring that commerce between the states was kept "regular."
Applying these principles to President Barack Obama's health-care proposal, it's clear that his plan is unconstitutional at its core. The practice of medicine consists of the delivery of intimate services to the human body. In almost all instances, the delivery of medical services occurs in one place and does not move across interstate lines. One goes to a physician not to engage in commercial activity, as the Framers of the Constitution understood, but to improve one's health. And the practice of medicine, much like public school safety, has been regulated by states for the past century.
The same Congress that wants to tell family farmers what to grow in their backyards has declined "to keep regular" the commercial sale of insurance policies. It has permitted all 50 states to erect the type of barriers that the Commerce Clause was written precisely to tear down. Insurers are barred from selling policies to people in another state.
That's right: Congress refuses to keep commerce regular when the commercial activity is the sale of insurance, but claims it can regulate the removal of a person's appendix because that constitutes interstate commerce.
What we have here is raw abuse of power by the federal government for political purposes. The president and his colleagues want to reward their supporters with "free" health care that the rest of us will end up paying for. Their only restraint on their exercise of Commerce Clause power is whatever they can get away with. They aren't upholding the Constitution—they are evading it.
written by Judge Napolitano, who served on the bench of the Superior Court of New Jersey between 1987 and 1995
- pretty much got it. but still its more complicated with other fed regulations that lead to increasing costs and control.********
- but pretty much the logic all the same in all them. the abuse of federal power for votes, to favor one side and make the others pay********
- make the others pay********
- the fdr democratic bill of rights pretty much states the selling points of the party but doesnt mention at whos cost********
- pretty much got it. but still its more complicated with other fed regulations that lead to increasing costs and control.
- bliznutty0
Politics
The Right
The Left
The Fabian United States
- bliznutty0
Absolutely Beautiful!
- and ppl call u an anarchist? baby jesus. even with the childlike pictures blue wont get it********
- and ppl call u an anarchist? baby jesus. even with the childlike pictures blue wont get it
- ********0
i cant help but think to take away all incentives and distortions that create employer paid healthcare. its an individual decision that the companies need't make. its simply a trend that was started as a reaction of federal law after the war.
part of the distortion is in the policies, the insurance companies dont charge the individual but the lifestyle of the entire company. which is hard to crunch numbers too so they end up on the high end. also any employer mandated insurance is now tying employment with healthcare increases. so increased costs equal increased unemployment, which would be scary. without healthcare we would probably also see a larger increase in wages. with that people would be better to use that money as they see fit. it would also bring the consumer to the insurance agency, theyd be more informed and because the insurer is chargin a large company it would force them to have to be more competitive with more option for individuals. open state lines is a must too. and cutting legislation that supports incentives to hospitals and the regulations that favor hospitals over specialist clinics. and any regulation dealing with the newest equipment (not sure if there is but wouldnt be surprised). cutting a lot of whats in place will open the market and cut costs with out spending. and slowly back pedal medicare and other gov programs as costs are cut back.
also need to get peopel to understand healthcare is a personal responsibility. if u TRULY VALUE healthcare as super important you may want to go without cable tv, eat cheaper, the iphone att plan, work 2 jobs, and really decide on a personal hierarchy system of importance.
the only downside i can think of with cutting employer based insurance incentives would be that more people go uninsured, for a time because of a stalemate game. but it would be only temporary becuase insurance companies cant exist with out the mutual relationship of consumers. capitalism is a mutualistic system liek a remora and shark after all. and that period of harshness people will jsut have to deal with if they want change. but it all has to be laid out perfectly in baby steps. if their exists still one large distortion of gov policy shit could get messed up, becuase washington doesnt flow liek water and is too slow to adapt to counter the new problems from that single distortion as things are back peddled.
but of course the politics involved these days and the alleyway deals its unlikely to happen. instead they will sell us more government with ever rising costs too until the rich become middle class and middle class become poor.... and so on. i mean look at the health policy labeled out today. it was the some of the worst garbage ive seen yet. if healthcare is so big to the left why wont they focus on the real issues that increased costs, and look at what causes can be corrected or what causes are simply a expensive product liek an enzo of healthcare and realize that only the wealthy can afford, and treat it like a business. becuas eno matter how much u whine their wont be equal healthcare for all, jsut liek no enzos for all.
- too many words [eyes glaze over]BusterBoy
- i apologize i couldnt sum up an idea even more then it is into a brief slogan********
- TheBlueOne0
Typical rightwing bullshit. First of all, the wide use of the Commerce Clause didn't start under the New Deal, although you guys love to hate on FDR for decades now, and it didn't start in the Supreme Court..you guys love to dump on them thar "activist judges" don't you. No, it started in the 1824 (Gibbons v. Ogden) and then later the wider interpretation happened in the 1880's and was instituted by Congress, not the courts, in the Interstate Commerce Act , and then a few years later with the Sherman Anti-Trust acts. It's been a part of the political fabric of the country for over a century, and sure maybe James Madison (and probably Jefferson) wouldn't have dug it, Hamilton, Adams and Washington would've thought it brilliant, so if you want to play the "Which Founder is the Real American" game, we can do that too. In fact Adams son was president when the Supreme Court first ruled on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause.
So if you want to use the usual and fifty year old trope about how how the "Commerce Clause" is used "unconstitutionally" go ahead, but there's one hundred+ years of precedent, laws and court decisions that say you're argument is full of bullshit.
You need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck for your history.
I find it fucking humorous that all these rightwing douches want to roll the clock back to, I dunno, 1830 or so. You know, somehow that was a "magical, pure" time when the States, especially those with slaves, could tell the other states to stick it where the sun don't shine. It's a stance in defiance to all logic and reason to the historical changes. The US isn't some back water agrarian country removed from the center of the world. Wishing it won't make it so.
- the fdr thing was just me talkign about the democrat bill of rights. if u like to say how that works out go for it********
- if the history is wrong ok, but the moral of the story i thoguth was the distortion of the gov********
- and if u look at hamitlon and his pals he was a fricken tool that was hungry for power. he wanted a elite system over the rest********
- rest of the people. but still the idea stands on the bs interpretations of the constitution by the gov to benefit them********
- and logic and reason states that the commerce clause is used unconstitutially. thast the only court i go with.********
- Look the argument of Jefferson vs Hamiltonian interpretations of the constitution aren't zero sum.TheBlueOne
- & considering that the US Code is based on english common law, and that law interpretation has stood for 100+ years means it's constitutional anyway you slice it.TheBlueOne
- it's constitutional anyway you slice it. If you don't like it, the problem is with you.TheBlueOne
- why can health insurance not cross state line but car insurance can?********
- and i find it scary that a person who sees soemthign as law cant judge. guess law IS mind without reason.********
- the fdr thing was just me talkign about the democrat bill of rights. if u like to say how that works out go for it
- ********0
