"You realize that "most" people aren't in "western" nations don't you? That chart ignores the Middle East, South America, Canada, Africa, Australia, and that little scrap of land called Asia."
I don't see how that's a problem as that is exactly the same thing that the OP did when he talked about "most" of the world.
"Because you're insane and out of touch with reality?"
Nothing you said makes me think that post was any less accurate than it was when I first posted it.
"Tell you what: if you ever come to Aarhus, Denmark, look me up, and I'll give you free beer"
Sorry, but I have no desire to spend any time babysitting someone with the kind of stunted intellect that thinks "free" means "someone else paid for it".
I really really hope it's a language thing now, because I can't honestly see how someone could have the ability to type while being as mentally deficient as your attempted argument made you appear.
"OK, troll, I'll accept your flamebait."
Great, thanks for admitting I was right. That's the only reason people like you start calling "troll" and "flamebait", and damn if you didn't run right to it.
"Every politician's main job is to get re-elected."
That's just a steaming pile.
Their job is to serve the people, and by saying things like you did, you further the idea that it's ok for them to focus primarily on getting reelected.
Your excuse is just as big a problem as the scumbags who you're making excuses for. Save the cynicism, it's ineffective, tired, and childish.
"It's a bit more nuanced than 'the Dems rolled over OMG'"
Yeah, the Dems rolled over, lubed themselves up, and took it in the dumper with a smile on their faces, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. Yeah, sure, call it "nuanced" if it makes you feel better.
You're still making excuses, and they're getting worse.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Re-read that, because it doesn't say what you think it does. It grants the power to tax, that's what it's for. Had you read it correctly, you'd see it says "Congress has the power to TAX."
It IN NO WAY allows for the institution of unconstitutional programs like Social Security, despite how you choose to misread it.
"No, go back and read. The Dems don't have a big enough majority to beat a veto by Bush. They don't have a big enough majority to stop a filibuster."
No, but they most certainly DO have enough power to prevent this bill from ever being passed. Your excuses would hold water were it not for the fact that we aren't asking the Dems to pass a bill, in this case we're wondering WHY THEY ALLOWED A BILL LIKE THIS TO BE PASSED AT ALL.
They DO have the power to stop things like this. They CHOSE not to use it.
"If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that."
Jury duty.
That's not in the Constitution, but because the Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial, the power to impanel juries is implied. After all, how can one have a jury trial with no jury?
This is not the only example that proves you wrong, just the most obvious.
Is there any way you could throw more straw men into a single post?
I like the appeal to emotion, but when the discussion is the constitutionality of these services, your post that boils down to "WAHHH! POOR PEOPLE GET SICK TOO!!! YOU'RE EVIL BECAUSE YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!!!" misses the point totally.
"For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing."
None of those things are provided for in the Constitution, so a constitutionally valid government must be, for you, something that you don't want or need.
Just keep that in mind when the parts of the Constitution you actually care about keeping get run over. No amount of "THINK OF THE POOR PEOPLE!!!" trumps the Constitution, no matter how much guilt you feel.
"If a group of people pool their money to buy a couple of beer crates, and party - guess what: the beer is free. Even though everyone in the group paid for it. Why?"
Because you're insane and out of touch with reality?
Nothing you said is accurate, or even rational. Your beer example is so contrived and ridiculous that it calls your ability to reason into question.
Slashdot Mirror
Too subtle, but still nicely done.
"I disagree. Strongly."
No one cares.
"Despite all the propaganda and state enforced ignorance, Bush lost. Twice"
Hmm, that's funny, because he was president for two terms, so how did he serve if he lost?
Oh he didn't, he won.
HOW he won, well, that could be dissected, but saying "he lost" just demonstrates the you are disconnected from what happened here in the real world.
"You realize that "most" people aren't in "western" nations don't you? That chart ignores the Middle East, South America, Canada, Africa, Australia, and that little scrap of land called Asia."
I don't see how that's a problem as that is exactly the same thing that the OP did when he talked about "most" of the world.
"What people think in India is largely irrelevant to me."
Then you're a moron. They aren't irrelevant, even though you like to pretend they are.
It's clear from your post you're just a "Europe is great, fuck the rest of the savages on this planet" troll.
"Actually it's largely an American thing.
I brought this subject up several times in a conversation with europeans."
The world is much larger that europe and America.
"The vast majority of the population hasn't even heard of ID."
The "vast majority of the population" is not just europe and America.
"*Everytime* I have seen it there have been jossling, abusive Christians outside telling me I was going to hell for watching it."
But they weren't trying to send you there themselves. I hope you see the difference.
I can see why you posted AC, it's pretty clear from your post YOU HAVE NO IDEA WTF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
His point was "if it's not in the Constitution they can't do it". I refuted that.
You posted, well, something completely unrelated.
Reading is most people's friend, but it looks like it's kicking your ass.
"Because you're insane and out of touch with reality?"
Nothing you said makes me think that post was any less accurate than it was when I first posted it.
"Tell you what: if you ever come to Aarhus, Denmark, look me up, and I'll give you free beer"
Sorry, but I have no desire to spend any time babysitting someone with the kind of stunted intellect that thinks "free" means "someone else paid for it".
I really really hope it's a language thing now, because I can't honestly see how someone could have the ability to type while being as mentally deficient as your attempted argument made you appear.
"OK, troll, I'll accept your flamebait."
Great, thanks for admitting I was right. That's the only reason people like you start calling "troll" and "flamebait", and damn if you didn't run right to it.
"All you're doing here is saying "You're wrong!" over and over without giving any reason why"
NO, that's a lie. I gave my reasons already, you just seemed to have decided you wanted to forget them, because you can't refute them.
Like I said, your reading comprehension apparently sucks. Get that handled before you start lying about what people are saying again.
"Every politician's main job is to get re-elected."
That's just a steaming pile.
Their job is to serve the people, and by saying things like you did, you further the idea that it's ok for them to focus primarily on getting reelected.
Your excuse is just as big a problem as the scumbags who you're making excuses for. Save the cynicism, it's ineffective, tired, and childish.
All that proves is that you have to interpret that article a certain way to get to your position.
Which quite nicely proves my point that it IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.
As I said, You're STILL WRONG
Try UNDERSTANDING the Constitution, reading just doesn't seem to be doing it for you.
"You can't take the person who used your social security number to open a credit account to civil court. There are no actual damages..."
Nope.
And I stopped right there because I'm REALLY tired of people like you who have no idea WTF they're talking about but post anyway.
Now look up what "general welfare" means in that context to see why what I said was correct.
Hint, it's not what you think it is.
"GOP rang up holy hell at any democratic threat of filibuster, going so far as an attempt to outlaw the filibuster."
OH NO! THE GOP THREW A TANTRUM!!!
Why does that stop the Dems from doing their job? Oh it doesn't.
"I know a lot of highly partisan people..."
Funny coming from an AC who thinks throwing a hissy fit is deterrent to doing your job as an elected official.
"You're purposefully removing context"
And YOU are purposefully pretending that stamping their feet and holding their breath gave the GOP some magic power to impede congress.
"Maybe someday the world will get lucky, all the manipulative and purposefully deceptive assholes like you will be dead"
Better hope not, your criteria would put you 6 feet under.
"The *mandatory* nature of jury duty may very well be considered unconstitutional."
Except it isn't and never has been ruled so, so that argument is irrelevant. It may be a chocolate sundae, but until it is, it isn't.
"You're using a "because it is, it must be right" argument. "
Not so my good douche, I'm using the old "because the Supreme Court ruled it so, it is so" which AMAZINGLY ENOUGH, is the ONLY criteria that matters.
But apart from being wrong about all of that, your post was ok.
"Thanks. RTFA"
I did, that's how I knew you were trolling.
"It's a bit more nuanced than 'the Dems rolled over OMG'"
Yeah, the Dems rolled over, lubed themselves up, and took it in the dumper with a smile on their faces, EVEN THOUGH THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED IT. Yeah, sure, call it "nuanced" if it makes you feel better.
You're still making excuses, and they're getting worse.
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"
Re-read that, because it doesn't say what you think it does. It grants the power to tax, that's what it's for. Had you read it correctly, you'd see it says "Congress has the power to TAX."
It IN NO WAY allows for the institution of unconstitutional programs like Social Security, despite how you choose to misread it.
You argument of "welfare of the country" comes from The Preamble. What does that mean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution
"The preamble neither grants any governmental powers nor inhibits any of its actions"
Wow, that completely proves my argument in destroys yours in ONE SENTENCE.
"Most people would..."
Avoid running their mouths about the Constitution when it's clear they don't know WTF they're talking about?
Too bad you're not most people.
"The Dem congress with a slim, non-filibuster-proof majority"
ALLOWED A BILL THAT WAS A TRAVESTY TO PASS ON THEIR WATCH, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THE POWER TO STOP IT, THEY CHOSE NOT TO.
The AC was right about you.
"Moron."
At least you signed your post.
"No, go back and read. The Dems don't have a big enough majority to beat a veto by Bush. They don't have a big enough majority to stop a filibuster."
No, but they most certainly DO have enough power to prevent this bill from ever being passed. Your excuses would hold water were it not for the fact that we aren't asking the Dems to pass a bill, in this case we're wondering WHY THEY ALLOWED A BILL LIKE THIS TO BE PASSED AT ALL.
They DO have the power to stop things like this. They CHOSE not to use it.
Stop making excuses.
"You're forgetting..."
No, I'm not, I'm rejecting that argument as invalid.
And I'm right.
"We might not be such fools, but most people are."
Who fucking cares? They got elected to do a job NOW, and that job is not "get reelected".
There is no reason to kowtow to an uninformed populace, that's not your god damned job.
"If it's not in the Constitution, the federal government's not allowed to do it, fancy that."
Jury duty.
That's not in the Constitution, but because the Constitution provides for the right to a jury trial, the power to impanel juries is implied. After all, how can one have a jury trial with no jury?
This is not the only example that proves you wrong, just the most obvious.
Is there any way you could throw more straw men into a single post?
I like the appeal to emotion, but when the discussion is the constitutionality of these services, your post that boils down to "WAHHH! POOR PEOPLE GET SICK TOO!!! YOU'RE EVIL BECAUSE YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE!!!" misses the point totally.
"For you, a just, caring and sharing society, must be some kind of weird offensive thing."
None of those things are provided for in the Constitution, so a constitutionally valid government must be, for you, something that you don't want or need.
Just keep that in mind when the parts of the Constitution you actually care about keeping get run over. No amount of "THINK OF THE POOR PEOPLE!!!" trumps the Constitution, no matter how much guilt you feel.
"If a group of people pool their money to buy a couple of beer crates, and party - guess what: the beer is free. Even though everyone in the group paid for it. Why?"
Because you're insane and out of touch with reality?
Nothing you said is accurate, or even rational. Your beer example is so contrived and ridiculous that it calls your ability to reason into question.