No seriously, that "ZOMG someone disagrees with my therefore they're WRONG!!!!!111oneoneone" style is really going to get you far in life. Good luck with that;-) If that movie of yours is any indication, we all know where it will get you.
demonstrate that you appreciate that there are more guiding principles than federalism in good governance, and my low opinion of you is reversed.
See, that's the thing: I used Federalism for this one instance (socialized medicine) and you assumed that I love Federalism in all cases and don't use other political philosophies. That was an (extremely) incorrect and narrow-minded assumption on your part. You know that thing about assumption that you learned two years in 7th grade? Yeah, it applies here. But again, keep lying to yourself if it makes it easier to spout out your inarticulate garbage. It's pretty funny at this point!
And yeah, I didn't start the name calling until about 5 or 6 posts after you did it. Can't take the childishness? Try doing that in real life and see how far it gets you. The difference between you and me: I'm walking away from this respecting the fact that we do not share our same beliefs, and that that's okay. You, however, are probably going to keep on throwing out the immature grunts and insults until you have an aneurysm. That's totally cool with me. Enjoy that little movie you're making--I'm sure it will be very, uhh, "interesting."
please, use your mind critically, and stop using the constitution and the founding fathers as a (logically and historically invalid) crutch for your monomaniacal obsession with federalism. you have a one track mind. barking "federalism" to every question is stupid beyond belief
Actually, I only used "Federalism" in this one particular instance; I never used it for anything else. You're the one who started changing the subject to other issues--I was speaking only of socialized medicine. But why let facts get in the way of your bullshit?
You know, you would make a better argument (and not sound like an angry 11 year old) if you didn't start calling people names. Seriously, if you're unable to make your point without abandoning common courtesy and calling people names then you really are a silly internet loser.
Oh, and nice, uhh, "film" you're making there. What grade is that for, the 9th or 10th? See, personal attacks are fun! Good luck getting anywhere in life with the "OMG you disagree with me so you're an idiot!" attitude.
you don't think that perhaps in 200 years the constitution needs some changes? that there were issues even when written with the document? (such as on the issue of slavery and women and voting)
There are many things in the Constitution that are outdated, such as slavery and women's suffrage that you mention. Obviously, that's why the framers allowed the Constitution to be amended; because they were intelligent to know that they did not know everything. However, the issue of Federal vs State government is a basic concept that is not outdated, and still applicable today.
You and I disagree on basic concepts, and so we are just running around in circles. I will wish you a good day; it has been a pleasure arguing with you, even though we disagree wholeheartedly with one another.
All of those examples that you cite are explicitly given in the Constitution:
-To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; -To provide and maintain a navy; -To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
Again, the Constitution is expressly clear on what powers the Federal Government has, and that all other decisions (such as Socialized Medicine) are to be left up to the States. You did make one valid point--that the Commerce Clause has been exploited to allow Congress to do whatever they want. That does not, however, make it right.
You can keep spouting off your rhetoric to try to back up your claims, but both the Constitution's wording and intent are very clear on this matter.
That was a political cartoon emphasizing that our country's fight for independence would need complete, unanimous support from each state. That has nothing to do with extreme government intervention. The fact that you're using it here only shows how little you know. Jefferson, Adams and Franklin (to name a few) were huge proponents of states' rights over a strong, centralized government.
Again, the Constitution--and the intent of the framers who wrote it--is extremely clear with regards to Federal vs State power. It is not, nor it should be, the job of the Federal Government to implement this.
If you want to say we should have universal healthcare, go right ahead. That's your belief, no matter how much I disagree with it. But saying that the founding fathers would agree with you is historically incorrect.
Using that logic: I should start smoking weed and bangin' hookers two-at-a-time because I want to, even though it's illegal. Hey, "it makes sense", so why the hell not? The police won't throw me in jail because it makes sense! Why get caught up in the legal mechanics needed to implement it? I want to bang hookers now, damnit.
My stance on socialized healthcare: I am against it, but if it is implemented it should be done at the State level, not at the Federal level. The intent of the framers of the Constitution (you know, that intent you spoke of before!) was to keep the Federal government limited in many ways so states can decide on their own on certain issues. A broad, sweeping Federal decision regarding socialized medicine is not the answer.
The Constitution is very clear in this regard. The issue should be one for the States, not Congress. That's the way it was written, and that was the framers' intent.
And hey, while we're on the topic, can you show me some evidence where a founding father supported the idea of extreme government intervention, in order to support your claim that they would side with you on this issue? Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were huge proponents of State's rights over Federal rights.
like any other fundamentalist, you adhere to the wording of a revered document, rather than the spirit of it
The spirit of the document (the overall intent of it, in fact) was to keep the Federal government from overstepping its bounds. Socialized medicine may or may not be a good idea, but there should be a Constitutional Amendment allowing it before we go any further as a nation.
And wow, what arrogance you show. I never said I was against socialized medicine, only that it is, currently, unconstitutional. No need to be an arrogant dick.
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.
Federally mandated socialized medicine is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
If I have a terminal illness that is guaranteed to kill me in 6 months, shouldn't I have the right to try a drug that hasn't been fully tested yet? Isn't that my right, to control my own bodily destiny?
Mod parent up. This used to be a country where people thought "If I work hard, I can do anything in life." Now we're a country where people think "I deserve free healthcare. I deserve to eat/drink/smoke whatever I want and not suffer the consequences. I want the government to spend my money for me."
Obviously in certain cases people need some help; there are people out there with real handicaps that deserve some welfare. However, we shouldn't be giving every 300-pound American a free pass for their laziness.
I work out regularly because I want to live to see my grandchildren, because it's my personal responsibility to take care of my body. People that lack such responsibility do not deserve a get-out-of-jail-free-card, and it is not the government's job to give it to them.
I was signed up for mlb.tv during the regular season, but they don't have it for the playoffs. Fox, sadly, has exclusive rights. They aren't giving that shit up, not even to people who pay $120 per year.
See I think that's where the confusion is: I was only opposed to your generalization about the wealthy. I am not in favor of those tax cuts, the ones you yourself are against.
Having said that, you shouldn't let your blind hatred of Bush make you generalize a group of people. I disagreed with one point of yours and you immediately assumed that I was a Bush neo-con arguing against all of your points. And FWIW, my wife and I have taught our children the value of hard work. By the time they get any inheritance (after Habitat For Humanity and The Cancer Awareness Fund get their share) they should be in their 40's, and have their own livelihood. Again, you shouldn't assume that my children are just like Bush if they receive an inheritance.
Sorry this turned into a 1st-grade "When you Assume you make an Ass out of U and Me" type of rant.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually news just broke of Al Franken losing in Minnesota, so the Republicans have 41 now. No supermajority this year.
No seriously, that "ZOMG someone disagrees with my therefore they're WRONG!!!!!111oneoneone" style is really going to get you far in life. Good luck with that ;-) If that movie of yours is any indication, we all know where it will get you.
See, that's the thing: I used Federalism for this one instance (socialized medicine) and you assumed that I love Federalism in all cases and don't use other political philosophies. That was an (extremely) incorrect and narrow-minded assumption on your part. You know that thing about assumption that you learned two years in 7th grade? Yeah, it applies here. But again, keep lying to yourself if it makes it easier to spout out your inarticulate garbage. It's pretty funny at this point!
And yeah, I didn't start the name calling until about 5 or 6 posts after you did it. Can't take the childishness? Try doing that in real life and see how far it gets you. The difference between you and me: I'm walking away from this respecting the fact that we do not share our same beliefs, and that that's okay. You, however, are probably going to keep on throwing out the immature grunts and insults until you have an aneurysm. That's totally cool with me. Enjoy that little movie you're making--I'm sure it will be very, uhh, "interesting."
Actually, I only used "Federalism" in this one particular instance; I never used it for anything else. You're the one who started changing the subject to other issues--I was speaking only of socialized medicine. But why let facts get in the way of your bullshit?
You know, you would make a better argument (and not sound like an angry 11 year old) if you didn't start calling people names. Seriously, if you're unable to make your point without abandoning common courtesy and calling people names then you really are a silly internet loser.
Oh, and nice, uhh, "film" you're making there. What grade is that for, the 9th or 10th? See, personal attacks are fun! Good luck getting anywhere in life with the "OMG you disagree with me so you're an idiot!" attitude.
There are many things in the Constitution that are outdated, such as slavery and women's suffrage that you mention. Obviously, that's why the framers allowed the Constitution to be amended; because they were intelligent to know that they did not know everything. However, the issue of Federal vs State government is a basic concept that is not outdated, and still applicable today.
You and I disagree on basic concepts, and so we are just running around in circles. I will wish you a good day; it has been a pleasure arguing with you, even though we disagree wholeheartedly with one another.
All of those examples that you cite are explicitly given in the Constitution:
Again, the Constitution is expressly clear on what powers the Federal Government has, and that all other decisions (such as Socialized Medicine) are to be left up to the States. You did make one valid point--that the Commerce Clause has been exploited to allow Congress to do whatever they want. That does not, however, make it right.
You can keep spouting off your rhetoric to try to back up your claims, but both the Constitution's wording and intent are very clear on this matter.
That was a political cartoon emphasizing that our country's fight for independence would need complete, unanimous support from each state. That has nothing to do with extreme government intervention. The fact that you're using it here only shows how little you know. Jefferson, Adams and Franklin (to name a few) were huge proponents of states' rights over a strong, centralized government.
Again, the Constitution--and the intent of the framers who wrote it--is extremely clear with regards to Federal vs State power. It is not, nor it should be, the job of the Federal Government to implement this.
If you want to say we should have universal healthcare, go right ahead. That's your belief, no matter how much I disagree with it. But saying that the founding fathers would agree with you is historically incorrect.
Using that logic: I should start smoking weed and bangin' hookers two-at-a-time because I want to, even though it's illegal. Hey, "it makes sense", so why the hell not? The police won't throw me in jail because it makes sense! Why get caught up in the legal mechanics needed to implement it? I want to bang hookers now, damnit.
My stance on socialized healthcare: I am against it, but if it is implemented it should be done at the State level, not at the Federal level. The intent of the framers of the Constitution (you know, that intent you spoke of before!) was to keep the Federal government limited in many ways so states can decide on their own on certain issues. A broad, sweeping Federal decision regarding socialized medicine is not the answer.
The Constitution is very clear in this regard. The issue should be one for the States, not Congress. That's the way it was written, and that was the framers' intent.
And hey, while we're on the topic, can you show me some evidence where a founding father supported the idea of extreme government intervention, in order to support your claim that they would side with you on this issue? Jefferson, Adams and Franklin were huge proponents of State's rights over Federal rights.
like any other fundamentalist, you adhere to the wording of a revered document, rather than the spirit of it The spirit of the document (the overall intent of it, in fact) was to keep the Federal government from overstepping its bounds. Socialized medicine may or may not be a good idea, but there should be a Constitutional Amendment allowing it before we go any further as a nation. And wow, what arrogance you show. I never said I was against socialized medicine, only that it is, currently, unconstitutional. No need to be an arrogant dick.
People that break the laws of a country, and who are not citizens of the country, do not deserve the benefits from said country.
Amendment X to the United States Constitution:
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.
Federally mandated socialized medicine is unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.
Dude, you totally have it wrong: it's the right to bear arms.
I think we should at least let people have the basics: education and health.
Every citizen has free education until grade 12, and every major city in the nation (and most smaller cities) have free clinics.
Did you ever read the parent's post? He was speaking specifically of the 10 million illegal immigrants in this country.
If I have a terminal illness that is guaranteed to kill me in 6 months, shouldn't I have the right to try a drug that hasn't been fully tested yet? Isn't that my right, to control my own bodily destiny?
Mod parent up. This used to be a country where people thought "If I work hard, I can do anything in life." Now we're a country where people think "I deserve free healthcare. I deserve to eat/drink/smoke whatever I want and not suffer the consequences. I want the government to spend my money for me."
Obviously in certain cases people need some help; there are people out there with real handicaps that deserve some welfare. However, we shouldn't be giving every 300-pound American a free pass for their laziness.
I work out regularly because I want to live to see my grandchildren, because it's my personal responsibility to take care of my body. People that lack such responsibility do not deserve a get-out-of-jail-free-card, and it is not the government's job to give it to them.
There, fixed it for you.
I was signed up for mlb.tv during the regular season, but they don't have it for the playoffs. Fox, sadly, has exclusive rights. They aren't giving that shit up, not even to people who pay $120 per year.
Simpsons did it!
More importantly, why was nobody executed for making Ghost console-only?
Well how are you supposed to mount that inside a hampster ball?
See I think that's where the confusion is: I was only opposed to your generalization about the wealthy. I am not in favor of those tax cuts, the ones you yourself are against.
Having said that, you shouldn't let your blind hatred of Bush make you generalize a group of people. I disagreed with one point of yours and you immediately assumed that I was a Bush neo-con arguing against all of your points. And FWIW, my wife and I have taught our children the value of hard work. By the time they get any inheritance (after Habitat For Humanity and The Cancer Awareness Fund get their share) they should be in their 40's, and have their own livelihood. Again, you shouldn't assume that my children are just like Bush if they receive an inheritance.
Sorry this turned into a 1st-grade "When you Assume you make an Ass out of U and Me" type of rant.