Fairness Paycheck Act sponsored by.....

[midcan5]

Shogun, if Marxism is such a good and wonderful thing, then why are all the countries who have intimate first-hand experience with it (aside from Cuba and North Korea) moving in the opposite direction....Honestly, you liberals would be a lot more tolerable if you dropped the knee-jerk tendency towards centralization in all things. Frankly, it's coming to an end, due to several factors, mainly energy shortages. Don't take my word for it, read some of James Kunstler's writings.

Marxism like capitalism are abstractions or maybe we could call them models of explanation, pure marxism never existed same for pure capitalism. You only have to check out K Street's influence and the power they have over this administration to see the real (un)free market. Google Billy Tauzin. Some things will always require centralization whether it be military, trade regulations, social security, healthcare, laws or even government. Imagine the free market getting us to the moon? We need both.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Billy_Tauzin

 

[pegwinn]

Back to the topic.

This paycheck fairness bill and the anti-discrimination bill are both great ideas from an idealistic standpoint.

If the state or local .gov wishes to implement them, fine. But, the fed isn't authorised per the enumerated powers unless you interpret them so broadly as to stretch them out of shape.

Likewise the fed going into direct competition (that was me and Shogun) with private enterprise.

Liberty is best preserved by a limited federal government.

 

[jillian]

Back to the topic.

This paycheck fairness bill and the anti-discrimination bill are both great ideas from an idealistic standpoint.

If the state or local .gov wishes to implement them, fine. But, the fed isn't authorised per the enumerated powers unless you interpret them so broadly as to stretch them out of shape.

Likewise the fed going into direct competition (that was me and Shogun) with private enterprise.

Liberty is best preserved by a limited federal government.

I find I get very frustrated during these discussions. The Constitution is not read in a vacuum. There is caselaw. Because we live in a common law system, that caselaw creates precedent and is ALSO THE LAW OF THE LAND.

All this "strict constructionist" stuff doesn't EXIST. It never has... not since day one when the Court decided Marbury v Madison.

And I try not to be impolite about it, but these things have been decided by the Court. There is a necessary and proper clause. There is a commerce clause. There are all kinds of aspects of the constitution and the caselaw construing it, which makes this ok.

We do not live in a confederacy... if we did, the Articles of Confederation wouldn't have been done away with in favor of the current governmental structure. The government IS largely centralized and should be given the fact that transportation, communication and technology make our interactions more common and our interests more similar.

Any other issues on the states' rights subject were decided by the Civil War, right or wrong (unless people want to fight that battle again).

And if the Constitution were so easy to construe that every Tom Dick or Harry could say that THEY know what it says and how it should be construed (and I consider myself among the Tom, Dick and Harry's), then we wouldn't need Supreme Court Justices and Circuit Courts and District Courts would never get it wrong. (And even the Supreme Court gets it wrong sometimes).

But ultimately, there's no such thing as "strict constructionism" it's a made up construct that the right wing idealogues use to try to push a states' rights, anti-reproductive choice agenda.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

You only have to check out K Street's influence and the power they have over this administration to see the real (un)free market. Google Billy Tauzin.

Yes, special interests have sway over Washington. I would never in a million years tout this administration, or any other in living memory, as being free.

The answer is to limit the scope of what the government is allowed to do, so companies have no incentive to seek special priviledges in the first place. You're probably thinking that you're going to create a wonderful new agency to keep this or that industry in line, but what will actually happen is called regulatory capture. Your new agency will need to be staffed by people who aren't totally clueless about the industry they'll be watching, so you'll recruit people who've working in that industry; but the trouble is, your new bureaucrats will still be loyal to the companies they worked for, their friends and associates, etc. And then they will start devising regulations which tilt the playing field away from new competitors.

Some things will always require centralization whether it be military, trade regulations, social security, healthcare, laws or even government. Imagine the free market getting us to the moon? We need both.

Social security and health care absolutely do not need to be centralized, not by government anyway. Yes, you can get economies of scale, IF it's done right, as Wal-Mart has shown. But you can also get bureaucratic inertia, as GM and Ford have shown. They of course are paying the price for their stupidity. Government bureaucrats never do.

And centralizing government is a surefire way to keep it out of the hands of the people, and in the hands of special interests. They can hire full time lobbyists to live in Washington. You can't. On the other hand, you might actually get heard at a meeting of the city council, or be able to run for city councilman and win without being a millionaire. You might be able to actually get in touch with your representative in the state-level government.

Also, yes I can imagine the free market getting us to the moon. They've already gone into space. And let's not forget the first airplane was created by a couple of bicycle mechanics, who beat out the heavily funded government attempt.

Suppose the government hadn't spent the last half century steering the aerospace industry towards building military planes. That is a gigantic amount of money which could have been used to develop supersonic passenger planes by now, or space travel. Perhaps we'd have a workable propulsion system for space travel now.

Of course space travel is mostly subsidized now. Today's rockets are flying gas cans. Imagine trying to invent an airplane in 1880, when aluminum was basically not available, and the internal combustion engine was still in it's earliest infancy. A free market space travel outfit would have developed a better propulsion system by now, something that makes space travel available to the masses. That's where the biggest profits are--relentlessly cutting costs and bringing prices down so the average Joe can afford them. Serving the rich can make you comfortably wealthy, but if you want to be filthy stinking rich, you have to figure out how to serve the masses.

 

[Shogun]

Of course. You do realize that the Supreme Court interprets it wrong, right? Kelo was wrong, RvW was wrong, and which one concerning civil rights was so wrong they finally reversed it?

sooooo our mutual disagreement with Kelo means that the SCOTUS is irrelevant? no. We have to live with the Kelo decision until legislation can patch the mistake. At the end of the day, the Renquist court decision STILL STANDS.


That is the point. It doesn't say that. Never said that it did. The point is to prove that Congressional authority exists. You have merely posted your opinion, and backed it up with SCOTUS. I fully understand that SCOTUS is law. But that doesn't make em right all the time. 2+2 is not 5 no matter how badly you want it to be. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, not engage in it.

DO YOU understand that? DO YOU understand that the precedence of the Renquist court applies regardless of your opinion regarding their decision? Welcome the the aftermath of RvW-like opinions. You can park yours right next to the other assholes that we all have too. You asked for evidence to prove that congresshas authority over commerce and I provided such. If you want to insist that Congress CANNOT participate in commerce then prove it by quoting the Constitution.


HUH?

*Sigh* Ok, i'll slow down... WHY, if the founging fathers believed in free market capitolism, did they allow a state sponsored post office?


Are you making that judgement based on the plumeting test scores and lowering of Americas rating when compared to other industrialized nations?

I'm making that judgement based on the history of an uneducated America versus an educated America.

Don't shout dude. It means you are losing an argument. Besides it's unmanly. Let me say this one more time: It is not the role of the government of the United States to engage in commerce.


No, it means that I am engaging an obtuse skull a mile thick. It's not, eh?

Article 1, section 8 may disagree with your OPINION.

Interesting, my income has gone up every year. Oh wait. I am not waiting on anyone to bail me out or coddle me. I actually go to work and create my own opportunities. Hmmm, me and the wife work full time and have additional small-time income streams. Initiative works better than welfare or other .gov interferance

Statistically, your personal example means what? Jack and shit did you say? good answer. I wonder how many Americans have a different experience that yours.


Heh. Talk about talking points.

We The People seems to be a talking point these days. Funny, I always thought the constitution was created for the benefit of the people instead of corporate non-entities.. silly me.


The sad part is that your caucus would likely win. Another benefit of the Dept of Education no doubt.

OR a reflection of those We the People whose lives under the Constition do not reflect your single example of increased wages via hard work. WHOOPS.

don't let that keep you from insisting that someone is ignorant though.. I mean, I'm probably not giving you the Mohammed Ali treatment here or anything.


So far you are operating on the assumption that monopoly is bad. Innovation, investment, expertise, expansion, reinvestment, more innovation, more expansion etc. Bell had no competition because they outperformed em. Same with MS. You may not like Bill Gates. But what was done to MS was morally wrong. He, and his corp, outperformed the competition on all fronts. But of course that is bad right.


That statement is so balefully ignorant I almost don't know where to begin. Ok, MICROSOFT? google the netscape-explorer issue. No MS OS out performs the mac OS or the linux option but that doesn't keep MS from forcing Dell to use their OS exclusively, eh? THis isn't outperforming anything and the result is.... Vista. google that, and remind me of the benefit of a stagnant monopolized pool.

Bell labs sure was ready to pump out better service when it could tell people to fuckoff if they didn't like their prices, right! Just like cable companies today! Dish network came a knocking and all of a sudden the tune changed. Without the dish network of oil, operating systems and telephony there is no reason to compete for the benefit of the consumer who is willing to swallow the same ole excuses.

and, yes, if you are going to use MS as your example of American business you might want to put in a little research time because, yes, microsoft is a fucking monster that is known for consolidating competition using it's influence like a fur trapper uses a club.

I'm afraid you haven't. Interstate or otherwise? What is the otherwise?

Hey, i've posted my evidence. If you dont want to accept it then so be it. Clearly, insisting that the Constitution requires free market capitolism is easier than providing evidence like I have.


I better scroll up and see where I asserted that we were guaranteed a free market. Nope, didn't do it. The standard is really simple. Is Congress authorised? No. They are not since the document does not enumerate that as a power enjoyed by them.

Which is why the RENQUIST COURT DECISION is pertinent. Didn't I say something earlier about your goofy circular arguments?


Spare me the attempt at misdirection. Anything done by the .gov is at taxpayer expense. And, if you know of a government agency that didn't grow fat and morph feel free to clue us all in. Think rural electrification agency.

gee, talk about talking points... Are you going to continue being purposfully dense here? What would taxpayers pay for if they are flocking to the .gov pumps to pay for gas priced at 5% ABOVE OPERATING COSTS? Do you realize what I mean by OPERATING COST? Hello... earth to pegwinn.

Of course it is. Especially when you are advocating creating entire industries out of whole cloth and claiming it's a good thing.

For the consumer it is a good thing.. if you are more concerned with oil tycoons then so be it. Not that pointing a finger at the dept of education matters at all in this discussion..

What does it do? More importantly, what does it do that is specifically authorised?


It provides a normalized range of standardized education. Clearly, ignorant mud people would be easier manipulated by business but hey, we already discovered who "we the people" meant, eh? Now, tell me how the SCOTUS is just a loophole and not a viable authority in our government again.


And since it is specifically enumerated, what is your point? Merc groups? There is a method of hiring them as well that is fully authorised by the constitution.

and CLEARLY private merc companies have worked out better than our, uh, socialist military, RIGHT?


Water, water, everywhere..... and none of it cold. And, 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how badly you want it to or how many generations of judges perpetuated the error.

Oh I know.. because when the Constitution includes that third branch of Gov they CLEARLY only meant it to be valid if YOU agree with their decisions!


Where did I do that? I discussed objective fact v populist drivel. Cosmetic companies have a higher percentage of profit than oil.


yea yea.. and I listen to Boortz too. indeed, the majorty of the US population relies on Lip stick and Eye Shadow for living! Go ahead and list every one of his examples of a higher profit margin so we can both share a laugh at items that are not necessary to living while appriciating just how far rabid capitolists will go to rationalize their opinions.


So you will garner the uneducated, ill informed, or apathetic. Not great company to be in.


That American WE THE PEOPLE doesn't filter according to those who only went to harvard, whose first car was a porshe, and whose family trust allows capital gains taxes instead of income taxes. sorry if that crowd of people intimidates you. You can always insist that the supremem court is an outdated liberal construct meant to rob hard working folks oftheir cash.


not an accusation at all. Merely a factual observation. You are advocating moving to a socialist type state. You could always cut out the middleman and move to cuba.

Or, I could read the Constitution and understand the reality of SCOTUS precedence.

ZING!

Like I said, your name calling is only really impressive to other WSJ'rs. Hilarious that you say Cuba though considering the puppet-like nature of the Batista government being used like a marionette by American gangsters (uh, businessmen of course) to the point of a revelucion'.




Well now. Actually the fed ought to stay out of marriage and leave it to the churches. Ken Lay, fraud, criminal prosecution, sure. And supply and demand is the final arbiter. I know you don't like it. But, thems the breaks.

and yet you don't rail against republicans who insist on ruling the bedrooms of America? Gosh, I-I-I'm SHOCKED! Hey, at least you gave up Ken Lay.. you know.. just a businessman being taken to task by a liberal government out to dominate rich people


Oh wow. That is the best mini rant so far. I'm betting that your lack of a coherant argument means you simply don't have one. No worries. Down the road I will entertain your thoughts on taxes.

Ill look forward to it. Like I said, I listen to boortz too and no amount of calling capitol gains taxes apples to income tax oranges will erase the fact that his arguments are as transparent and impotent as half of his goofy cult of personality worshipping callers. You keep your fair tax pipe dream. The rest of us are not interested in a 30% markup at purchase or your silly little tax rebate being dangled like a carrot. Huckabee hugged up on a fair tax and you see how much support that got him.


Nah, we won't self destruct. We are slowly crumbling from within. The idea of the US Government yet again usurping the Constitution to become both retailer and regulator is but a single of many symptoms.

Well, until you can prove as much without crying about the supreme court I guess the sky is not really falling, eh chicken little? Don't blame me if you are willing to defend a theoretical free market that is as real as bigfoot for the sake of some market place Cibola that is about as true as Plato's description of atlantis. If the US could ration gas during ww2, break up monopolies, compete in parcel delivery etc etc then you might have to stomp your foot and cry about SCOTUS down the road.

 

[Shogun]

Shogun, if Marxism is such a good and wonderful thing, then why are all the countries who have intimate first-hand experience with it (aside from Cuba and North Korea) moving in the opposite direction?


Say, do you want the bay of pigs example or the domino theory example? Do you want to admit that the US had a lotto do with the fall of most commie nations for the sake of their communism? A capitolist nation willing to invade becasue it seems your country as the first falling domino does wonders to sway people, dude. TRADE EMBARGOS WITH CUBA have a lot of influence on their ability to succeed as a socialist nation, eh?

But, when allowed to thrive what do we get? The very nation that gives western capitolists a supply side hardon: china. So, when did China announce that it was moving to capitolism, dude?



The constitution doesn't demand much of anything. It was originally a pact between independent states, in order to form a common defense, a common currency, a free trade zone, and not a whole lot more. Sort of like a combination of NATO and the EU, except with a much narrower range of powers. States and communities are free to be socialist, or not; but the federal government was never intended to even consider questions like that.


Indeed, and i'll agree on the evidence of a very purple Pennsylvania at the ratification of the Constitution. However, his question asked me to prove Congressional authority and I did so. Weather or not the founding fathers could predict our modern reality is irrelevant since they gave us the tools to make changes as necessary.. including a third branch to INTERPRET the constitution.




Now if you want to say "The Supreme Court said in 1995...", well yes. If they say it's legal, it's legal; and ultimately government employees will stick a gun in your face to make it legal. It's also now legal to have wiretapping and undeclared wars and to lock people away without a trial. The point is, don't confuse "constitutional" with "legal"; and if you insist on doing so, then at least in the future spare us any talk about violations of constitutional liberties.

Have you ever seen me argue about warrentless wiretaps? quote me.

I've had to accept a particular 2000 presidential decision too. And Kelo. Just like others have to stomach RvW.

All of which ARE constitutional if you accept the very role that the courts were to play according to.. uh, the Constitution.


First, try reading a 8th grade exam from 100+ years ago. Chances are, you can't answer half the questions, and certainly the average high school graduate today couldn't.

Post one and prove it. Maybe after you try and find one we can both share a laugh at the nature of public education in 1908. Further, given that most words in Ben Franklins book are not models of grammar and spelling I defy you to prove that colonial education was better than what we have today.


Secondly, people were much more literate before the Department of Education was created, and test scores have continued a steady decline as that department has been given more funding.


source please. You charge two things that I expect you to provide evidence of:

1. Americans were more literate, as a population, before the creationof the dept of education and

2. lowered test scores correlate with more funding.

I look forward to reading your evidence.



Finally, our educational system as it exists today was copied from statist and militarist Prussia, for the purpose of producing good docile worker drones who will act as cogs in a machine. Guess who funded and publicized this movement? If you guessed rich white industrialists, you're correct. It's a bit late, I'll post more on this later.

Yet, what we've been given was STILL better than the readin, ritin, and rithmatic standard of pre-standardized education. Good grief, do you think that the US WASNT cogs in a machine during it's golden years of the 1950s? Hell, RICH WHITE INDUSTRIALISTS facilitated the creation of our nation. so what. Does that damn us to follow in their tracks?



Honestly, you liberals would be a lot more tolerable if you dropped the knee-jerk tendency towards centralization in all things. Frankly, it's coming to an end, due to several factors, mainly energy shortages. Don't take my word for it, read some of James Kunstler's writings.



And, you goofy conservatives and your half thought out schemes to concentrate money into an upper class would be more tolerable if you didn't run strait to screaming about commies everywhere every time the US helps give definition to why this is a great nation.

And everyone has their little guru with a crystal ball predicting the end, dude. The US is no more going to end by your date than it did 40 years after the America that Jack Kerouac wrote about went the way of the dodo.

 

[pegwinn]

I find I get very frustrated during these discussions. The Constitution is not read in a vacuum. There is caselaw. Because we live in a common law system, that caselaw creates precedent and is ALSO THE LAW OF THE LAND. I never argued against that point Jillian. I am a realist. I totally understand what the government can and cannot do in the real world. I also understand what they are supposed and not supposed to do. Caselaw and precedent are nothing more than the opinions (which you can have) of those in a position of authority to enforce them. It doe not follow automatically that they are correct.

All this "strict constructionist" stuff doesn't EXIST. It never has... not since day one when the Court decided Marbury v Madison. I'm afraid you have me confused with someone else. I argue what it says. I don't pretend to have been there or read thier minds on the subject. Just like a speed limit sign, it is the words that matter.

And I try not to be impolite about it, but these things have been decided by the Court. There is a necessary and proper clause. There is a commerce clause. There are all kinds of aspects of the constitution and the caselaw construing it, which makes this ok. You are within your rights to agree based on this or that clause. I am within my rights to disagree based on the reading of the text.

We do not live in a confederacy... if we did, the Articles of Confederation wouldn't have been done away with in favor of the current governmental structure. The government IS largely centralized and should be given the fact that transportation, communication and technology make our interactions more common and our interests more similar. Actually a centralised controlling system has been proven vulnerable over and over again by various military structures world wide. A decentralised system is more robust and less likely to fail if pressed hard.

Any other issues on the states' rights subject were decided by the Civil War, right or wrong (unless people want to fight that battle again).

And if the Constitution were so easy to construe that every Tom Dick or Harry could say that THEY know what it says and how it should be construed (and I consider myself among the Tom, Dick and Harry's), then we wouldn't need Supreme Court Justices and Circuit Courts and District Courts would never get it wrong. (And even the Supreme Court gets it wrong sometimes). Well, we agree that the courts get it wrong. I believe the Constitution is easy to understand, even by an uneducated jarhead. I cannot prove it, but if I were inclined to read the minds of the dead, I would bet it was written and intended to be easy to construe by virtually any citizen.

But ultimately, there's no such thing as "strict constructionism" it's a made up construct that the right wing idealogues use to try to push a states' rights, anti-reproductive choice agenda.

Now I know you are speaking to another audience. Like I said, I simply read the thing. It says what it says. The only time I have a problem is when folks ascribe things to it that it doesn't say.

Of course. You do realize that the Supreme Court interprets it wrong, right? Kelo was wrong, RvW was wrong, and which one concerning civil rights was so wrong they finally reversed it?

sooooo our mutual disagreement with Kelo means that the SCOTUS is irrelevant? no. We have to live with the Kelo decision until legislation can patch the mistake. At the end of the day, the Renquist court decision STILL STANDS.

Never said it didn't. I said that it doesn't prove your point about congress having the authority to engage in commerce.


That is the point. It doesn't say that. Never said that it did. The point is to prove that Congressional authority exists. You have merely posted your opinion, and backed it up with SCOTUS. I fully understand that SCOTUS is law. But that doesn't make em right all the time. 2+2 is not 5 no matter how badly you want it to be. Congress has the authority to regulate commerce, not engage in it.

DO YOU understand that? DO YOU understand that the precedence of the Renquist court applies regardless of your opinion regarding their decision? Of course I do. That doesn't make thier opinion any more correct than mine. Only more official.

Welcome the the aftermath of RvW-like opinions. You can park yours right next to the other assholes that we all have too. You asked for evidence to prove that congresshas authority over commerce and I provided such. If you want to insist that Congress CANNOT participate in commerce then prove it by quoting the Constitution.

I already did. Catch up.


HUH?

*Sigh* Ok, i'll slow down... WHY, if the founging fathers believed in free market capitolism, did they allow a state sponsored post office?

I dunno. I simply read the document. Establishment of the Post Office is specifically enumerated, thus it is constitutional. I don't have the arrogance to believe that I can divine the thoughts of men long dead. Did you get it that time or am I typing too fast for you?


Are you making that judgement based on the plumeting test scores and lowering of Americas rating when compared to other industrialized nations?

I'm making that judgement based on the history of an uneducated America versus an educated America.

Don't shout dude. It means you are losing an argument. Besides it's unmanly. Let me say this one more time: It is not the role of the government of the United States to engage in commerce.


No, it means that I am engaging an obtuse skull a mile thick. It's not, eh?

Article 1, section 8 may disagree with your OPINION.

Oh wow, now you got yer thong pulled too tight. Of course it is my opinion nitwit. It's my opinion based on reading the constitution itself instead of a boring tretise of someone elses opinon. And, feel free to quote where it says the government is authorised to engage as opposed to regulate commerce. What is kicking your ass is that you cannot point to the document itself to make your case.

Interesting, my income has gone up every year. Oh wait. I am not waiting on anyone to bail me out or coddle me. I actually go to work and create my own opportunities. Hmmm, me and the wife work full time and have additional small-time income streams. Initiative works better than welfare or other .gov interferance

Statistically, your personal example means what? Jack and shit did you say? good answer. I wonder how many Americans have a different experience that yours.

Don't know and don't care. I set a good example and if others don't follow it..... tough shit. It's not up to you, me, or the .gov to bail out those who don't wish to aspire to something better than smoking dope and watching the babble box.


Heh. Talk about talking points.

We The People seems to be a talking point these days. Funny, I always thought the constitution was created for the benefit of the people instead of corporate non-entities.. silly me.

The sad part is that your caucus would likely win. Another benefit of the Dept of Education no doubt.

OR a reflection of those We the People whose lives under the Constition do not reflect your single example of increased wages via hard work. WHOOPS.

don't let that keep you from insisting that someone is ignorant though.. I mean, I'm probably not giving you the Mohammed Ali treatment here or anything.


You are getting funnier by the minute. Mine is but a typical example. So far you haven't managed to make an argument other than ..... "the courts said so" and then get yourself all het up when someone else says "Yeah and.. so what?". Keep trying though.

So far you are operating on the assumption that monopoly is bad. Innovation, investment, expertise, expansion, reinvestment, more innovation, more expansion etc. Bell had no competition because they outperformed em. Same with MS. You may not like Bill Gates. But what was done to MS was morally wrong. He, and his corp, outperformed the competition on all fronts. But of course that is bad right.

That statement is so balefully ignorant I almost don't know where to begin. Ok, MICROSOFT? google the netscape-explorer issue. No MS OS out performs the mac OS or the linux option but that doesn't keep MS from forcing Dell to use their OS exclusively, eh? THis isn't outperforming anything and the result is.... Vista. google that, and remind me of the benefit of a stagnant monopolized pool.

I wonder if you are old enough to remember videotapes. There were two standards. Beta and VHS. Beta was better by any measurement except the one that counts...... market share. Beta is now extinct and while videotape sales fall every year, they are still VHS. Same with MS. It doesn't matter who was better, it matters who won the marketing wars.

Bell labs sure was ready to pump out better service when it could tell people to fuckoff if they didn't like their prices, right! Just like cable companies today! Dish network came a knocking and all of a sudden the tune changed. Without the dish network of oil, operating systems and telephony there is no reason to compete for the benefit of the consumer who is willing to swallow the same ole excuses.

and, yes, if you are going to use MS as your example of American business you might want to put in a little research time because, yes, microsoft is a fucking monster that is known for consolidating competition using it's influence like a fur trapper uses a club.

In other words, Bill did like the Romans. He assimilated those he beat. Not a bad business strategy. Competition is fine until you do it too well I guess.

I'm afraid you haven't. Interstate or otherwise? What is the otherwise?

Hey, i've posted my evidence. If you dont want to accept it then so be it. Clearly, insisting that the Constitution requires free market capitolism is easier than providing evidence like I have.


There you go trying to redirect things. Stay with me. I never said it said anything like that. The challenge was to demonstrate that the .gov was authorised by the constitution to engage in rather than regulate commerce. You are apparently one of the folks who believes things are written between the lines in invisible ink. The constitution limits the power of government over the people. I know, I know, you are a person who believes that everyone should bow before the temple of uncle sugar and let him make it all better.

I better scroll up and see where I asserted that we were guaranteed a free market. Nope, didn't do it. The standard is really simple. Is Congress authorised? No. They are not since the document does not enumerate that as a power enjoyed by them.

Which is why the RENQUIST COURT DECISION is pertinent. Didn't I say something earlier about your goofy circular arguments?

Are you still yapping about the court..... yeah you are. Quit being deliberatly stupid. Open your eyes and read the document. Typing r e a l l y s l o w n o w..... the document does not enumerate that as a power enjoyed by Congress, and Renquist opinion does not change that.

Spare me the attempt at misdirection. Anything done by the .gov is at taxpayer expense. And, if you know of a government agency that didn't grow fat and morph feel free to clue us all in. Think rural electrification agency.

gee, talk about talking points... Are you going to continue being purposfully dense here? What would taxpayers pay for if they are flocking to the .gov pumps to pay for gas priced at 5% ABOVE OPERATING COSTS? Do you realize what I mean by OPERATING COST? Hello... earth to pegwinn.

Hmmmmm Taxpayers front the money used as operating costs, then front the extra five percent.... earth to shogun, apparently there is no intelligent life out in your neck of the woods.

Of course it is. Especially when you are advocating creating entire industries out of whole cloth and claiming it's a good thing.

For the consumer it is a good thing.. if you are more concerned with oil tycoons then so be it. Not that pointing a finger at the dept of education matters at all in this discussion..

What does it do? More importantly, what does it do that is specifically authorised?

It provides a normalized range of standardized education. Clearly, ignorant mud people would be easier manipulated by business but hey, we already discovered who "we the people" meant, eh? Now, tell me how the SCOTUS is just a loophole and not a viable authority in our government again.

And since it is specifically enumerated, what is your point? Merc groups? There is a method of hiring them as well that is fully authorised by the constitution.

and CLEARLY private merc companies have worked out better than our, uh, socialist military, RIGHT?

Do you have a point or are you being publically dumb just for my entertainment. You do know how to properly hire mercenaries if we wished to right?


Water, water, everywhere..... and none of it cold. And, 2+2 will never equal 5 no matter how badly you want it to or how many generations of judges perpetuated the error.

Oh I know.. because when the Constitution includes that third branch of Gov they CLEARLY only meant it to be valid if YOU agree with their decisions!


Where did I do that? I discussed objective fact v populist drivel. Cosmetic companies have a higher percentage of profit than oil.

yea yea.. and I listen to Boortz too. indeed, the majorty of the US population relies on Lip stick and Eye Shadow for living! Go ahead and list every one of his examples of a higher profit margin so we can both share a laugh at items that are not necessary to living while appriciating just how far rabid capitolists will go to rationalize their opinions.

There you go acting stupid again.... wait, you're not acting. Did I say anything other than "Cosmetic companies have a higher percentage of profit than oil."? Nope. You added all that other bs to cloud the fact. Let me guess, you don't like Boortz? Well, I only get him about twice a week if I am on the road. Amazing thing about facts is that no matter what you think of the guy putting em out there, they are still correct.

So you will garner the uneducated, ill informed, or apathetic. Not great company to be in.

That American WE THE PEOPLE doesn't filter according to those who only went to harvard, whose first car was a porshe, and whose family trust allows capital gains taxes instead of income taxes. sorry if that crowd of people intimidates you. You can always insist that the supremem court is an outdated liberal construct meant to rob hard working folks oftheir cash.

Yeah that's me harvard, caddilac style, and a paris hilton trust. The Supremes are supposed to rule on matters of law. Not make the law. And, since I wasn't born with a spoon (silver or otherwise) in my mouth, I resent it when someone says it's legal to rob me.

not an accusation at all. Merely a factual observation. You are advocating moving to a socialist type state. You could always cut out the middleman and move to cuba.

Or, I could read the Constitution and understand the reality of SCOTUS precedence. Hey, after all this, I'd be happy if you can demonstrate simply reading the thing.

ZING! ZAP!

Like I said, your name calling is only really impressive to other WSJ'rs. Hilarious that you say Cuba though considering the puppet-like nature of the Batista government being used like a marionette by American gangsters (uh, businessmen of course) to the point of a revelucion'. Not my problem. Go there now, and you will be one of the rulers or one of the ruled. I don't notice many americans washing up on the shores of cuba trying to escape.



Well now. Actually the fed ought to stay out of marriage and leave it to the churches. Ken Lay, fraud, criminal prosecution, sure. And supply and demand is the final arbiter. I know you don't like it. But, thems the breaks.

and yet you don't rail against republicans who insist on ruling the bedrooms of America? Gosh, I-I-I'm SHOCKED! Hey, at least you gave up Ken Lay.. you know.. just a businessman being taken to task by a liberal government out to dominate rich people

Since we are jumping off the topic... I could give a fuck what you do in the privacy of your own place. As long as you don't parade your private life out in the real world do as you please at home. The really ironic thing is that I am likely far harder on the criminals in this country than you are.

Oh wow. That is the best mini rant so far. I'm betting that your lack of a coherant argument means you simply don't have one. No worries. Down the road I will entertain your thoughts on taxes.

Ill look forward to it. Like I said, I listen to boortz too and no amount of calling capitol gains taxes apples to income tax oranges will erase the fact that his arguments are as transparent and impotent as half of his goofy cult of personality worshipping callers. You keep your fair tax pipe dream. The rest of us are not interested in a 30% markup at purchase or your silly little tax rebate being dangled like a carrot. Huckabee hugged up on a fair tax and you see how much support that got him.

I love it. A self professed liberal that actually supports the single most repressive part of the government. Cool. I can see you will be fun to filet when I finally get around to the annual tax rant.

Nah, we won't self destruct. We are slowly crumbling from within. The idea of the US Government yet again usurping the Constitution to become both retailer and regulator is but a single of many symptoms.

Well, until you can prove as much without crying about the supreme court I guess the sky is not really falling, eh chicken little? Don't blame me if you are willing to defend a theoretical free market that is as real as bigfoot for the sake of some market place Cibola that is about as true as Plato's description of atlantis. If the US could ration gas during ww2, break up monopolies, compete in parcel delivery etc etc then you might have to stomp your foot and cry about SCOTUS down the road.

Well, until you can prove your case using the text of the Constitution itself we have three opinions. Yours, mine, and SCOTUS. Of the three I am right, you are wrong, and SCOTUS is the only one that can be legally right and factually wrong.

Well that was fun. You may as well not bother responding unless you have an original thought.

 

[Annie]

Now I know you are speaking to another audience. Like I said, I simply read the thing. It says what it says. The only time I have a problem is when folks ascribe things to it that it doesn't say.





Well that was fun. You may as well not bother responding unless you have an original thought.

Was that 3 conversations going on at once? No quotes, no way to know who was saying what.

I thought this was a board.

 

[pegwinn]

Was that 3 conversations going on at once? No quotes, no way to know who was saying what.

I thought this was a board.

It's complicated.

First round of quotes was Jillian and I.

Second round was Shogun and I. Shogun cut/past my stuff in Bold. So when I quoted him, I got my comments in bold and his response. I then responded in blue.

Not everything is as straightforward as reading the Constitution

 

[Annie]

It's complicated.

First round of quotes was Jillian and I.

Second round was Shogun and I. Shogun cut/past my stuff in Bold. So when I quoted him, I got my comments in bold and his response. I then responded in blue.

Not everything is as straightforward as reading the Constitution

Hell, I can deal with the Constitution, just don't want to have to go back pages to figure out who is saying what.

Is there something too complicated in using quote features?

 

[pegwinn]

Hell, I can deal with the Constitution, just don't want to have to go back pages to figure out who is saying what.

Is there something too complicated in using quote features?

Ask Shogun. I quoted me/jillian and me/shogun.

Sometimes I even do

quotes within quotes

Multi quote is great, but I wish the board would fully quote the conversation instead of only the current post.

 

[Shogun]

Never said it didn't. I said that it doesn't prove your point about congress having the authority to engage in commerce.

If it's a valid SCOTUS precedent, as noted in the Renquist court, then yes it does prove congressional authority. Have you offered evidence otherwise?


Of course I do. That doesn't make thier opinion any more correct than mine. Only more official.

"correct" is an opinion. Precedence is law. Regardless of what either of us believe regarding RvW, Kelo, etc the decision stands and is still legally valid.


I already did. Catch up.

I don't see that you offered anything beyond your opinion. Feel free to repost your evidence.


I dunno. I simply read the document. Establishment of the Post Office is specifically enumerated, thus it is constitutional. I don't have the arrogance to believe that I can divine the thoughts of men long dead. Did you get it that time or am I typing too fast for you?


No, you admitted that you didn't know so where do you get the OPINION that the Constitution insists on a free market or capitolism at all? Maybe you should focus on proving as much instead of typing fast... Seems to me that the founding fathers were NOT interested in making private business the ultimatum while it hinders the people for which the Constitution was created. Renquist agrees. Did I type that too fast?


Oh wow, now you got yer thong pulled too tight. Of course it is my opinion nitwit. It's my opinion based on reading the constitution itself instead of a boring tretise of someone elses opinon. And, feel free to quote where it says the government is authorised to engage as opposed to regulate commerce. What is kicking your ass is that you cannot point to the document itself to make your case.

No, what is kicking YOUR ass is that you refuse to understand the role of the SCOTUS and the reality of precendence in law. In a nation full of opinions there is a reason for the third article and the vested powers therein.

Feel free to read up on the Renquist decision. You might just find that there are MANY such decisions that conflict with your opinion.


Don't know and don't care. I set a good example and if others don't follow it..... tough shit. It's not up to you, me, or the .gov to bail out those who don't wish to aspire to something better than smoking dope and watching the babble box.


Well, I guess we can see why the supreme law of the land is interpreted by SCOTUS rather than your opinion!


You are getting funnier by the minute. Mine is but a typical example. So far you haven't managed to make an argument other than ..... "the courts said so" and then get yourself all het up when someone else says "Yeah and.. so what?". Keep trying though.

do you have Evidence that yours is typical or are you assuming as much?

And, since the supreme court is more valid than your personal opinion It's clear that i've slam dunked your position here.


I wonder if you are old enough to remember videotapes. There were two standards. Beta and VHS. Beta was better by any measurement except the one that counts...... market share. Beta is now extinct and while videotape sales fall every year, they are still VHS. Same with MS. It doesn't matter who was better, it matters who won the marketing wars.

The same can be said about Blu-ray and HD-dvd. so what is your point again besides proving that a free market doesn't always provide the best option available which is a usual talking point of free marketers? Further, what in gods green earth do consumer reaction to VCRs have to do with the club being wielded by oil companies again? ESPECIALLY since consumer options in filling a gas tank is so far removed from the choice available with electronics that comparing the two is laughable? I take it you didn't want to bring up Microsoft after all?


In other words, Bill did like the Romans. He assimilated those he beat. Not a bad business strategy. Competition is fine until you do it too well I guess.

HA!

no, netscape was never "assimilated" into any MS OS! I'm glad I am chatting with a mental heavy weight here. Monopolizing a market is hardly assimilation... Not that romans are our standard above the Constitution and Scotus precedence. I guess you are not aware of the reviews of the current OS offering from a monster corporation that has done all it can to narrow it's competition. I call this evidence. Your opinion may very.


There you go trying to redirect things. Stay with me. I never said it said anything like that. The challenge was to demonstrate that the .gov was authorised by the constitution to engage in rather than regulate commerce. You are apparently one of the folks who believes things are written between the lines in invisible ink. The constitution limits the power of government over the people. I know, I know, you are a person who believes that everyone should bow before the temple of uncle sugar and let him make it all better.

Acutally, i'm one of those guys that can recognize the role of the third branch of government as described by the Constitution. Your opinion of Scotus verdicts mean very little. Feel free to wave your lame picket sign though. Clearly, I don't have my foot on your neck here.


Are you still yapping about the court..... yeah you are. Quit being deliberatly stupid. Open your eyes and read the document. Typing r e a l l y s l o w n o w..... the document does not enumerate that as a power enjoyed by Congress, and Renquist opinion does not change that.


Court decisions are not required to enumerate, or change, the Constitution when making a decision. THAT is the job of legislators. You can cry about the role of Scotus all day long and it won't make their interpretations of the Constitution any less of a fact. Jillian is correct in slapping you with a strict constructionalist label. I suggest you re-read the third article and discover why SCOTUS rulings ARE Constitutional.


Hmmmmm Taxpayers front the money used as operating costs, then front the extra five percent.... earth to shogun, apparently there is no intelligent life out in your neck of the woods.

HA! riiiiiiight... because that 5% markup can NEVER pay for it's own startup costs! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ooook, dude. stretch a little farther why dont ya?

Hell, do you really think that consumers would say NO to cheaper gas set at an initial 10% markup to pay for startup costs?

this is great fun!


Do you have a point or are you being publically dumb just for my entertainment. You do know how to properly hire mercenaries if we wished to right?


Go tell it to the thread complaining about Mercs versus the US FEDERAL military, dude. If you have the balls to extend your opinion in a free market crusade then surely, SURELY, you can go and inform everyone how Blackwater functions better than the US FEDERAL military!




There you go acting stupid again.... wait, you're not acting. Did I say anything other than "Cosmetic companies have a higher percentage of profit than oil."? Nope. You added all that other bs to cloud the fact. Let me guess, you don't like Boortz? Well, I only get him about twice a week if I am on the road. Amazing thing about facts is that no matter what you think of the guy putting em out there, they are still correct.


Boortz is entertaining in his "rich white guy" character he plays to sell ad space on a radio program. just like Savage. Both are as silly in their banner waving as the next nutter with an opinon despite the constitution. And no, he is a joke of a man trying real hard to push a tax system that is as inviting as hugging a feral tiger. No one wants a 30% markup at point of sale regardless of how people like you rationalize what he calls a "fair" tax. Indeed, his willingness to split hairs between income and capitol gains taxes prove his punchline.

Again, how necessary is makeup compared to oil? gosh, I'm the one trying real hard to deflect here, right?


Yeah that's me harvard, caddilac style, and a paris hilton trust. The Supremes are supposed to rule on matters of law. Not make the law. And, since I wasn't born with a spoon (silver or otherwise) in my mouth, I resent it when someone says it's legal to rob me.


then move to Mexico and discover what it really means to be fleeced by a government. Be sure to sell your SS# on your way out the door to a mexican who understands what actual government apathy is like.

And SCOTUS doesn't "make" the law by INTERPRETING the CONSTITUTION. Obviously, your beef is with the founding fathers and history instead of those who can comprehend what the document says about the authority of each branch of government.



Hey, after all this, I'd be happy if you can demonstrate simply reading the thing.

Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
“ The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Supreme_Court


Booyahh!


Not my problem. Go there now, and you will be one of the rulers or one of the ruled. I don't notice many americans washing up on the shores of cuba trying to escape.

Given the direct influence of capitolists to thwart their ethos competition I guess not. Now, if only they had been allowed to flourish then who knows. As it is, it's neither here nor there when crying about the decisions of the SCOTUS.


Since we are jumping off the topic... I could give a fuck what you do in the privacy of your own place. As long as you don't parade your private life out in the real world do as you please at home. The really ironic thing is that I am likely far harder on the criminals in this country than you are.


No, the REAL irony is that you are shooting at the hip in some goofy little cerimonial dance to your own opinion despite the reality of the supreme court and the opinions of others. I'm all for the death penalty. I'm all for minimum sentencing for specific crimes. Why don't you toss out another punchline like "derrr derrr, you probably don't like the second amendment either derr derrr"....


I love it. A self professed liberal that actually supports the single most repressive part of the government. Cool. I can see you will be fun to filet when I finally get around to the annual tax rant.

I look forward to it. Meanwhile, feel free to scout out homes in Mexico since yu think our Constitution is so horrible.


Well, until you can prove your case using the text of the Constitution itself we have three opinions. Yours, mine, and SCOTUS. Of the three I am right, you are wrong, and SCOTUS is the only one that can be legally right and factually wrong.

I have. Article 3. enjoy. Again, your OPINON means two things. The first one is Jack. Im sure you can figure out what the other one is.


Enjoy your newfound education in the application of the Constitution dude!



Well that was fun. You may as well not bother responding unless you have an original thought.


You can cry about Article 3 all you want, dude. It won't negate the validity of the Courts OR prove that congress cannot manipulate commerce as decided by the SCOTUS. Stomping your foot will probably make this untrue.

 

[pegwinn]

Let's see:

You have utterly failed to prove that Congress is authorised by the Constitution to engage in rather than regulate commerce.

You have repeatedly stated that I somehow don't understand the purpose of SCOTUS.

You have demonstrated that you don't comprehend what a monopoly is or the concept of market share.

You somehow get the idea that I said something about us being guaranteed a free market.

You've demonstrated that you don't have a clue about the fairtax.

You've whined about the ugly American and Cuba.

You've compounded the error about me asserting a guaranteed free market by somehow deciding I prefer mercs over the military.

Query: Are you always this stupid, or was the last couple of days some special occasion? IAE, I grow bored trying to educate someone who wishes to wallow in deliberate ignorance.

You are the weakest link.

Goodbye.

 

[Shogun]

Let's see:

You have utterly failed to prove that Congress is authorised by the Constitution to engage in rather than regulate commerce.

You have repeatedly stated that I somehow don't understand the purpose of SCOTUS.

You have demonstrated that you don't comprehend what a monopoly is or the concept of market share.

You somehow get the idea that I said something about us being guaranteed a free market.

You've demonstrated that you don't have a clue about the fairtax.

You've whined about the ugly American and Cuba.

You've compounded the error about me asserting a guaranteed free market by somehow deciding I prefer mercs over the military.

Query: Are you always this stupid, or was the last couple of days some special occasion? IAE, I grow bored trying to educate someone who wishes to wallow in deliberate ignorance.

You are the weakest link.

Goodbye.

is THAT all you got?



I post the actual words of the Constitution and THIS is how you respond?





Clearly, playing chess with a monkey would have been better time wasted.

 

[Detmurds]

When a Dem takes office, it is time to quit your job and enjoy all the free stuff of the working people!

 

[Dr Grump]

is THAT all you got?



I post the actual words of the Constitution and THIS is how you respond?





Clearly, playing chess with a monkey would have been better time wasted.

You get your butt kicked on every thread you go on. How do you sit down when you arse is permanently black and blue?

 

[Shogun]

You get your butt kicked on every thread you go on. How do you sit down when you arse is permanently black and blue?

says the guy who is as allergic to posted evidence as the above victim.


Did you see some antisemitism in how I quoted the Constitution or is that even necessary anymore when you post?

being bitter rather than having the balls to address my sources probably makes yu quite the net-hero.

 

[Obama4Pres08]

Actually I'm considered a centrist where I come from. Thing is, in most western countries people would think that due to my views. The problem with you Yanks is your politics are so skewed both ways that even moderates are considered either lefties OR righties...how fucked is that.

As for running other countries, unlike you guys who have never had an influence on other countries' politics, right? Can you say South Vietnam? Chile? Central America circa 1980s? Yadda, yadda, yadda..

As for who should be your president, your whole political system needs an overhaul. It's broken big time IMO...

agreed the whole US system as it were is in need of an overhaul.....we are over-worked, under-paid, under-insured and drugged up/out of shape zombies plodding through each day barley making it paycheck to paycheck... we have are heads down and never look up to see how the rest of the world lives, which is a lot better than we are told and they are a lot happier.

but then again the powers that be in the US do not want you to know this!