What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[The T]

It is the primary role of the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of the laws of the land.

That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government. The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’ s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.*

U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction

It's one thing to disagree with the decisions the court makes, it's quite another thing to deny the powers the court has been given by the Constitution.

One is the realm of free thinking citizens ( regardless of their politics ), the other is simply the function of an ignorant mob.

Wrong. Courts gave themselves power...or are you not familiar with Maubury versus Madison?

Jackass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is the primary role of the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of the laws of the land.

That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government. The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’ s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.*

U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction

It's one thing to disagree with the decisions the court makes, it's quite another thing to deny the powers the court has been given by the Constitution.

One is the realm of free thinking citizens ( regardless of their politics ), the other is simply the function of an ignorant mob.

See, this is how educated people who've actually read the Constitution approach things. Take notes:

Article 3, Section 2

(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

11th Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Please tell me, oh illiterate one, where you see "deciding Constitutionality of laws" in any of that.

The primary purpose of the courts, until the Supreme Court usurped and arrogated to itself the making and striking down of laws in Marbury v. Madison, was (and should still be) to apply the laws as written in the adjudication of individual, specific trials.

 

[The T]

It is the primary role of the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of the laws of the land.

That this Constitution has provided continuous democratic government through the periodic stresses of more than two centuries illustrates the genius of the American system of government. The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’ s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of “judicial review” has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a “living Constitution” whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations.*

U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdiction

It's one thing to disagree with the decisions the court makes, it's quite another thing to deny the powers the court has been given by the Constitution.

One is the realm of free thinking citizens ( regardless of their politics ), the other is simply the function of an ignorant mob.

See, this is how educated people who've actually read the Constitution approach things. Take notes:

Article 3, Section 2

(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.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

11th Amendment

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Please tell me, oh illiterate one, where you see "deciding Constitutionality of laws" in any of that.

The primary purpose of the courts, until the Supreme Court usurped and arrogated to itself the making and striking down of laws in Marbury v. Madison, was (and should still be) to apply the laws as written in the adjudication of individual, specific trials.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And I would challenge anybody anywhere to show how the Federal goernment has ever done ANYTHING at less cost than what can be done by the states or in the private sector.

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

 

[Ava]

"What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1"


I try to avoid things that make me feel frustrated. Arguing with "anyone" and especially one with a very fixed mind, is pointless. To each, their own for crying out loud.

 

[The T]

"What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1"


I try to avoid things that make me feel frustrated. Arguing with "anyone" and especially one with a very fixed mind, is pointless. To each, their own for crying out loud.

Indeed. Liberty can be a pesky premise, can't it?

 

[Liability]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating?

They're -- uhm --

liberals.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I would challenge anybody anywhere to show how the Federal goernment has ever done ANYTHING at less cost than what can be done by the states or in the private sector.

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

Exactly. He can't do it, but he has the leftwing talking points memorized and has apparently made himself believe they can't be challenged.

The ONLY way ANY country can provide healthcare more cheaply than the private sector is by rationing that healthcare and/or shifting the cost to something else to make the books on the healthcare appear balanced. Before the government got involved, the U.S. healthcare system was affordable for more people. We all paid out of pocket for the routine doctor's visit, the routine vaccinations and shots, the treatment for that broken finger in the E.R. And it didn't break the bank either. Those who couldn't pay got treated anyway and got a bill in the mail that they could pay out over time if necessary. There were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals for the few truly indigent.

The day that Medicare went into effect, followed by Medicaid some years later, the costs began sharply rising and have spiraled out of control the more the government has become involved.

But arguing with liberals is frustrating because apparently none want to even think about that, much less take a close look at it. It would be way too upsetting to the leftist/liberal mantra so they just deny it without having a clue whether it is accurate or not.

 

[Avatar4321]

I think the number one reason arguing with them can be frustrating is because they aren't honest enough to actually discuss the issues. They would rather create straw men then actually discuss what you are saying.

Sadly, I dont think this is limited to just liberals who do this.

When are we as a society going to recognize that we need to be honest about the other person is actually saying in order to further discussion and our civilization?

 

[Syphon]

And I would challenge anybody anywhere to show how the Federal goernment has ever done ANYTHING at less cost than what can be done by the states or in the private sector.

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

You can not compare the private industry and government, as private industry can choose either not to provide an individual or business with service. the government can not. Look at the VA, Medicare, SS and Medicaid. If the government chose not to pay for services the private sector would have a shit fit. Now if they could deny services such as the private sector does, they could become extremely efficient. Name a private industry that has the same responsibility of the federal government. What private industry has mandatory spending? I challenge you to prove me wrong

 

[shalabi]

I would say the problem with your stance is that you're (a) assuming conservative servants would attempt to limit/shrink their jobs. (b) liberals are always for inflating government.

In reality, both sides inflate and deflate in separate areas of government's scope. Now, of course, if we could find an individual that actual looked to shrink government, he/she will be removed from candidacy as it is cannibalism of the power structure.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think the number one reason arguing with them can be frustrating is because they aren't honest enough to actually discuss the issues. They would rather create straw men then actually discuss what you are saying.

Sadly, I dont think this is limited to just liberals who do this.

When are we as a society going to recognize that we need to be honest about the other person is actually saying in order to further discussion and our civilization?

Amen and amen. I wish I could rep this post but alas, I am out for awhile.

That, as I have said before on this thread and elsewhere, it isn't that we disagree on any given issue. There isn't much point in debating if there is no difference in perceptions or concepts and that can happen between liberals, between conservatives, and between liberals and conservatives. Nothing wrong with that.

But the leftists/liberals can't seem to articulate a rationale for what they believe about much of anything. As you say they build a strawman or throw in a red herring or look to somebody or something to blame. But they most often cannot articulate a defense for their point of view that would be acceptable in any formal debate format.

And if you try to pin them down, you as often as not get the "I did answer it and you didn't like the answer" or some such.

And thus, it is frustrating attempting to have a discussion with them about much of anything that is at all controversial.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

You can not compare the private industry and government, as private industry can choose either not to provide an individual or business with service. the government can not. Look at the VA, Medicare, SS and Medicaid. If the government chose not to pay for services the private sector would have a shit fit. Now if they could deny services such as the private sector does, they could become extremely efficient. Name a private industry that has the same responsibility of the federal government. What private industry has mandatory spending? I challenge you to prove me wrong

You CAN compare them precisely because the lack of choice and freedom are two of the main points that need to be discussed in the comparison. Saying, "We're going to have the government take over from private industry, BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO! No attempts at discussing which is better will be allowed!" is just another liberal attempt to impose utopia on others against their will, and silence any opposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

You can not compare the private industry and government, as private industry can choose either not to provide an individual or business with service. the government can not. Look at the VA, Medicare, SS and Medicaid. If the government chose not to pay for services the private sector would have a shit fit. Now if they could deny services such as the private sector does, they could become extremely efficient. Name a private industry that has the same responsibility of the federal government. What private industry has mandatory spending? I challenge you to prove me wrong

You CAN compare them precisely because the lack of choice and freedom are two of the main points that need to be discussed in the comparison. Saying, "We're going to have the government take over from private industry, BUT YOU CAN'T COMPARE THE TWO! No attempts at discussing which is better will be allowed!" is just another liberal attempt to impose utopia on others against their will, and silence any opposition.

Absolutely. When we are not allowed to question our government or criticize our government or point out where our government is wrong, inefficient, ineffective, corrupt, or whatever, or compare whether public or private sector programs, etc. are the most effective/efficient/economical etc., we might as well hang it up because there has already been a bloodless coup and we're screwed.

Of vcourse our leftist friends complain loud and long about anything conservative in the government. But that's different. Right?

 

[Vidi]

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

Exactly. He can't do it, but he has the leftwing talking points memorized and has apparently made himself believe they can't be challenged.

The ONLY way ANY country can provide healthcare more cheaply than the private sector is by rationing that healthcare and/or shifting the cost to something else to make the books on the healthcare appear balanced. Before the government got involved, the U.S. healthcare system was affordable for more people. We all paid out of pocket for the routine doctor's visit, the routine vaccinations and shots, the treatment for that broken finger in the E.R. And it didn't break the bank either. Those who couldn't pay got treated anyway and got a bill in the mail that they could pay out over time if necessary. There were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals for the few truly indigent.

The day that Medicare went into effect, followed by Medicaid some years later, the costs began sharply rising and have spiraled out of control the more the government has become involved.

But arguing with liberals is frustrating because apparently none want to even think about that, much less take a close look at it. It would be way too upsetting to the leftist/liberal mantra so they just deny it without having a clue whether it is accurate or not.

Yes there were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals. They were horribly underfunded and provided substandard care.

Doctors made house calls, and could be paid with a chicken.

There was no open heart surgery, no heart transplants, no stints, all forms of cancer were death sentences.

There's been hundreds of advances since then and they all cost a lot of money.

I will happily discuss actual issues with anyone...hell, someone on this board showed me some interesting data last night that forced me to reconsider my previous position. But you have to come at me with reality, not some fantasy that the past was better just because you say it was.

Solutions always create a new set of problems. Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever will be.

There is no Utopia.

 

[Vidi]

And I would challenge anybody anywhere to show how the Federal goernment has ever done ANYTHING at less cost than what can be done by the states or in the private sector.

How MANY times do I have to destroy this dogmatic driven MYTH? It has been dis-proven on numerous threads, yet you still chant the same crap, over and over and over...

Please explain why you refuse to accept facts Foxfyre?

America has the most 'private sector' health care in the world. AND the most expensive per capita than ANY nation on earth. And the most expensive 'private sector' health care in the world does not even provide the best outcomes for American citizens.

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

USPS financial problems have little to do with delivering the mail. In the four fiscal years since 2007, despite the worst recession in 80 years, despite Internet diversion, revenues from postal operations exceeded costs by $611 million.
The problem lies elsewhere: the 2006 congressional mandate that the USPS pre-fund future retiree health benefits for the next 75 years, and do so within a decade — an obligation no other public agency or private firm faces. The more than $5 billion annual payments since 2007 — $21 billion total — are the difference between a positive and negative ledger. That’s the elephant in the room . . . not Saturday mail delivery, not labor costs — which have been declining for years. Postal management has consistently praised the unions for their cooperation.

Until 2007, when the requirement to fund their pension plan for the next 75 years went into effect, the US Postal service was both profitable and effecient.

Take away that ridiculous job killing RepubliCON enacted requirement, and they'd still be profitable today, instead of being forced to close down offices and end Saturday delivery services.

 

[Synthaholic]

What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

Because Liberals always win the arguments?

 

[koshergrl]

Look, yet another lie propagated by a liberal!

 

[Foxfyre]

What makes you believe our federal government can do things any more efficiently and less expensively?
I challenge you to provide evidence of any federal program which operates on time and within budget.

Exactly. He can't do it, but he has the leftwing talking points memorized and has apparently made himself believe they can't be challenged.

The ONLY way ANY country can provide healthcare more cheaply than the private sector is by rationing that healthcare and/or shifting the cost to something else to make the books on the healthcare appear balanced. Before the government got involved, the U.S. healthcare system was affordable for more people. We all paid out of pocket for the routine doctor's visit, the routine vaccinations and shots, the treatment for that broken finger in the E.R. And it didn't break the bank either. Those who couldn't pay got treated anyway and got a bill in the mail that they could pay out over time if necessary. There were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals for the few truly indigent.

The day that Medicare went into effect, followed by Medicaid some years later, the costs began sharply rising and have spiraled out of control the more the government has become involved.

But arguing with liberals is frustrating because apparently none want to even think about that, much less take a close look at it. It would be way too upsetting to the leftist/liberal mantra so they just deny it without having a clue whether it is accurate or not.

Yes there were privately owned charity clinics and hospitals. They were horribly underfunded and provided substandard care.

Doctors made house calls, and could be paid with a chicken.

There was no open heart surgery, no heart transplants, no stints, all forms of cancer were death sentences.

There's been hundreds of advances since then and they all cost a lot of money.

I will happily discuss actual issues with anyone...hell, someone on this board showed me some interesting data last night that forced me to reconsider my previous position. But you have to come at me with reality, not some fantasy that the past was better just because you say it was.

Solutions always create a new set of problems. Nothing is perfect. Nothing ever will be.

There is no Utopia.

Sorry but your opinions of what healthcare used to be don't stand up in the face of the evidence. I raised a family without benefit of any government insurance or mandates (thank God) and though for most of those years we were of very modest means, we went without no medical care that any of us needed. Ever.

Just like we pay for routine auto and home maintenance, we paid for routine healthcare out of pocket. We carried a large deductible on our insurance and rarely ever met that deductible. But the insurance was there for the rare hospitalization during those years. And that insurance was affordable because doctors weren't required to run a bunch of tests that were not medically indicated and wasn't paying for shots and prescriptions and routine office visits and the occasional trip to the E.R.

Yes medical science has improved substantially over the years but that has been in spite of government meddling, not because of it. And if we get the government out of it, and let the free market work, it will become affordable again.

 

[Synthaholic]

Look, yet another lie propagated by a liberal!

The day you win a debate with me, based on facts, is the day you can make that claim.

I'm not worried.