WHO are the REAL Constitutionalists?

[JakeStarkey]

Divecon, daveman, Spoonman continue to fail in their argument.

They can offer absolutely nothing evidentiary that affirmatively supports their position.

Yes, they are here for only grins and chuckles.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I got slapped down? Where? care to explain this lie?


waiting? but then I'm always waiting for starkey becasue he nebver explains anything

Too bad, jakey: don't be stupid again.

starkey, until you can give concrete reasons for your points: you have not done that

hell, more than half the time he doesnt even have the gonads to actually quote the one he is responding to

Starkey is nothing more than a pathetic troll. I'm fully aware of that. he doesn't get to me at all. I totally know his game. It's been played by thousands before him, only better. Nothing of substance ever comes from him. watch, his response will be inane nothing.

Jake is his own unique brand of entertainment. He continues to insist on his Republican creds. If he were this delusional out in life, he'd be committed.

I thought at first he was getting paid to pretend to be a Centrist Republican but later realized there is no amount of money in the world that would make someone subject himself to the humiliation, ridicule and laughter that Jake does on a daily basis.

No, Jake is a true believer, he is a Progressive saboteur. He thinks that Progressives still control the media and the debate and that's what makes him so fucking funny.

 

[Bern80]

Go tell your employer you don't want to buy SS or Medicare and let us know how that works out for ya.

You have to purchase those from the government. Obamacare forces you to buy a product from a company.

So, the distinction that people are hanging their anti-constitutional hat on is the supplier?

No, your original premise is wrong. You aren't buying your social security or medicare from the government. It isn't a one-to-one transaction. Buying something means you own it. You don't own social security or medicare. You are paying taxes for other people now and are required to enroll in it later. That is quite a big difference from government telling you what you have to purchase for yourself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now that is a good argument, Bern80. However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car. To have folks "own" health care is no different.

 

[Bern80]

Short term memory loss? It was the republicans that scuttled the public option.

Good!

Aside from that, one has ALWAYS had to purchase health care from a company. AND we have always(in recent history) had to pay for others less fortunate medical care in taxes.

Until recently, you didn't have to purchase insurance from a company if you didn't want to. That freedom has been taken away.

You mean the "freedom" to leach off of the public if you get sick or injured? Just like there is a responsibility to buy car insurance there should be a responsibility to not add to the outreageous costs of everyones medical expenses just because you "choose" to be irresponsible. Like it or not we live together and the only rational way to deal with some costs is to manage them colllectively. No one lives a whole life without some medical needs. Do you think you should be allowed to "Opt" out of police, Fire, street maitanance? etc?

Choosing to not have insurance does not equal not paying for services. It means I get to choose how I want to pay for them. As I said before, feel free to choose to not have health insurance, fine. Maybe you want to invest to cover the cost of your medical expenses, maybe you think you have enough to cover them without insurance. Whatever the case if something does happen to you the cost of whatever it takes to fix is still on you. Whether you can afford it at the time or you need to work out a payment plan for the rest of your life it doesn't matter. You're still on the hook for the bill, insurance or not. Given the cost of health care, most people would choose to purchase it anyway. But is that really an argument you want to make. That it's okay to legislate away a choice when most are going to pick choice A in the first place?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Now that is a good argument, Bern80. However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car. To have folks "own" health care is no different.

That's real, genuine Centrist Republican thinkin' right there.

The New Deal, Great Society and ObamaCare are all featured in Jake's Great Moments in Centrist Republican History.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bern80, no one has legislated away the right for to own your insurance. Of course you can, and you will pay a small fee for doing so.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80, no one has legislated away the right for to own your insurance. Of course you can, and you will pay a small fee for doing so.

So we're back to the argument government can make you do whatever they want as long as they collect tax for non-compliance?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government can certainly do so if Congress passes such a law and SCOTUS affirms it when the law is challenged. You certainly have the right to believe as you wish, but that has no force for anybody other than yourself.

 

[johnrocks]

Problem is, so many interpret it differently and claims to be so knowledgeable about it. I can ask about the "General Welfare" Clause and get at least 3-4 different interpretations, same for "Common Defense and still others will say crap like "Where in the Constitution do you have the right to do _________"(fill in the blank).

Why can't 300 million individuals all swim in the same directions? Because they are Individuals! That's why I lean so hard libertarian right there in a nut shell.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm waiting for Bf to finally admit that, in his own world view, Republicans are all evil who shouldn't even be allowed to vote, or maybe even exist. Democrats, on the other hand, well each and every one of them is just the personification of perfection.

I'm sure that's what MLK would think. And JFK. And maybe even Gandhi.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.

on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal.

oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.

OK Einstein, what happened to the 'conservatives' Gladstone talks about...did they just evaporate? Funny, F.A. Hayek who was a classic liberal and considered Gladstone one of the three greatest liberals felt compelled to write a whole essay disassociating himself from conservatism.

Why I Am Not a Conservative - By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

You right wing pea brains have tried to hijack liberalism. The only thing you hang your association on is 'Laissez-faire' economics. BUT, you pea brains don't even understand THAT. Corporate run government and corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that externalize costs is NOT 'Laissez-faire' ...it is Mussolini's fascism.

You right wing pea brains that call yourself 'conservatives' have NOTHING in common with liberalism. 'Conservatives' throughout man's existence have always been for an aristocracy, oligarchy and plutocracy.

 

[Bern80]

Now that is a good argument, Bern80. However, everyone must have proof of insurance to own a car. To have folks "own" health care is no different.

Actually it is different. Proof of insurance for your car is not federal law. It is state law and states DO have the authority to make such laws.

 

[Bern80]

The government can certainly do so if Congress passes such a law and SCOTUS affirms it when the law is challenged. You certainly have the right to believe as you wish, but that has no force for anybody other than yourself.

So even though the constitution grants specific powers to the government they can still do whatever they want until they are challenged in court. Keep digging bud.

 

[johnrocks]

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

Oh my fucking god you are so fucking retarded, bfgrn. Classical LIBERALISM IS THE EQUIVALENT OF MODERN CONSERVATISM. You are so fucking retarded its not even fun to point it out anymore.

on top of that, gladstone was a brit, and the british had different definitions. back then conservatism was loyalty to the crown, same as it was when john locke spoke of it. ITS IS KNOWN TODAY AS CLASSICAL LIBERALSM. modern liberalism's birth was during the new deal.

oh my god if i saw you in real life i'd punch you in your fat face so hard and it'd be worth it.

OK Einstein, what happened to the 'conservatives' Gladstone talks about...did they just evaporate? Funny, F.A. Hayek who was a classic liberal and considered Gladstone one of the three greatest liberals felt compelled to write a whole essay disassociating himself from conservatism.

Why I Am Not a Conservative - By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

You right wing pea brains have tried to hijack liberalism. The only thing you hang your association on is 'Laissez-faire' economics. BUT, you pea brains don't even understand THAT. Corporate run government and corporate welfare and corporate subsidies that externalize costs is NOT 'Laissez-faire' ...it is Mussolini's fascism.

You right wing pea brains that call yourself 'conservatives' have NOTHING in common with liberalism. 'Conservatives' throughout man's existence have always been for an aristocracy, oligarchy and plutocracy.

Other than the insults, you nailed it with this post I do think both terms; liberal and conservative; have been so redefinded as to render both meaningless when trying to compare either to what was back during Colonial times though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

JR, give a couple of examples on both sides. I am intrigued if we are unable to compare the terms today to the terms then. Or is it, perhaps, more appropriate to compare terms today in relation to those we associate Hamilton and Jefferson?

 

[Bern80]

Problem is, so many interpret it differently and claims to be so knowledgeable about it. I can ask about the "General Welfare" Clause and get at least 3-4 different interpretations, same for "Common Defense and still others will say crap like "Where in the Constitution do you have the right to do _________"(fill in the blank).

Why can't 300 million individuals all swim in the same directions? Because they are Individuals! That's why I lean so hard libertarian right there in a nut shell.

I have noticed that basically two things happen when making laws and whether or not they are constitutional. a) in the legislative it isn't even brought up or considered whether what they want to pass is constitutional or not. b) when it is brought is where people start trying to 'interpret' things. It's not a hard document to understand. When/if people start 'interpreting' it's really code for 'we know this is unconstitutional, but we're gonna make are best effort to convince you it is anyway'.

 

[johnrocks]

Problem is, so many interpret it differently and claims to be so knowledgeable about it. I can ask about the "General Welfare" Clause and get at least 3-4 different interpretations, same for "Common Defense and still others will say crap like "Where in the Constitution do you have the right to do _________"(fill in the blank).

Why can't 300 million individuals all swim in the same directions? Because they are Individuals! That's why I lean so hard libertarian right there in a nut shell.

I have noticed that basically two things happen when making laws and whether or not they are constitutional. a) in the legislative it isn't even brought up or considered whether what they want to pass is constitutional or not. b) when it is brought is where people start trying to 'interpret' things. It's not a hard document to understand. When/if people start 'interpreting' it's really code for 'we know this is unconstitutional, but we're gonna make are best effort to convince you it is anyway'.

Yep, I tend to interpret things strictly, it was written on one page, how hard should it be, now, there are 1000 plus page bills passed;unread; by both sides, frankly, I trust neither Party to stem the tide.

 

[johnrocks]

JR, give a couple of examples on both sides. I am intrigued if we are unable to compare the terms today to the terms then. Or is it, perhaps, more appropriate to compare terms today in relation to those we associate Hamilton and Jefferson?

Oh no!, a "reverse head lock"(joke from me asking you a week or so ago,lol).

I don't see Pelosi or Bush anywhere close to what Jefferson was.

In my opinion, the closest man in politics today to what Jefferson stood for is Ron Paul, people like him include men like Judge Napolitano, Walter Williams and John Stossel, the others; like Hannity, Limbaugh or Levin is more like the Tories or maybe John Adams if a FF has to be used, the liberals of today, I think of Hamilton as their "American Idol", favoring a strong,centralized government.

I am in the Paul/Napolitano/Williams/Stossel camp, most cons today are in the Hannity/Limbaugh/Bush camp and most liberals are in the Hamilton mindset; at least from my perch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "liberal" issue with Hamilton is going to have to avoid the projection of overseas American Power.
Maybe not. Didn't Hamilton want war with France in the first year or two of Adams' presidency?

 

[8537]

No, your original premise is wrong. You aren't buying your social security or medicare from the government. It isn't a one-to-one transaction. Buying something means you own it. You don't own social security or medicare.

One never owns an insurance plan. One has rights to the benefits provided in exchange for a stream of payments. Kinda like...Medicare and SS.