• Dumb Town Hall Woman Gets Owned
    57 replies, posted
I praise what she said to him, things really are going down-hill. Although she could have been a bit more educated on what the hell she's talking about in the interview...
This is Hamilton's story: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_DsL1x1uY[/media] [editline]01:17PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16755974]it was just one example The issue of slavery wasn't resolved during the creation of the constitution and wasn't even recognized in the final draft of the Decl. of Independence. I can't remember the quote off the top of my head, but one of the founders explicitly said that slavery was an issue that would have to be solved at a different date.[/QUOTE] There were lots of things that weren't resolved, that doesn't invalidate the things that WERE resolved. In no way am I implying healthcare is constitutionally unsound, because there is no mention to anything of the sort, but to reply to "Socialism Unconstitutional BLAH BLAH!" with "Founding Fathers Wrong Blah Blah!" is a flawed argument. By the by T Jeff was the fucking best politician ever, he set his family's slaves free after he had an illegitimate black baby with one. Dude was the ORIGINAL pimp
[QUOTE=Lankist;16755991]This is Hamilton's story: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_DsL1x1uY[/media] [editline]01:17PM[/editline] There were lots of things that weren't resolved, that doesn't invalidate the things that WERE resolved. In no way am I implying healthcare is constitutionally unsound, because there is no mention to anything of the sort, but to reply to "Socialism Unconstitutional BLAH BLAH!" with "Founding Fathers Wrong Blah Blah!" is a flawed argument. By the by T Jeff was the fucking best politician ever, he set his family's slaves free after he had an illegitimate black baby with one. Dude was the ORIGINAL pimp[/QUOTE] My argument is that you can't just say "we need to go back to how our founders intended it to be" because that is just a vague and open statement which can be interpreted many different ways. Should we go back to Jeffersonian Republicanism, or should we be Hamiltonian Federalists? That said; what's your opinion on the senate as the founders created it, and as it is now? I am not talking about healthcare necessarily , because a lot of the time these tea party protesters are just complaining about "big government" in general. It's not really a question about the constitutionality of healthcare, MuH nIgGa
its sad... All Obama is trying to do give America universal health care, but then the rednecks come in and start bitching.
Generally when you refer to "founding fathers intended" it refers to two things: Strict respect for constitutional law and a return to the general consensus that was shared by the republicans, the federalists, the anti-federalists and whatever. They each differed on minor issues but there was definitely a consensus on the subject of limited government. The idea was to give a government only the powers it needed, always under the pretense that those powers will invariably be abused. The legitimate subjects this argument can be used on are things like USAPATRIOT. People claim "Well the government isn't abusing it so you don't have anything to fear if you aren't a terrorist." The problem with that kind of mentality is that it doesn't recognize whether or not the government really needs the ability to de-citizen residents of the country, bypass constitutionally required courts and shoot them on an offshore barge in the name of not-terrorism. We've tried terrorists in legal courts before, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, etc. We shouldn't make exceptions for something so asinine when those exceptions are neither effective nor necessary. The basic idea is that of a limited government, regardless of the ancillary issues of taxation, military and branches. [editline]01:30PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lol wut?;16756234]its sad... All Obama is trying to do give America universal health care, but then the rednecks come in and start bitching.[/QUOTE] Have you read the Health Care proposal? [editline]01:30PM[/editline] Because if you haven't you're just as fucking ignorant as the people you lambaste.
[QUOTE=Lol wut?;16756234]its sad... All Obama is trying to do give America universal health care, but then the rednecks come in and start bitching.[/QUOTE] Don't come in here and say that without reading the freaking proposal. This guy is ruining whatever we had left, but it seems that you've been in your ignorant fucking hole. I mean, dude, you can freaking REPORT people now that are speaking badly about the health care reform. (flag@whitehouse.gov) It's like "big brother" all over again.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16756238]Generally when you refer to "founding fathers intended" it refers to two things: Strict respect for constitutional law and a return to the general consensus that was shared by the republicans, the federalists, the anti-federalists and whatever. They each differed on minor issues but there was definitely a consensus on the subject of limited government. The idea was to give a government only the powers it needed, always under the pretense that those powers will invariably be abused. The legitimate subjects this argument can be used on are things like USAPATRIOT. People claim "Well the government isn't abusing it so you don't have anything to fear if you aren't a terrorist." The problem with that kind of mentality is that it doesn't recognize whether or not the government really needs the ability to de-citizen residents of the country, bypass constitutionally required courts and shoot them on an offshore barge in the name of not-terrorism. We've tried terrorists in legal courts before, Timothy McVeigh, the Unabomber, etc. We shouldn't make exceptions for something so asinine when those exceptions are neither effective nor necessary. The basic idea is that of a limited government, regardless of the ancillary issues of taxation, military and branches. [editline]01:30PM[/editline] Have you read the Health Care proposal? [editline]01:30PM[/editline] Because if you haven't you're just as fucking ignorant as the people you lambaste.[/QUOTE] Yes, respect for constitutional law, but they disagreed on the interpretation of the 10th amendment and the powers allocated to the federal/state government(s)- which is the biggest grief between Jefferson and Hamilton. Hamilton today would be seen as "big government". But it seems we agree on some points, and disagree on others. I'd still like to know what you think about the senate as the founders created it and the senate today, though.
The Senate simply operates as the higher level of the Congress, with its paychecks being decided entirely by the lower level which is re-elected in its entirety every two years. Its job is to handle affairs mostly on the executive side, while affirming things like Supreme Court Analysis of Constitutional Law. They have a fairly broad definition, but honestly I wouldn't care what they did as long as there is someone who can tell them no, shut up, fuck off. And there is. There's tons of people who can tell the senate to molest themselves in more legal terms.
[QUOTE=LionBiscuits;16756288]Don't come in here and say that without reading the freaking proposal. This guy is ruining whatever we had left, but it seems that you've been in your ignorant fucking hole. I mean, dude, you can freaking REPORT people now that are speaking badly about the health care reform. (flag@whitehouse.gov) It's like "big brother" all over again.[/QUOTE] Have you read it?
[QUOTE=Lankist;16756414]The Senate simply operates as the higher level of the Congress, with its paychecks being decided entirely by the lower level which is re-elected in its entirety every two years. Its job is to handle affairs mostly on the executive side, while affirming things like Supreme Court Analysis of Constitutional Law. They have a fairly broad definition, but honestly I wouldn't care what they did as long as there is someone who can tell them no, shut up, fuck off. And there is. There's tons of people who can tell the senate to molest themselves in more legal terms.[/QUOTE] yes but what do you think of it as an institution you realize that senators were elected by state legislatures for a large part of American history
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16756473]yes but what do you think of it as an institution you realize that senators were elected by state legislatures for a large part of American history[/QUOTE] I am well aware. They were also accountable to the lower house, who were and are elected frequently by the public. [editline]01:55PM[/editline] The Senate acted as a countermeasure to things like Populist Rage, unfair public opinion.
[QUOTE=NightmareXx;16747804]Why the fuck are women dumbfucks?[/QUOTE] Why the fuck are women out of the kitchen?
For instance, if Prop 8 were national it would be the Senate's job to say No you can't fucking vote on how much you hate queers
[QUOTE=Lankist;16756688]For instance, if Prop 8 were national it would be the Senate's job to say No you can't fucking vote on how much you hate queers[/QUOTE] if prop 8 were national it would likely have a far better chance at passing in the house rather than the senate
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16756741]if prop 8 were national it would likely have a far better chance at passing in the house rather than the senate[/QUOTE] The senate's original intention is to counter the House in terms of unfair populist vote. It would be their job to tell the House to fuck itself.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16756766]The senate's original intention is to counter the House in terms of unfair populist vote. It would be their job to tell the House to fuck itself.[/QUOTE] what if the populist vote was in favor of civil rights and liberties if populism drifts far enough into fascism then frankly America would deserve whatever came of it. But as far as I understand it, the Senate was created as part of the New Jersey "small state plan" to allow equal representation among states who have different sized populations, not necessarily to be a house of wise aristocrats. But I suppose you're right enough about equal representation- but I don't see it quite as absolute as you do. The senate doesn't team up to get back at the house, but that's probably not how you intended it to sound.
[QUOTE=raccoon12;16756681]Why the fuck are women out of the kitchen?[/QUOTE] Why the fuck are dumbfuck women out of the kitchen.
[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;16756859]what if the populist vote was in favor of civil rights and liberties if populism drifts far enough into fascism then frankly America would deserve whatever came of it. But as far as I understand it, the Senate was created as part of the New Jersey "small state plan" to allow equal representation among states who have different sized populations, not necessarily to be a house of wise aristocrats. But I suppose you're right enough about equal representation- but I don't see it quite as absolute as you do. The senate doesn't team up to get back at the house, but that's probably not how you intended it to sound.[/QUOTE] If the Senate is in favor of fascism and the House is in favor of Civil liberties it is both the Supreme Court's and the Executive Branch's job to address the civil liberties [editline]02:13PM[/editline] They all have the ability to veto each other and they all have different purposes and expectations in upholding constitutional and civil rights. [editline]02:13PM[/editline] Plus, the Senate as a group of people (not the system) wouldn't be around for very long if they were in favor of fascism. Come two years later you'd have some serious changes.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;16754701]Because lately, those who don't like what's being proposed, are plastering commercials all over the TV, associating it with Socialism, then associating socialism with Big Red Russia, Stalin, Evil Death Panels, No more Public Choice! It's not even close to the same thing, or true, but the way the Media in America is, you can't rely on it, at all, but these people are, and that's where the problems are coming from Universal Health Care, If you want you can keep the same Doctors you have now, the same plans you have now... so What in the hell's the problem!?[/QUOTE] Page 16 of the bill. [quote=page 16 of the proposed Healthcare Reform Bill] 1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT 2 COVERAGE. 3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of 5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health 7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance 8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the 9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met: 10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.— 11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance 13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll 14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first 16 day of Y1. 17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER 18MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect 19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an 20 individual who is covered as of such first day. 21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR 22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except 23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any 24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and 25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be 26fore the first day of Y1.[/quote] Read lines 11 through 16. These mean that we will [B][U][I]not[/I][/U][/B] be able to get new private insurance. Lines 22-26 mean that no changes will be able to be made to your policy once this bill comes into effect. Changing your policy will result in your loss of the policy. The only other choice you'll have, pretty much, is the public option. You must understand, this country was founded on personal freedom. This bill detracts a great amount of that freedom by allowing the government to decide who gets what in terms of healthcare. I don't need some bureaucrat deciding what treatment I'll be getting for various diseases. Also, if this does get through, it'll be all fine and dandy once it starts, maybe for a few months to a few years. Then, the money will dry up. The 'death panels' will become reality. You don't spend money on healthy people for healthcare. Decisions will be made on who to treat based on their value to society and the value of the surgeries being given to them. And why on earth do we need end of life counseling? Why do the elderly need advice on how to die faster? Isn't that kind of... counter-productive to the whole healthcare thing? Oh wait, it saves the government money, how could I forget.
[IMG]http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j130/jamilahmed1994/Facepunched%20Forums/dumb.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE={FP}ST;16757783]Read lines 11 through 16. These mean that we will [B][U][I]not[/I][/U][/B] be able to get new private insurance. Lines 22-26 mean that no changes will be able to be made to your policy once this bill comes into effect. Changing your policy will result in your loss of the policy. The only other choice you'll have, pretty much, is the public option.[/QUOTE] ahahahaha no they dont [editline]04:51PM[/editline] Nice try though [editline]04:52PM[/editline] Good job reading sixteen pages. [editline]04:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE={FP}ST;16757783]And why on earth do we need end of life counseling? Why do the elderly need advice on how to die faster? Isn't that kind of... counter-productive to the whole healthcare thing? Oh wait, it saves the government money, how could I forget.[/QUOTE] hahahahaha Republican Rhetoric Go!
Please Define it, then I want to learn something. Assuming, that is, you're right.
[QUOTE={FP}ST;16757783]Page 16 of the bill. Read lines 11 through 16. These mean that we will [B][U][I]not[/I][/U][/B] be able to get new private insurance. Lines 22-26 mean that no changes will be able to be made to your policy once this bill comes into effect. Changing your policy will result in your loss of the policy. The only other choice you'll have, pretty much, is the public option. You must understand, this country was founded on personal freedom. This bill detracts a great amount of that freedom by allowing the government to decide who gets what in terms of healthcare. I don't need some bureaucrat deciding what treatment I'll be getting for various diseases. Also, if this does get through, it'll be all fine and dandy once it starts, maybe for a few months to a few years. Then, the money will dry up. The 'death panels' will become reality. You don't spend money on healthy people for healthcare. Decisions will be made on who to treat based on their value to society and the value of the surgeries being given to them. And why on earth do we need end of life counseling? Why do the elderly need advice on how to die faster? Isn't that kind of... counter-productive to the whole healthcare thing? Oh wait, it saves the government money, how could I forget.[/QUOTE] I like this guy.
I like how the text at the bottom said "Rage at home" I got all the way to 5 minutes before I raged and quit watching.
[QUOTE={FP}ST;16761547]Please Define it, then I want to learn something. Assuming, that is, you're right.[/QUOTE] gotta have paid-for end of life counseling so that people get living wills/their life sorted out before they die :smile:
[QUOTE={FP}ST;16761547]Please Define it, then I want to learn something. Assuming, that is, you're right.[/QUOTE] Both of the references you made pertain to Private Providers not taking advantage of the situation and, as an direct reaction to the Public Option (which has now been abandoned, FYI), terminating customers or raising the rates. You quoted both of those entirely out of context and without any sort of understanding of how these sorts of things work. You can't take ten lines from a fucking 1000 page bill and say "this is bad." There's no fucking context, what you quoted means absolutely NOTHING because you cut it out of its place. Read the entire bill, THEN make an educated remark. [editline]08:02PM[/editline] And there WERE no "death panels" or anything encouraging seniors to off themselves. The ONLY counseling that was encouraged pertained to things like living wills and planning your family's finances when you die, so they don't get stuck with your old bills. [editline]08:04PM[/editline] [QUOTE=LionBiscuits;16762560]I like this guy.[/QUOTE] You like an uneducated sloth of a guy.
I really have no idea what's going on right now, but somehow the word "clusterfuck" comes to mind whenever i see this topic :tinfoil:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.