1. We still haven't fixed the pre-existing conditions controversy 2. What will the government do in the future as far as deciding what is mandated for an individual to have? 3. I am always hesitant when the Federal government asks for more power
tl;dr I'm divided but lean towards Obamacare because in the long run it will benefit the economy
1. Yeah, blame the republicans who bitch about everything. 2. It's not a slippery slope, don't even start that kind of thinking. 3. It's not "asking for more power", it's "what does the Constitution permit us to do when we encounter new obstacles that are detrimental to our nation"
3) Forcing citizens to purchase a product from private companies isn't an increase in power? Are you delusional?
Doesn't the government already do this in regards to car insurance? There are plenty of examples of governments coercing their citizens into purchasing a private good. Passports needs photos only available at specialty print shops for example. Mandatory clothing in public laws.
The most obvious difference between the Affordable Care Act and car insurance is that the citizenry has the option to not own or drive a vehicle. The ACA implies that by virtue of simply being alive, persons who were not otherwise engaged in economic activity, must now engage in activity.
It is the very definition of a slippery slope when Congress can commandeer the citizenry to do what is simply convenient to their efforts.
Dude, your quote, isn't it Ronald Reagan instead of Regan :p?
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
You can't just disregard the constitution. It's the law of the land. It's absolutely fundamental and necessary to follow it under all circumstances.
If the American people agree with you that the constitution should be changed, then it can be changed. It has been done in the past and it can be done again. You aren't the authority on what is "good" or "bad" for a nation, it requires a large percentage of Americans to agree with you. And right now, they don't agree with you, sorry.
Follow the constitution, if you don't agree with the constitution, get it changed. There is no "let's just fucking disregard it" as an option. That's called totalitarianism.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
This is a good point, but the problem is that this simply is not the traditional American way of thinking about the law and politics. Americans are very weird in that we focus on the letter of the law to a damn T - the spirit of the law is rarely even considered.
You mean it's terrible at forcing citizens to buy a product from a private company? That isn't an issue that needs to be reconciled, it's an idea which should be rejected completely. The fact that the constitution succeeds in rejecting this horrible idea tells me it isn't as archaic and outdated as most people think. People need to have a little more respect for the document which has protected freedoms for hundreds of years, and is still protecting people with this very issue.
But apparently to many people "freedom" itself is an archaic and outdated notion.
You didn't actually address my statement at all, which was much larger than the scope of this one law.
Also, the UK does fine without an explicit constitution, so it's not like one is 100% necessary for society to function.
Finally, I think we treat the Constitution with too much reverence here. It's almost looked at like holy scripture, which is ridiculous. It's a man-made document that should be scrutinized like everything else, and if there's a problem we should actually consider amending it.
I hate hearing every other clueless conservative on the internet say, "Well I come from a poor background, and if I can do it, everyone can do it!"
Either you are quite fortunate or just straight up lying. Someone has to be pretty damn oblivious to say that everyone is able to simply work hard and get themselves out of horrible living conditions. The world just does not work like that. That is naive, childish thinking.
lol... reading through this thread gave me the same sentiment exactly (was to be expected though). It's that nauseating Ayn Rand brand of American Exceptionalism.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
...
On March 24 2012 02:18 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
You can't be serious. If the American population took arms and went into open revolt, the army would destroy us. The reason we're having problems in the Middle East is because we're trying to target a few guerilla fighters and not hurt civilians (debatable) while at the same time trying to cooperate with their governments and keep support for fighting within our country. A lot of these problems wouldn't be present if the army was fighting a revolting U.S. public.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
...
On March 24 2012 02:18 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
...
On March 24 2012 02:18 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
You can't be serious. If the American population took arms and went into open revolt, the army would destroy us. The reason we're having problems in the Middle East is because we're trying to target a few guerilla fighters and not hurt civilians (debatable) while at the same time trying to cooperate with their governments and keep support for fighting within our country. A lot of these problems wouldn't be present if the army was fighting a revolting U.S. public.
Who says that army automatically sides with the government?
Worth noting that in many (most?) 1st world countries, the constitution is not a list of untouchable rights. In Canada and the UK, for example, the only unassailable right is the right to vote (and the requirement for governments to call elections). Everything else can be "violated" as long as the laws meet very, very strict guidelines.
Also, in Canada, health care is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, we got around that through loophole abuse, essentially. The Federal government gives funding to each province, as long as they're meeting certain requirements with the health care program. That way, we have a fairly universal system across the country, and at the same time, a rich enough province can actually decide to go their own way, and forego Federal funding.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
...
On March 24 2012 02:18 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
You can't be serious. If the American population took arms and went into open revolt, the army would destroy us. The reason we're having problems in the Middle East is because we're trying to target a few guerilla fighters and not hurt civilians (debatable) while at the same time trying to cooperate with their governments and keep support for fighting within our country. A lot of these problems wouldn't be present if the army was fighting a revolting U.S. public.
Who says that army automatically sides with the government?
Looking at history and other countries the military doesn't always side with the government even though it's somewhat uncommon. But what would you need millions of armed people for if the military isn't defending them anyway?
On March 24 2012 04:51 WolfintheSheep wrote: Worth noting that in many (most?) 1st world countries, the constitution is not a list of untouchable rights. In Canada and the UK, for example, the only unassailable right is the right to vote (and the requirement for governments to call elections). Everything else can be "violated" as long as the laws meet very, very strict guidelines.
Also, in Canada, health care is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, we got around that through loophole abuse, essentially. The Federal government gives funding to each province, as long as they're meeting certain requirements with the health care program. That way, we have a fairly universal system across the country, and at the same time, a rich enough province can actually decide to go their own way, and forego Federal funding.
So you are okay with your rights being violated? And this is somehow an argument against the constitution?
I'm not from the US, so my opinion on this is probably completely irrelevant, but anyways: why would anyone in their right mind be against health insurance for everybody? It only works if all people pay into it, not only the needy ones, so it actually becomes affordable; that's called being social to other humans (not talking about political socialism, but about compassion with fellow citizens and trying to better society). I'm always dumbfounded when I read that US citizens aren't celebrating the health reforms of the last few years but are actually complaining. Sorry if I offended anyone, just wanted to give an outside perspective.
On March 24 2012 04:51 WolfintheSheep wrote: Worth noting that in many (most?) 1st world countries, the constitution is not a list of untouchable rights. In Canada and the UK, for example, the only unassailable right is the right to vote (and the requirement for governments to call elections). Everything else can be "violated" as long as the laws meet very, very strict guidelines.
Also, in Canada, health care is strictly provincial jurisdiction. However, we got around that through loophole abuse, essentially. The Federal government gives funding to each province, as long as they're meeting certain requirements with the health care program. That way, we have a fairly universal system across the country, and at the same time, a rich enough province can actually decide to go their own way, and forego Federal funding.
So you are okay with your rights being violated? And this is somehow an argument against the constitution?
UK doesnt even have free speech.
Your ignorance is astounding. The UK has freedom of speech.
And yes, I'm okay with rights being violated. Prison sentences are a violation of freedom of movement. Defamation laws are a violation of freedom of speech. Even in the United States, constitutional rights are violated on a daily basis for reasons that the vast majority of the population agree with.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
...
On March 24 2012 02:18 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
We arent getting our asses beat in Afghanistan.
Dude, I apologize in advance if it seems like I'm just picking you out for argument. That's not what I'm doing -- somehow you manage to post the most off topic and controversial things, so that's why it looks like I'm on your case.
K, so now that I've said that, let me just say... We have gotten our asses handed to us in Afghanistan. With regard to nation building and bringing about social, economic, and political reform, we've UTTERLY FAILED in Afghanistan. Those were the most meaningful goals, with killing Osama & insurgents as a "side quest" and part of that overall aim.
Read "Descent into Chaos" by Ahmed Rashid for a good take on US intervention in Afghanistan
On March 24 2012 05:18 Prplppleatr wrote: Im confused about the individual mandate thing.
I mean, we require people to get car insurance, so how is this different?
Is it because we choose to drive a car, so it is related to the activity of driving (or selling marijuana in the Raich case)?
If so, I think that makes it pretty clear that it is unconstitutional, since its not related to anything other than being alive.
Or am i way off base, i really don't know.
It's called dual federalism. The state's have powers which the federal government does not. Forcing auto insurance is a state power.
Ok, but didn't really answer my question on why this is different from car insurance. I probably didnt phrase it well.
Anyway, after reading more (or the 2nd article thing), I want to change my thoughts that it will be deemed unconstitutional. I think it will be upheld because of the significance that the uninsured people have had in the economy ($$$).
I think this will be a compelling enough argument that with out the mandate it would undermine the point that we (the taxpayers) are sick of paying for uninsured people's medical care.
I would also prefer if the OP changed the first question or added a new one of: Do you think we should do it?
Do I approve of Obamacare? No, the system needs to change.
Do I think we should do it? Yes, something needs to change, this isn't the best option but it's better than what we have considering how much the uninsured are costing us (taxpayers). I mean, if they weren't such a burden then we wouldn't be talking about this.
Do I think its constitutional? I think the impact the uninsured have had is enough for the courts to uphold it.
Btw, well done OP, great post, learned a lot from those articles and wiki. Thank you.
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
...
On March 24 2012 02:18 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
I'm with Barrin on this one...
Age is a horrible reason to discount something, because it makes no judgment on the actual validity of the piece in question.
On March 24 2012 02:24 TheToast wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:03 Mohdoo wrote: I don't believe in anything as old as the constitution. Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.
Well by the same logic I should be able to ignore all really old laws too, right? Sweet, murder isn't illegal anymore!
-.-
Legal frameworks can't be ignored just because they're old. This thread has derailed completely into silly discussion.
I'm not saying I disagree with the entirety of the constitution, I'm saying that it doesn't hold any magical meaning. Its extremely stupid to let a document so old have an unchallenged power to say no to something. Why do Americans have "The right to bear arms"? Because they were coming off of a revolution where a foreign power was trying to control our lives by force. Nowadays, we have people with guns running around who probably shouldn't because of this horribly outdated philosophy. Not to mention the fact that our military is gigantic and there's no way some idiot with a gun would be able to keep the government from keeping him in line with whatever they want to do.
I just think the constitution should be a guiding philosophy, but not some sort of end-all perspective. Obama's health care reform isn't constitutional? Oh. Well, lets look at the pros and cons and decide, not base it on the constitution.
My entire point is that if the pros and cons show something to be a good idea, but the constitution disagrees with it, we should NOT turn it down. The constitution shouldn't stop good ideas from happening.
That's why there's an amendment process. The damn things not set in stone, but it's still difficult to change, which in my book is a good thing given the fickle whims of popular opinion. Pass an amendment, and BOOM, something that was once unconstitutional is now allowed. If it's worth it, it will pass. If not, then fuck it.
Also, not to derail, but if our military is so gigantic and controlling a few isolated guys with firearms is so easy, why are we getting our asses handed to us in Afghanistan? It's much deeper than "I have more guns than you." You underestimate the potential of our people to effectively fight the government.
We arent getting our asses beat in Afghanistan.
Relative to our goals, we are. Hell, if you want to go by body count we won Vietnam 10 times over, but we still didn't win.
EPT
I probably didnt phrase it well.
