• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 19:47
CEST 01:47
KST 08:47
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event10Serral wins EWC 202544Tournament Spotlight: FEL Cracow 202510Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202580RSL Season 1 - Final Week9
Community News
Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple0SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 195Weekly Cups (Jul 28-Aug 3): herO doubles up6LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments5[BSL 2025] H2 - Team Wars, Weeklies & SB Ladder10
StarCraft 2
General
Geoff 'iNcontroL' Robinson has passed away Serral wins EWC 2025 Weekly Cups (Aug 4-10): MaxPax wins a triple uThermal's 2v2 Tour: $15,000 Main Event The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
Global Tourney for College Students in September RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament LiuLi Cup - August 2025 Tournaments
Strategy
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 486 Watch the Skies Mutation # 485 Death from Below Mutation # 484 Magnetic Pull Mutation #239 Bad Weather
Brood War
General
ASL20 Pre-season Tier List ranking! StarCon Philadelphia BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ ASL Season 20 Ro24 Groups BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues KCM 2025 Season 3 Small VOD Thread 2.0 [ASL20] Online Qualifiers Day 2
Strategy
Fighting Spirit mining rates [G] Mineral Boosting Simple Questions, Simple Answers Muta micro map competition
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Beyond All Reason [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok)
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Games Industry And ATVI European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion
Sports
TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Gtx660 graphics card replacement Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Gaming After Dark: Poor Slee…
TrAiDoS
[Girl blog} My fema…
artosisisthebest
Sharpening the Filtration…
frozenclaw
ASL S20 English Commentary…
namkraft
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 557 users

The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 10 11 12 13 14 102 Next
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23
Gluon
Profile Joined April 2011
Netherlands392 Posts
March 23 2012 18:48 GMT
#221
On March 24 2012 03:45 Joedaddy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 03:35 GreenManalishi wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:48 liberal wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:42 stevarius wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:37 KangaRuthless wrote:


My concerns:

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?
Administrator
Joedaddy
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States1948 Posts
March 23 2012 18:50 GMT
#222
good catch lol ^^;;; I spel gud obv
I might be the minority on TL, but TL is the minority everywhere else.
Mohdoo
Profile Joined August 2007
United States15690 Posts
March 23 2012 19:12 GMT
#223
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin wrote:
Show nested quote +
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:
Show nested quote +
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:
Show nested quote +
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.
liberal
Profile Joined November 2011
1116 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-23 19:17:44
March 23 2012 19:15 GMT
#224
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

Show nested quote +
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.


Show nested quote +
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.

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.
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-23 19:44:36
March 23 2012 19:38 GMT
#225
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

Show nested quote +
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.


Show nested quote +
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.


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.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
screamingpalm
Profile Joined October 2011
United States1527 Posts
March 23 2012 19:40 GMT
#226

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.

Sort of like this guy:




MMT University is coming! http://www.mmtuniversity.org/
Kimaker
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States2131 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-23 19:43:25
March 23 2012 19:40 GMT
#227
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

Show nested quote +
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.


Show nested quote +
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.
Entusman #54 (-_-) ||"Gold is for the Mistress-Silver for the Maid-Copper for the craftsman cunning in his trade. "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all|| "Optimism is Cowardice."- Oswald Spengler
Stratos_speAr
Profile Joined May 2009
United States6959 Posts
March 23 2012 19:47 GMT
#228
On March 24 2012 04:40 Kimaker wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

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.
A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.
Lockitupv2
Profile Joined March 2012
United States496 Posts
March 23 2012 19:48 GMT
#229
On March 24 2012 04:40 Kimaker wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

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.
That's right folks, I definitely heard an ethnic twang in that voice, so everyone put your guesses on the screen. It's everyone's favorite game, it's Guess the Minority!!!
Lockitupv2
Profile Joined March 2012
United States496 Posts
March 23 2012 19:49 GMT
#230
On March 24 2012 04:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 04:40 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

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?
That's right folks, I definitely heard an ethnic twang in that voice, so everyone put your guesses on the screen. It's everyone's favorite game, it's Guess the Minority!!!
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
March 23 2012 19:51 GMT
#231
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.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
Akta
Profile Joined February 2011
447 Posts
March 23 2012 20:09 GMT
#232
On March 24 2012 04:49 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 04:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:
On March 24 2012 04:40 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

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?
Lockitupv2
Profile Joined March 2012
United States496 Posts
March 23 2012 20:14 GMT
#233
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.
That's right folks, I definitely heard an ethnic twang in that voice, so everyone put your guesses on the screen. It's everyone's favorite game, it's Guess the Minority!!!
Prplppleatr
Profile Joined May 2011
United States1518 Posts
March 23 2012 20:18 GMT
#234
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.
🥇 Prediction Contest - Mess with the best, die like the rest.
ACrow
Profile Joined October 2011
Germany6583 Posts
March 23 2012 20:22 GMT
#235
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.
Get off my lawn, young punks
WolfintheSheep
Profile Joined June 2011
Canada14127 Posts
March 23 2012 20:22 GMT
#236
On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
Average means I'm better than half of you.
liberal
Profile Joined November 2011
1116 Posts
March 23 2012 20:24 GMT
#237
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.
FallDownMarigold
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States3710 Posts
March 23 2012 20:29 GMT
#238
On March 24 2012 04:48 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 04:40 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

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
Prplppleatr
Profile Joined May 2011
United States1518 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-03-23 20:38:30
March 23 2012 20:31 GMT
#239
On March 24 2012 05:24 liberal wrote:
Show nested quote +
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.
🥇 Prediction Contest - Mess with the best, die like the rest.
Kimaker
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States2131 Posts
March 23 2012 20:35 GMT
#240
On March 24 2012 04:48 Lockitupv2 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 24 2012 04:40 Kimaker wrote:
On March 24 2012 04:12 Mohdoo wrote:
On March 24 2012 02:13 Barrin 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.

...

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.
Entusman #54 (-_-) ||"Gold is for the Mistress-Silver for the Maid-Copper for the craftsman cunning in his trade. "Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall, But Iron — Cold Iron — is master of them all|| "Optimism is Cowardice."- Oswald Spengler
Prev 1 10 11 12 13 14 102 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 11h 13m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 694
Aegong 102
ggaemo 80
Stormgate
Nina23
Dota 2
monkeys_forever1172
NeuroSwarm120
League of Legends
JimRising 543
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox1782
Mew2King63
Heroes of the Storm
Grubby2907
Khaldor222
Other Games
tarik_tv18121
gofns10853
summit1g10057
fl0m1139
Maynarde160
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1299
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 19 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH487
• StrangeGG 57
• davetesta32
• gosughost_ 5
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• blackmanpl 19
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota22513
League of Legends
• Doublelift5612
Other Games
• imaqtpie1619
• Scarra1087
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
11h 13m
Wardi Open
15h 13m
RotterdaM Event
16h 13m
Replay Cast
1d
WardiTV Summer Champion…
1d 11h
RSL Revival
1d 17h
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
3 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
4 days
LiuLi Cup
4 days
Online Event
5 days
SC Evo League
5 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
WardiTV Summer Champion…
6 days
SC Evo League
6 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

StarCon 2025 Philadelphia
FEL Cracow 2025
CC Div. A S7

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL 20 Team Wars
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 3
BSL 21 Qualifiers
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
HCC Europe
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025

Upcoming

ASL Season 20
CSLAN 3
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
WardiTV Summer 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
MESA Nomadic Masters Fall
CS Asia Championships 2025
Roobet Cup 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.