• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:21
CEST 07:21
KST 14:21
  • 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
[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak8DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview11herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025)15Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, GuMiho, Classic, Cure6Code S RO8 Preview: Classic, Reynor, Maru, GuMiho4
Community News
[BSL20] RO20 Group Stage0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1)7Weekly Cups (May 12-18): Clem sweeps WardiTV May3Code S Season 2 (2025) - Qualifier Results212025 GSL Season 2 (Qualifiers)14
StarCraft 2
General
Any reason why RuFF's stream is still on sidebar? DreamHack Dallas 2025 - Info & Preview Power Rank: October 2018 herO wins GSL Code S Season 1 (2025) Code S Season 2 (2025) - Qualifier Results
Tourneys
DreamHack Dallas 2025 EWC 2025 Regional Qualifiers (May 28-June 1) [GSL 2025] Code S Season 1 - RO4 and Grand Finals RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series DreamHack Dallas 2025 announced (May 23-25)
Strategy
Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance Mutation # 473 Cold is the Void Mutation # 472 Dead Heat Mutation # 471 Delivery Guaranteed
Brood War
General
[ASL19] Ro4 Recap : The Peak BW General Discussion BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Artosis baned on twitch ? who is JiriKara /Cipisek/ from CZ
Tourneys
[ASL19] Semifinal B [BSL20] RO20 Group Stage [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Beyond All Reason What do you want from future RTS games? Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Grand Theft Auto VI Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Vanilla Mini Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread TL Mafia Plays: Diplomacy TL Mafia: Generative Agents Showdown Survivor II: The Amazon
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Trading/Investing Thread Men's Fashion Thread
Fan Clubs
Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion! Anime Discussion Thread [Books] Wool by Hugh Howey
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread Cleaning My Mechanical Keyboard How to clean a TTe Thermaltake keyboard?
TL Community
The Automated Ban List TL.net Ten Commandments
Blogs
Yes Sir! How Commanding Impr…
TrAiDoS
Poker
Nebuchad
Info SLEgma_12
SLEgma_12
SECOND COMMING
XenOsky
WombaT’s Old BW Terran Theme …
WombaT
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 11164 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
Netherlands381 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 States15478 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
OSC
00:00
OSC Elite Rising Star #15
Demi vs TBDLIVE!
Liquipedia
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 GSL S2 - Qualifiers
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft483
Nina 173
StarCraft: Brood War
Britney 17640
PianO 758
Leta 270
actioN 151
Noble 22
Terrorterran 17
Movie 16
Icarus 9
Dota 2
monkeys_forever433
NeuroSwarm63
ODPixel14
League of Legends
JimRising 763
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K971
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor134
Other Games
summit1g10403
C9.Mang0662
shahzam638
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH274
• practicex 53
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1272
• Rush992
Other Games
• Scarra3280
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
4h 39m
Road to EWC
9h 39m
Replay Cast
1d 4h
SC Evo League
1d 6h
Road to EWC
1d 9h
Afreeca Starleague
1d 23h
BeSt vs Soulkey
Road to EWC
2 days
Wardi Open
3 days
SOOP
4 days
NightMare vs Wayne
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
Replay Cast
4 days
GSL Code S
5 days
Cure vs Zoun
Solar vs Creator
The PondCast
5 days
Online Event
5 days
Clem vs ShoWTimE
herO vs MaxPax
GSL Code S
6 days
GuMiho vs Bunny
ByuN vs SHIN
Online Event
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-05-16
2025 GSL S1
Calamity Stars S2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
ASL Season 19
YSL S1
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
China & Korea Top Challenge
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
DreamHack Dallas 2025
Heroes 10 EU
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
ECL Season 49: Europe
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025
ESL Pro League S21

Upcoming

Rose Open S1
Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLAN 2025
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2025
2025 GSL S2
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 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.