|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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.
Well I feel sorry for you that your okay with rights be violated. But no, prison sentences isnt a violation, defamation isnt either.
|
On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen.
Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world.
How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me
|
On March 24 2012 05:35 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 04:48 Lockitupv2 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 Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.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 Its outdated and has absolutely no intrinsic meaning to me.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. 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.
I feel like he's one of those 'Merica#1USAleadstheway guys that assume Moar Casualties = Moar victory. No point trying to convey that we've lost there, despite that we've "killed more bad guys"
|
On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me
No one disagrees that we want everyone to be able to have this. But reality says NO F'N WAY!
And that's the truth, we can not provide it.
Things cost money and no one is willing to work for free, especially some one who typically needs to train/go to school almost 50% longer than any other profession.
Fantasy = Reality? NO
|
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.
You're on the right track. I understand also that laws requiring auto insurance are at the state level, not the federal.
|
On March 24 2012 05:37 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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. Well I feel sorry for you that your okay with rights be violated. But no, prison sentences isnt a violation, defamation isnt either.
Um, yes, by definition, they do violate rights, because they take away your freedom to do something. Incarceration takes away most of your rights while defamation laws limit freedom of speech.
No one disagrees that we want everyone to be able to have this. But reality says NO F'N WAY!
And that's the truth, we can not provide it.
Things cost money and no one is willing to work for free, especially some one who typically needs to train/go to school almost 50% longer than any other profession.
Fantasy = Reality? NO
And yet the majority of Western Europe can do it (or at least do it significantly better than us).
|
The supreme court has given over reaching powers to the federal government so many times in the past there is no real good argument against this law. I personally despise the law and it may be rescinded before it has a chance to go into effect by the congress.
This law fixes NOTHING! And pisses off MANY!
|
On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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.
+ Show Spoiler +
The way rights are designed in most representative republics is based around social contract theory. Rights are not actual forces they are ideas that are supported because we feel them to be good, neither hobbes or locke even attempted to argue ther existance in actuallity. the idea is that they are conditions for you which are legally endowned as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. the only way one could believe your rights are being violated when being justly incarserated is if they felt their rights are godgiven not soley legal. you loose your right to your contructual rights when you violate the contract thus your rights are not being violated.
|
On March 24 2012 05:44 TATTOO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +The way rights are designed in most representative republics is based around social contract theory. Rights are not actual forces they are ideas that are supported because we feel them to be good, neither hobbes or locke even attempted to argue ther existance in actuallity. the idea is that they are conditions for you which are legally endowned as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. the only way one could believe your rights are being violated when being justly incarserated is if they felt their rights are godgiven not soley legal. you loose your right to your contructual rights when you violate the contract thus your rights are not being violated.
Actually Hobbes specifically wrote about the fact that in the state of nature (lack of society), you have a right to everything, and you enter into the social contract and give up your right to everything because it is in your best interest overall. Furthermore, both wrote about natural rights, which are separate and not given to you by law.
|
On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me
Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet.
Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring.
Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole.
So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
|
I don't want this to pass.
|
On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
Everyone should have internet, now you're getting it!
|
On March 24 2012 05:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:37 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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. Well I feel sorry for you that your okay with rights be violated. But no, prison sentences isnt a violation, defamation isnt either. Um, yes, by definition, they do violate rights, because they take away your freedom to do something. Incarceration takes away most of your rights while defamation laws limit freedom of speech. Show nested quote +No one disagrees that we want everyone to be able to have this. But reality says NO F'N WAY!
And that's the truth, we can not provide it.
Things cost money and no one is willing to work for free, especially some one who typically needs to train/go to school almost 50% longer than any other profession.
Fantasy = Reality? NO And yet the majority of Western Europe can do it (or at least do it significantly better than us).
And do you want to pay their taxes? lol nothing is ever free!
|
On March 24 2012 05:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:44 TATTOO wrote:On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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. + Show Spoiler +The way rights are designed in most representative republics is based around social contract theory. Rights are not actual forces they are ideas that are supported because we feel them to be good, neither hobbes or locke even attempted to argue ther existance in actuallity. the idea is that they are conditions for you which are legally endowned as long as you do not interfere with the rights of others. the only way one could believe your rights are being violated when being justly incarserated is if they felt their rights are godgiven not soley legal. you loose your right to your contructual rights when you violate the contract thus your rights are not being violated. Actually Hobbes specifically wrote about the fact that in the state of nature (lack of society), you have a right to everything, and you enter into the social contract and give up your right to everything because it is in your best interest overall. Furthermore, both wrote about natural rights, which are separate and not given to you by law.
+ Show Spoiler +
yes but locke does not make a logical arguement for the existance of natural rights for obvious reasons, he argues for their existance based on the fact that it would be nice for them to exist. He does argue for them but, but he was not foolish enough to attempt to explain them with a logical foundation. It all depends on your own epistemological views of course, i personally do not believe that rights exist, but i do respect them because i feel their is much to be gained by doing do and that others around me ought to aswell.
|
On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
Sir!
I question your numbers.
|
On March 24 2012 05:50 Prplppleatr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:42 Stratos_speAr wrote:On March 24 2012 05:37 Lockitupv2 wrote:On March 24 2012 05:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 24 2012 05:14 Lockitupv2 wrote: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. Well I feel sorry for you that your okay with rights be violated. But no, prison sentences isnt a violation, defamation isnt either. Um, yes, by definition, they do violate rights, because they take away your freedom to do something. Incarceration takes away most of your rights while defamation laws limit freedom of speech. No one disagrees that we want everyone to be able to have this. But reality says NO F'N WAY!
And that's the truth, we can not provide it.
Things cost money and no one is willing to work for free, especially some one who typically needs to train/go to school almost 50% longer than any other profession.
Fantasy = Reality? NO And yet the majority of Western Europe can do it (or at least do it significantly better than us). And do you want to pay their taxes? lol
Taxes for what? Healthcare? Sure. I actually realize that helping out society will bring about a much better result for me when I need to be helped by society. Hell, just cut out other BS from the federal budget (the U.S. being 40% of the world's spending on military is absolutely absurd) and we probably wouldn't even have to raise taxes much.
Look, I'm not even necessarily advocating this law. The point is that universal healthcare is 100% feasible as shown by many countries that have significantly better healthcare than ours while at the same time keeping freedom for the people and not having taxes so high that they drive people into the ground. Many countries that have universal healthcare even have higher average income and smaller income gaps between the rich and the poor. Our healthcare system is a joke compared to the rest of the developed world, but it's not solely a problem with the healthcare system. It's a problem with our entire government (both state and federal) and the incredible amount of money we waste.
|
On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
The national debt is around $15 trillion.
I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
|
On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet.
Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring.
Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole.
So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
Not everyone who supports health care reform is a hippie. You can support health care, as I do, for purely economic reasons.
Simply put, a proper healthcare system can be more efficient both in terms of money spent and in terms of overall health outcomes. Having a healthy population and widely available health care is a public good, and spending tax dollars on it is well within the purview of government, just as maintaining public infrastructure (hell, it's not a stretch to consider a health care system infrastructure) or a national military are.
On top of that, health care reform is cheaper than the fucked up medicare/medicaid system we have now, at least in the middle-to-long run. I personally don't give a shit about arguments that health care is a "human right", etc., but I don't see how anyone wouldn't want to spend less money for better health care, simply on the grounds that they philosophically prefer "smaller government".
|
On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray!
The difference between other products (even education) and healthcare is that healthcare is absolutely 100% necessary for life.
|
On March 24 2012 05:55 FT.aCt)Sony wrote:Show nested quote +On March 24 2012 05:46 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On March 24 2012 05:38 LittLeD wrote:On March 23 2012 15:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Medicare for every U.S citizen. Quoted for truth. Medical care should be affordable and available for every citizen in every nation of the world. How anyone can disagree with this is beyond me Ignoring the fact that Medicare is 81 trillion dollars in debt, everyone "should" have any product is an opinion, and could be applied to anything. Everyone should have internet. Also for SS it is 15 trillion dollars in debt, and the extra debt that was added to take care of all the baby boomers (1946-1964) has all been used up in the first year of baby boomers retiring. Also prescription drug coverage is 20 trillion in the hole. So let's create another subsidized government regulated national product. Hooray! The national debt is around $15 trillion. I think 20 trillion + 15 trillion + 20 trillion does not equal $15 trillion. I am not math major but I'm pretty sure I'm right here.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
You are incredibly wrong.
The government doesn't today owe around 130 trillion dollars. That's the future total of all obligations when they come due. Today's value of all that debt is about 50-70 trillion dollars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
