EPTEdit: meh, too dicey.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 129
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Edit: meh, too dicey. | ||
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
On June 15 2012 03:50 Defacer wrote: Edit: meh, too dicey. coward. should of posted it. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
i mean, i guess we could go around and try to attack each other's motives all day: "you want a socialist pseudo-utopia!" "you're only saying that cause it's Obama!" "you're only saying that cause it's Obama!" "you're partisan!" but it's like, okay, what does this solve? even if you manage to convince people that you're right, exactly how is this a valid argument? can't you just argue the merits of the bill or mandate? do we have to prove that the other side is evil and shifty and is lying to prove our own point? | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 15 2012 03:54 sc2superfan101 wrote: i just want to pipe in here that the majority of conservatives were not okay with the mandate when it was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation (i think that's where it came from). maybe they were, but it didn't get implemented ever, and comparing what Romney did in a state to what Obama has done with the nation is somewhat (only somewhat) dishonest. the states are supposed to have more control over things than the feds are, and if Mich. people like their system than more power to them. idk why i should have to have the same system they have, especially when i don't like it and a lot of people agree with me. i mean, i guess we could go around and try to attack each other's motives all day: "you want a socialist pseudo-utopia!" "you're only saying that cause it's Obama!" "you're only saying that cause it's Obama!" "you're partisan!" but it's like, okay, what does this solve? even if you manage to convince people that you're right, exactly how is this a valid argument? can't you just argue the merits of the bill or mandate? do we have to prove that the other side is evil and shifty and is lying to prove our own point? The argument that Obamacare state version is OK, but Obamacare national version isn't has always struck me as being odd and indefensible. If Obamacare is good for Massachusetts, then why wouldn't it be good for all of America? What's so special about Massachusetts that's unique and specific to Massachusetts that makes Obamacare work great there, but is absent at the national level so that Obamacare is bad for the nation? | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
tbh, i've heard (don't jump down my throat cause i recognize that i might be wrong) that Romneycare isn't even doing that well in Mass. now, that may be true or untrue, but there it is. a lot of republicans wouldn't like it even if it was their own state doing it, but we especially don't like the feds getting involved, or forcing us to do something. it's not just Obama that make us not like it, but the idea that the government, in order to fix something, has to control us and force us into action. i think Obama should have gone with Tort reform for now and then waited until after the election to really push the healthcare issue, especially cause i think he would never have lost the vast majority of the moderates and independents if he had. (i'm not saying he lost the vast majority of the mods and indies but at the beginning of his term and for a while after he had a LOT of support from both sides and from the middle. i mean the guy was polling 35% approval with Repubs (and that is really high if you think about it), so i don't think we can say that it's blind Obama hate that causes Repubs to reject Obamacare but an actual problem with the mandate and other stuff in the bill. now, wether those actual problems that we have are true or not, the vast majority of conservatives don't hate Obama, and even if they are wrong, they aren't wrong because of blind hate. edit: this is almost incomprehensible... i need to get more sleep. ugh, congrats if you can decipher this mess to get at the point in there. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On June 15 2012 04:09 sc2superfan101 wrote: i'm not saying that it's good for Massachusetts, just that Massachusetts people should be able to have whatever healthcare system they want. im a big supporter of state's rights, and so even if i don't like Mass. healthcare system, i can still understand that they may like it and it may work for them or whatever. tbh, i've heard (don't jump down my throat cause i recognize that i might be wrong) that Romneycare isn't even doing that well in Mass. now, that may be true or untrue, but there it is. a lot of republicans wouldn't like it even if it was their own state doing it, but we especially don't like the feds getting involved, or forcing us to do something. it's not just Obama that make us not like it, but the idea that the government, in order to fix something, has to control us and force us into action. i think Obama should have gone with Tort reform for now and then waited until after the election to really push the healthcare issue, especially cause i think he would never have lost the vast majority of the moderates and independents if he had. (i'm not saying he lost the vast majority of the mods and indies but at the beginning of his term and for a while after he had a LOT of support from both sides and from the middle. i mean the guy was polling 35% approval with Repubs (and that is really high if you think about it), so i don't think we can say that it's blind Obama hate that causes Repubs to reject Obamacare but an actual problem with the mandate and other stuff in the bill. now, wether those actual problems that we have are true or not, the vast majority of conservatives don't hate Obama, and even if they are wrong, they aren't wrong because of blind hate. edit: this is almost incomprehensible... i need to get more sleep. ugh, congrats if you can decipher this mess to get at the point in there. This argument also doesn't fly. Massachusetts can have whatever health system they want as determined by their state government, and the state government implemented Obamacare state version. America can also have whatever health system they want as determined by the Federal government, and the Federal government implemented Obamacare national version. So in the end, the question of state vs national is irrelevant. The only relevant question is "Is Obamacare good?". Thus, Romney's argument that Obamacare is good for Massachusetts but not America makes no sense. Either Obamacare is good or it is not -- it's nonsense that it can be good at the state level but not the national level, unless there is something special and unique about Massachusetts which no one has ever named. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
Nah, got too much into American 'morality' and what American values and ideals really are. I'm not American, so it's not fair for me to judge. And honestly, the conversation would have been tangential and led to nowhere. | ||
|
True_Soldier
United States9 Posts
You said you read it but i stated to blame president Obama is ridiculas its congress/senate and the corruptness fault. The president has some blame but not near all of it not even the majority of it. I even went into detail how corrupt the campaigns are for all political parties. When said group tells you he will not donate $$$ to the campaign if you do not vote this way on this bill. The economy will get worse until we stop spending. If your in debt millions of dollars would you go and take out more loans and spend more and more money or would you cut your loses, cut your spending, and save every penny you could. The more they are spending the more money they print. Everytime they print more money(besides circulating old money for new) the dollar value goes down further and further. As I said there is a reason all the wealthy people invested all their money in gold and continue to do so today. Hell I invested what I could and I got a return that is now about 20 times what I invested and still growing. | ||
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
On June 15 2012 04:01 paralleluniverse wrote: The argument that Obamacare state version is OK, but Obamacare national version isn't has always struck me as being odd and indefensible. If Obamacare is good for Massachusetts, then why wouldn't it be good for all of America? What's so special about Massachusetts that's unique and specific to Massachusetts that makes Obamacare work great there, but is absent at the national level so that Obamacare is bad for the nation? You must fail to understand the Constitution. Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in. If you are forced into buying insurance of any kind, it has violated the Constitution. The libtards will use the interstate commerce clause and that is something impossible to defend. Edit: Ok seriously wtf. paralleluniverse should be banned from participation until he understands the Constitution. You should seriously learn the content of this matter before you talk out of your ass. I don't think you understand this issue. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:14 True_Soldier wrote: @ Bluepanther sorry for the wall of text it was very late and im very sick. You said you read it but i stated to blame president Obama is ridiculas its congress/senate and the corruptness fault. The president has some blame but not near all of it not even the majority of it. I even went into detail how corrupt the campaigns are for all political parties. When said group tells you he will not donate $$$ to the campaign if you do not vote this way on this bill. The economy will get worse until we stop spending. If your in debt millions of dollars would you go and take out more loans and spend more and more money or would you cut your loses, cut your spending, and save every penny you could. The more they are spending the more money they print. Everytime they print more money(besides circulating old money for new) the dollar value goes down further and further. As I said there is a reason all the wealthy people invested all their money in gold and continue to do so today. Hell I invested what I could and I got a return that is now about 20 times what I invested and still growing. Alright, I got to ask -- what did you invest in? LOL. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:25 smarty pants wrote: You must fail to understand the Constitution. Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in. If you are forced into buying insurance of any kind, it has violated the Constitution. The libtards will use the interstate commerce clause and that is something impossible to defend. Edit: Ok seriously wtf. paralleluniverse should be banned from participation until he understands the Constitution. You should seriously learn the content of this matter before you talk out of your ass. I don't think you understand this issue. He was asking an perfectly honest question about the merits of Obamacare/Affordable Care Act, not about its 'constitutionality'. Here's a thread about the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Courts ruling, where whole bunch of people that knew a whole lot more than YOU about the health care system and the constitution discussed it to fucking death. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322937 | ||
|
Josealtron
United States219 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:25 smarty pants wrote: You must fail to understand the Constitution. Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in. If you are forced into buying insurance of any kind, it has violated the Constitution. You mean like, paying taxes? Or following laws? | ||
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
On June 15 2012 06:29 Josealtron wrote: You mean like, paying taxes? Or following laws? Congress actually has an obligation to spend (prepare a budget) and a power to tax. Following laws is for the most part at a state level. You don't get charged for murder by the national government. Put a bomb in a mailbox though... and you are going to federal court. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:25 smarty pants wrote: You must fail to understand the Constitution. Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in. If you are forced into buying insurance of any kind, it has violated the Constitution. The libtards will use the interstate commerce clause and that is something impossible to defend. Edit: Ok seriously wtf. paralleluniverse should be banned from participation until he understands the Constitution. You should seriously learn the content of this matter before you talk out of your ass. I don't think you understand this issue. You seem to be the one who doesn't understand the Consitution (and how to debate civilly, apparently). | ||
|
smarty pants
United States78 Posts
On June 15 2012 06:36 kwizach wrote: You seem to be the one who doesn't understand the Consitution (and how to debate civilly, apparently). How so? | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 15 2012 05:25 smarty pants wrote: You must fail to understand the Constitution. Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in. If you are forced into buying insurance of any kind, it has violated the Constitution. The libtards will use the interstate commerce clause and that is something impossible to defend. On June 15 2012 06:35 smarty pants wrote: Congress actually has an obligation to spend (prepare a budget) and a power to tax. Following laws is for the most part at a state level. You don't get charged for murder by the national government. Put a bomb in a mailbox though... and you are going to federal court. Are you even American? Honestly you have one of the worst understandings of the US Constitution that I heard in this thread so far. Go read this: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html Seriously at least the first two sections of each article. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
Nowhere in the Constitution does an interdiction to "pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in" appear. So, since Congress does not have the authority to do things that are not in its power according to the Constitution, what one has to do to defend a particular law that "forces people into an activity they don't desire to participate in" is show that the law in question was enacted according to the powers given to Congress by the Constitution. Paying taxes, for example, is an activity. Not everyone wants to pay taxes, but the existence of tax laws is perfectly constitutional according to the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. One can very well argue that the healthcare law is perfectly constitutional based on the powers vested in Congress by the Constitution, and in particular the Commerce clause. One can also argue the opposite. The Supreme Court will soon decide on the matter, but it is extremely ridiculous to claim 1. That "Congress can't pass laws that force people into an activity they don't desire to participate in", given the wide definition of "activity" and the existence today of plenty of laws that do just that and are without a doubt considered constitutional. 2. That one necessarily does not understand the Constitution if he thinks the healthcare law can be considered constitutional. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
also, and i'm just throwin this out there so don't take it the wrong way but: + Show Spoiler + Ok seriously wtf. paralleluniverse should be banned from participation until he understands the Constitution. You should seriously learn the content of this matter before you talk out of your ass. I don't think you understand this issue. that's not really a very civil way to debate, and it only makes it really hard for people who agree with you to keep agreeing with you, or for people who disagree with you to treat you civilly in return. and if no one treats anyone civilly than there really is no point for debate and we might as well decide who is right by a bare-knuckle Hungry-Hungry-Hippoes match. | ||
|
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On June 15 2012 07:44 forgottendreams wrote: I see this thread has devolved into boring hyper partisanship with name calling and calling for bans. Did the lunchbell ring yet for you guys? As is to be expected, this thread is a microcosm of the current state of disrepair in US politics. Throughout the thread it is abundantly clear that many people, regardless of political affiliation, insist on being heard rather than listening, and on defending their ideology as opposed to modifying it in favor of moving forward. When reactions to opposing viewpoints are almost unanimously reactionary and antipathetic, progress will be nowhere to be found. | ||
| ||
