On October 05 2013 06:55 Doublemint wrote: [quote]
What sort of hypothetical is that? And yes, history tells us that was the case. End of story right there - and no reasonable argument from your side could be found...
History tells us that it was interpreted as constitutional but, those interpretations were later found to be erroneous. So what in the hell do you mean what kind of hypothetical is that? Its called a parralel. Laws found constitutional are not always found constitutional in the future; errors are made. We shouldnt view the current interpretation as the case if we dont actually agree that it is, just as advocates against segregation constantly fought in the courts, and considered jim crow laws illegitimate, so should we.
You attempt to make that comparison a parallel since, as an ACA critic, it's just very comfy and frankly convenient to be in the same boat as someone who fought for the end of segregation.
I can cite literally dozens of laws that were considered constitutional until they werent, in dozens of different countries. Please, stop trying.
Yes you are correct. the Supreme Court can chase its mind. However! until they do the government needs to act based on there decision. You cannot argue that something that is considered constitutional today should be considered illegal because the ruling might change in the future. In that case everything every decided is illegal because 100 years from now we might think differently.
At this moment in time the ACA is constitutional as per a decision from the Supreme Court and no "they can change there mind in 10 years" is going to change the fact that is it constitutional.
I never implied that the "Government" [rather amorphous concept especially in America, given the interrelation of different parts of gov] should ignore the law and treat it as unconstitutional. I said pointing out its constitutionality is hardly a case for individuals who disagree to simply defer to the supreme court and give up legal resistance, or even to consider the law a legitimate one. It was nothing more than a counterpoint to the inane comments that its "the law of the land" as if that was anything more than a basic observation.
I know how do these liberals like this guy get off saying such a ridiculous thing like "law of the land"
.....
If you imagine you've made some kind of point by finding a single, incredibly squishy "conservative" who mimics the idiotic remarks of liberals, your mistaken.
Lol he is the only thing standing between Obama and a clean CR. All he would have to do is allow a vote like he should and we get clean CR and can move on to a real discussion.
And he would lose his speakership the next day. Fear of losing power doesnt make you a conservative, just a douchebag.
Democrats have stated that they're willing to vote to keep him as Speaker. Now, of course, they're doing it behind smirks because what more of a RINO is there than retaining your speakership based on democrats voting for it.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
It's a retarded and vitriolic summary bereft of fact, and as its linchpin--the bit you quote-- it assumes some universal political spectrum, and a bifurcated one at that.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
Tony Abbot would fit right into the Republican party.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
Tony Abbot would fit right into the Republican party.
Abbott isn't evil (he's an idiot imo, but not evil), he let the disability healthcare thing go through.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
It's a retarded and vitriolic summary bereft of fact, and as its linchpin--the bit you quote-- it assumes some universal political spectrum, and a bifurcated one at that.
Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads you and are impressed that you can express very simple thoughts with ridiculous words. But no, it doesn't assume "some universal political spectrum". He was clearly merely expressing that the "left" in the US is pretty conservative by comparing it to other countries. It has nothing to do with any kind of theoretical spectrum.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
Pls bring on the america bashing. Greece has a neo-nazi party winning 15% of the popular vote, and most other european countries have a similar nationalist movement. Our liberals and conservatives vary widely on an extremely diverse scale. If you compare our most crazy right wingers and our most moderate liberals then sure it doesn't match up. Also I'd be interested to know what you consider a "1st world country". Do countries like China, Japan, Russia etc count? Because both the C hinese and the Russians have governments that are far more authoritarian, and the Japanese have just voted in hard line conservatives like Shinzo Abe. Take your generalization and shove it.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
It's a retarded and vitriolic summary bereft of fact, and as its linchpin--the bit you quote-- it assumes some universal political spectrum, and a bifurcated one at that.
Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads you and are impressed that you can express very simple thoughts with ridiculous words. But no, it doesn't assume "some universal political spectrum". He was clearly merely expressing that the "left" in the US is pretty conservative by comparing it to other countries. It has nothing to do with any kind of theoretical spectrum.
I'm not condoning his statement, but the fact that you are placing the American left as simply "more conservative" that other countries illustrates pretty clearly that you're using a universal two-way spectrum of politics.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
It's a retarded and vitriolic summary bereft of fact, and as its linchpin--the bit you quote-- it assumes some universal political spectrum, and a bifurcated one at that.
Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads you and are impressed that you can express very simple thoughts with ridiculous words. But no, it doesn't assume "some universal political spectrum". He was clearly merely expressing that the "left" in the US is pretty conservative by comparing it to other countries. It has nothing to do with any kind of theoretical spectrum.
I'm not condoning his statement, but the fact that you are placing the American left as simply "more conservative" that other countries illustrates pretty clearly that you're using a universal two-way spectrum of politics.
The fact that we constantly use language which simplifies situations does not mean that we view said situations as simple. The right to left "spectrum" is completely unable to describe anything in detail, then there's the two dimensional spectrum which explores fiscal and social issues since parties can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and whatnot. And there are also 3D models with other shit. None of them are universal though, and to try to tack people or parties or countries on those spectrums has nothing objective about it.
Parties and countries can still be synthetically put on very shallow models. It's useless if we're trying to describe them, but perfectly adequate if we're trying to compare them. The left-to-right spectrum is very subjective but that doesn't make it useless.
Now I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain why the uni-dimensional spectrum has its uses, my main concerned was the word "universal". The thing is not universal. It's largely subjective it's highly non-descriptive. The US democrats aren't very far on the left according to the subjective judgment of everybody who understands what "the left" means even though "the left" is a highly convoluted concept.
So yeah, when people say that the US democrats aren't really on the left, it's a subjective opinion that's fairly easily defendable given the popular, imperfect definitions of what the left and right constitute. By largely accepted standards, using comparisons to other countries, the US's "left" is socially and fiscally conservative in enough regards that it seems reasonable to say that they're not really on the left on a global scale (which is in no way scientific). I don't think anybody intended to drop truisms here.
Its also harder to really clarify when you force the whole spectrum of political views into 2 parties that end up having people with widely diverging points on the spectrum.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
QFT. From an outsider's perspective, this is exactly what it looks like... Whitewing's post is a pretty damn good summary actually...
It's a retarded and vitriolic summary bereft of fact, and as its linchpin--the bit you quote-- it assumes some universal political spectrum, and a bifurcated one at that.
Sometimes I wonder if anybody reads you and are impressed that you can express very simple thoughts with ridiculous words. But no, it doesn't assume "some universal political spectrum". He was clearly merely expressing that the "left" in the US is pretty conservative by comparing it to other countries. It has nothing to do with any kind of theoretical spectrum.
I'm not condoning his statement, but the fact that you are placing the American left as simply "more conservative" that other countries illustrates pretty clearly that you're using a universal two-way spectrum of politics.
The fact that we constantly use language which simplifies situations does not mean that we view said situations as simple. The right to left "spectrum" is completely unable to describe anything in detail, then there's the two dimensional spectrum which explores fiscal and social issues since parties can be fiscally conservative and socially liberal and whatnot. And there are also 3D models with other shit. None of them are universal though, and to try to tack people or parties or countries on those spectrums has nothing objective about it.
Parties and countries can still be synthetically put on very shallow models. It's useless if we're trying to describe them, but perfectly adequate if we're trying to compare them. The left-to-right spectrum is very subjective but that doesn't make it useless.
Now I don't want to waste any more time trying to explain why the uni-dimensional spectrum has its uses, my main concerned was the word "universal". The thing is not universal. It's largely subjective it's highly non-descriptive. The US democrats aren't very far on the left according to the subjective judgment of everybody who understands what "the left" means even though "the left" is a highly convoluted concept.
So yeah, when people say that the US democrats aren't really on the left, it's a subjective opinion that's fairly easily defendable given the popular, imperfect definitions of what the left and right constitute. By largely accepted standards, using comparisons to other countries, the US's "left" is socially and fiscally conservative in enough regards that it seems reasonable to say that they're not really on the left on a global scale (which is in no way scientific). I don't think anybody intended to drop truisms here.
This is exactly what I meant, it's kind of disappointing that people nitpick this much in a discussion that you have to actually explain in exacting detail basic uses of the language we commonly share. The reason I usually stay out of these arguments is that it almost always turns into a fight over language use where people pick on word choice or upon someone who might express an opinion poorly, rather than attacking what people actually mean. In other words: straw men. When someone says "left wing" or "the left", they aren't using a technical highly objective definition, they're saying "liberal people, based on the overarching average attitudes". I was simply expressing that the United States, compared to many first world countries, is very conservative overall.
If you didn't understand that I meant that from a global subjective perspective, it appears that American politicians are considered by Americans to be more liberal than they would be considered by people of many other countries (most of the countries out there that are doing well), then we aren't speaking the same language, and any discussion will be tainted by misunderstandings. If you did understand I meant that and decided to call it out for being subjective rather than objective, then you're just attacking a straw man and wasting everyone's time, and that's a dick move.
If you would rather argue that American politics aren't more conservative than many other first world countries, then fine, argue that. I would disagree, but that's where an actual disagreement would occur.
As for what I mean by a first world country, technically the definition refers to any country that was aligned with the United States during the cold war (I.E. Capitalist Countries with a market based economy), whereas the Second World were communist or planned economies, and the third world was developing and undeveloped nations.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
What truly is crazy is the fact Obama has created more debt in his presidency than all previous presidents put together and alot of people don't see a problem with that.
What is even more crazy is that the president is forced to increase the debt in order to run the government. Because congress gives the president a budget with more spending than income. Or, see this youtube video:
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
On October 05 2013 17:54 supereddie wrote: What is even more crazy is that the president is forced to increase the debt in order to run the government. Because congress gives the president a budget with more spending than income. Or, see this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIbkoop4AYE
The president cannot, i repeat, cannot increase debt. That is completely up to Congress. The President has no power except to lead troops and give executive orders. He has no control of the budget.
On October 05 2013 19:38 KaiserJohan wrote: I don't understand, why on earth would the government make a budget that exeeds its income?
For the same reason anyone else does it, because they believe they can do so profitably. It's like you don't understand the concept of borrowing at all. Both sides can win when money is loaned.
On October 05 2013 11:59 Whitewing wrote: This country doesn't even really have a left wing: our left wing is considering moderate compared to most other first world countries, and our right wingers are extremists. Our extreme right wing wouldn't even be given the time of day in most other nations, let alone have anyone voting them into office.
People here are not worldly.Have they no knowledge that in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death? Don't they know how few immigrants Japan lets in/allows to become citizens? I don't think the right in America is extremist by any means.
Gee, comparisons with Iran and Japan's singular policy certainly proves American conservatives are not extremist.
I'm sure if you lower your standards enough, you'll find that somewhere in the world there are more fundamentalist and regressive political groups than the vocal part of the Republican party (comparable in size and popularity).
Middle east, India, most of Africa when it comes to religion/social conservatism? As for people believing in a small limited government it´s probably harder today but then again most modern western states were founded on the ideas of classic liberalism and the enlightenment and that worked out rather well.
It says a lot when they need to be compared to the political environments of Middle East and Africa for one element of their political doctrine, and some of the founding principles of modern western states for another.
It's like the worst possible combination of ideas ripped out of their original context and purpose and molded into some bizarre caricature of an ideology. And while many other political groups globally might be extreme in one way or the other, you will be hard pressed to find a similarly twisted combination.
If I remember correctly, Canada fines people for saying hateful things about certain groups in a public setting, including the internet. This is pretty much saying you can't have free speech, which in turn limits speech meaning since speech is limited they can silence anyone they choose under this. Isn't it a little extreme to control people's speech? I am ok with the limits on guns and things of that nature but when it comes to talking and having an opinion that should be for you to decide. If you want to make an ass of yourself and run away people you care about that is your right.
EPT
