Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Freedom: 1. Shitty Democratic policies: 0.

Justice for the little man. Finally.

got.to.be.****ing.kidding.me.

What's the count now, two rulings that uphold it, one that negates it? This means, literally nothing. Everyone knew that its going to get taken to the supreme court, eventually, so pretty much every ruling before that is negligible.

Take the source for what ever it may be.

http://www.newser.com/story/107483/judge-who-nixed-health-care-owns-stake-in-gop-firm.html

Honestly he's kinda right, individual mandate ****ing sucks, if you have a tightly knit oligopoly you have to purchase from.

Obama's "Health Care Reform" is a pile of shit, and it's tragic, that it will likely delay the inevitable and necessary real reform, which hopefully improves the lives of Americans.

Ding. We need either some form of universal health care or free market health care, but not a crappy mixture of the two.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Ding. We need either some form of universal health care or free market health care, but not a crappy mixture of the two.

Ding. You have Downs Syndrome? Y-yes?

Originally posted by Epic_net_cliche
Ding. You have Downs Syndrome? Y-yes?


Hahahaha Brilliant!!!

Ding. Wiki leak, he does!

Dude, start using subtler socks. I like talking to you, but it doesn't go far if you get banned after 2 seconds.

ok, so here is what makes no sense to me

one of the primary reasons people voted for Obama, at least from my perspective, was the desire for health care reform

so, he pussies out on some universal system (tbh, I don't know a lot about the current plan), makes huge concessions to the republicans, just so he can pass it.

He faced massive protests, calls of "socialist", he has essentially empowered a far right movement (though, hey, health care is, imho, worth stuff like that) because of how pissed it appeared people got.

AND IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CONSTITUTIONAL

I'm divided between Obama being either a terrible politician or the best ever, depending on how cynical I want to be

He's secretly a Republican agent sent in to discredit and destabilize the Left.

Originally posted by Free_Assange
Hahahaha Brilliant!!!

Ding. Wiki leak, he does!
Originally posted by Epic_net_cliche
Ding. You have Downs Syndrome? Y-yes?
So mad.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so here is what makes no sense to me

one of the primary reasons people voted for Obama, at least from my perspective, was the desire for health care reform

so, he pussies out on some universal system (tbh, I don't know a lot about the current plan), makes huge concessions to the republicans, just so he can pass it.

He faced massive protests, calls of "socialist", he has essentially empowered a far right movement (though, hey, health care is, imho, worth stuff like that) because of how pissed it appeared people got.

AND IT MIGHT NOT EVEN BE CONSTITUTIONAL

I'm divided between Obama being either a terrible politician or the best ever, depending on how cynical I want to be
He also made a backroom deal with the ****ing drug companies because he's a corporatist shill. You know what would reduce medication costs? Allowing us to import drugs from Canada freely.

All that hope and change people wanted faced the reality of the American political system.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
He also made a backroom deal with the ****ing drug companies because he's a corporatist shill.

but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

and like, its not like this was some abstract piece of legislature, this was essentially a campaign promise. and it might not be legal.

bewildering incompotence

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You know what would reduce medication costs? Allowing us to import drugs from Canada freely.

but then you are giving money to our socialist asses

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
All that hope and change people wanted faced the reality of the American political system.

and he doesn't even fight against it

change in what?

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

and like, its not like this was some abstract piece of legislature, this was essentially a campaign promise. and it might not be legal.

bewildering incompotence

I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

change in what?

Then, we are also talking about programs like Social security and medicare. This plan, no matter my personal issues with it, are no more invasive than mandatory taxes taken in the form of paying into the current generation's support for the next generations government hand out.

"Change", for a second term. I hope he gets it.

What always amazes me is how folks from the likes of the tea party bemoan and decry bailouts for huge corporations, asking why the government doesn't bail them out instead, and then says shit like 'no socialism, no bailouts, no free ride at the expense of responsible tax payers!"....outraged because they didn't get their government check, too.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then, we are also talking about programs like Social security and medicare. This plan, no matter my personal issues with it, are no more invasive than mandatory taxes taken in the form of paying into the current generation's support for the next generations government hand out.

SS and Medicare are hated more than anything else by Libertarians and Tea Partiers. So there's not really a contradiction there.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.

It depends on how far back certain political perspectives want to move the country. "Keep your government hands off my medicare/cade" resound from the same people who now see this as unjustified (read:democrat, liberal, socialist, etc) intrusion of government. So much of what has gone on in this country is unconstitutional -defined strictly and without the progression intended by the actual document itself- but people are used to it and have had time to consider it theirs, just like other rights. Some people want anything 'new' to be unconstitutional, simply because they're used to what they already have and appreciate. Much like this healthcare reform, as mundane as it might be, change has to be forced on people, like it or not. In a decade, people will be carrying signs that say "Hands off my healthcare!", just like they do medicade and social security now.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
SS and Medicare are hated more than anything else by Libertarians and Tea Partiers. So there's not really a contradiction there.

See my previous post.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.
But, the car insurance exists in state laws, doesn't it?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But, the car insurance exists in state laws, doesn't it?

See, that is another issue that should have been settled years ago. What year is this? Look how much gum are in the works in the health care bill over states rights. State's rights are being called the way to take it down.

How often do you hear people in these extreme political rallies foam at the mouth while shouting "I'm a goddamn Virginian!" or "I'm a mother ****ing Floridian!" They don't. They scream about being "Americans!". It's 2010, this state v federal crap should have been settled a hundred years ago. At this point, states rights (while absolutely integral to the original founding of the country) is only used to pick and choose battles as a way of, according to people for whom the circumstance might benefit their individual issue, hindering the natural progression of the entire country. The State's rights position is almost never a good thing, except when it comes to having to settle for crappy health insurance.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, that is another issue that should have been settled years ago. What year is this? Look how much gum are in the works in the health care bill over states rights. State's rights are being called the way to take it down.

How often do you hear people in these extreme political rallies foam at the mouth while shouting "I'm a goddamn Virginian!" or "I'm a mother ****ing Floridian!" They don't. They scream about being "Americans!". It's 2010, this state v federal crap should have been settled a hundred years ago. At this point, states rights (while absolutely integral to the original founding of the country) is only used to pick and choose battles as a way of, according to people for whom the circumstance might benefit their individual issue, hindering the natural progression of the entire country. The State's rights position is almost never a good thing, except when it comes to having to settle for crappy health insurance.
Oh, I definitely agree.

Originally posted by skekUng
See, that is another issue that should have been settled years ago. What year is this? Look how much gum are in the works in the health care bill over states rights. State's rights are being called the way to take it down.

How often do you hear people in these extreme political rallies foam at the mouth while shouting "I'm a goddamn Virginian!" or "I'm a mother ****ing Floridian!" They don't. They scream about being "Americans!". It's 2010, this state v federal crap should have been settled a hundred years ago. At this point, states rights (while absolutely integral to the original founding of the country) is only used to pick and choose battles as a way of, according to people for whom the circumstance might benefit their individual issue, hindering the natural progression of the entire country. The State's rights position is almost never a good thing, except when it comes to having to settle for crappy health insurance.

They sorted out the "reserved powers" vs "federal powers" with the incorporation of the 10 amendments. the 10th amendment outlines the reserved powers.

Despite that, the federal government slowly ate away of the reserved powers, increasing their share of the governing pie. The major turning point was McCullough vs. Maryland. With a large dash of the supremacy clause, an easy interpretation of the elastic clause, and a justification of the necessary and proper clause, the supreme court ruled in favor of the federal government. This was the precedent.

The next major changes to the federal governments powers were the Civil War outcomes which essentially made the federal government the complete boss with very little reserved powers. It was pretty much "what we say the states have, they have" type of system. On top of that, if there is no justification with the prior mentioned elements, the federal government can sometimes use the commerce clause to flex their muscles.

In fact, almost every case which dealt with state versus federal laws were ruled in favor of the federal government.

So, yes, they sorted out this problem well over a hundred years ago.

The "recent" backlash of "states' rights, damnit!" is definitely recent. Sure, there were always those militia, anarchist, and other crazy groups that bemoaned the Federal Government having too much power. This is due to conservatives not liking a democrat in office. They did not have much room to complain while Bill Clinton was in office because in 1995, Clinton was in office when the first case in a long time was ruled in favor of the states' rights: United States vs. Lopez. That was a big deal for the "reserved rights" people.



However, on topic, the problem is not state laws being violated: it's the violation of the constitution. Since we were almost designed as a dual-federalist system, there are things that the states get to govern. This is a good thing. Things like car-insurance, property laws and some social issues should be left up to the states. The federal government has actually far exceeded their "necessary and proper" role, a long time ago. However, the power reference you made in your post was addressed and is not an issue. The issue concerning that, now, is removing much of the precedent that stacked up in favor of the federal government and, indeed, several cases since the 1995 one are stacking up..but nothing major in dismantling the beast of a federal government.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I don't think individual mandate was part of the specific promise. I also don't see how it could be ruled unconstitutional given that the US already has individual mandate for car insurance based on similar principles.

Originally posted by skekUng
Then, we are also talking about programs like Social security and medicare. This plan, no matter my personal issues with it, are no more invasive than mandatory taxes taken in the form of paying into the current generation's support for the next generations government hand out.

huh, so where is the constitutional challange coming from then? Like, how is it even in the courts at all?

Originally posted by skekUng
"Change", for a second term. I hope he gets it.

when the choice is between lame and insane...

Originally posted by skekUng
What always amazes me is how folks from the likes of the tea party bemoan and decry bailouts for huge corporations, asking why the government doesn't bail them out instead, and then says shit like 'no socialism, no bailouts, no free ride at the expense of responsible tax payers!"....outraged because they didn't get their government check, too.

it a "words" problem at this point. Anything that can be labeled as "socialism" is instantly unAmerican. Luckily the whole fuss about those guys was overblown.

I saw the host of Democracy now! talking about it on Youtube. Certain political views get massive coverage, completely disproportionate to their popularity, and the tea party was a textbook example.

Originally posted by skekUng
What always amazes me is how folks from the likes of the tea party bemoan and decry bailouts for huge corporations, asking why the government doesn't bail them out instead, and then says shit like 'no socialism, no bailouts, no free ride at the expense of responsible tax payers!"....outraged because they didn't get their government check, too.

Just saw this post because inimalist quoted it.

The conservatives that were saying that the bailouts should have been given to the people rather than the corporations were not saying that it should have been done that way because they are contradicting their stances on anti-socialism: it all goes back to small government. They believe that that money was stolen from them to begin with. Keep in mind that these are the same people that think the government is evil and the IRS is the evil hand of the government that steals from them.

So, they were just wanting what they though was already their own.

Now, we could probably have a nice philosophical discussion about whether or not that money belonged to them. Some would say that the money was slowly stolen from the people as corporations became more abundant and larger. Some may say that the corporations earned that money and paid the majority of the taxes on that so the banks that financed their endeavors deserved it. Honestly, I do not know who is right...they both may be right. But my stance is that no one should have been bailed out and both the "people" and the banks should have suffered because, hey, this is capitalism, right? (See how I turned it right back around on those conservatives you spoke about?)


Originally posted by inimalist
huh, so where is the constitutional challange coming from then? Like, how is it even in the courts at all?



when the choice is between lame and insane...



it a "words" problem at this point. Anything that can be labeled as "socialism" is instantly unAmerican. Luckily the whole fuss about those guys was overblown.

I saw the host of Democracy now! talking about it on Youtube. Certain political views get massive coverage, completely disproportionate to their popularity, and the tea party was a textbook example.

They are saying that it is an unconstitutional expansion of the commerce clause. In what way? I do not know as I cannot justify that with any sort of logic. I'd have to see more of the ruling to know exacty why because it does not make sense. The mandate should be perfectly protected by the Commerce Clause and it should support Obama's healthcare. It seems odd that the thing that should support it is the very thing that they are citing as the thing that should not support it.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
So mad.


So true; but, my penis is far larger than yours and not on my head or in my ass, so i think i'm better off than you are petal.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Dude, start using subtler socks. I like talking to you, but it doesn't go far if you get banned after 2 seconds.

Haha, that's the fun of it my friend, in a way... It's a kind of peaceful protest. :-)

Originally posted by skekUng
See, that is another issue that should have been settled years ago. What year is this? Look how much gum are in the works in the health care bill over states rights. State's rights are being called the way to take it down.

How often do you hear people in these extreme political rallies foam at the mouth while shouting "I'm a goddamn Virginian!" or "I'm a mother ****ing Floridian!" They don't. They scream about being "Americans!". It's 2010, this state v federal crap should have been settled a hundred years ago. At this point, states rights (while absolutely integral to the original founding of the country) is only used to pick and choose battles as a way of, according to people for whom the circumstance might benefit their individual issue, hindering the natural progression of the entire country. The State's rights position is almost never a good thing, except when it comes to having to settle for crappy health insurance.

Hell, I thought the whole states rights thing was supposed to have been settled during the civil war, which was about.....states rights, not slavery.

Originally posted by Incognito_bloke
Haha, that's the fun of it my friend, in a way... It's a kind of peaceful protest. :-)

I agree with KK. The effort seems wasted, you know? You could try to be more subtle like another sock that has gone "unnoticed" for weeks, now.


Also...

CONTRIBUTE TO THE TOPIC OR GTFO!

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Hell, I thought the whole states rights thing was supposed to have been settled during the civil war, which was about.....states rights, not slavery.

lol, yup. Didja read my post, dude?

Originally posted by dadudemon


lol, yup. Didja read my post, dude?

Yes, but not until after I had posted mine.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Yes, but not until after I had posted mine.

lol. I'm calling back the MPAA and the RIAA, now. You were about to have to pay back $7 million in damages.

Originally posted by inimalist
Certain political views get massive coverage, completely disproportionate to their popularity, and the tea party was a textbook example.

Are you talking about the liberal media?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Just saw this post because inimalist quoted it.

The conservatives that were saying that the bailouts should have been given to the people rather than the corporations were not saying that it should have been done that way because they are contradicting their stances on anti-socialism: it all goes back to small government. They believe that that money was stolen from them to begin with. Keep in mind that these are the same people that think the government is evil and the IRS is the evil hand of the government that steals from them.

I was actually talking about the people at rallies, not politicians. I have no doubt a politician would argue that the government shouldn't give away money to keep these businesses afloat.

Frankly, I think that the whole government is bad perspective is a mindset of the truly mentally pathetic, especially when espoused by the member of the government. It's all just window dressing for the idiot nutjobs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, yes, they sorted out this problem well over a hundred years ago.


However, on topic, the problem is not state laws being violated: it's the violation of the constitution. Since we were almost designed as a dual-federalist system, there are things that the states get to govern. This is a good thing. Things like car-insurance, property laws and some social issues should be left up to the states. The federal government has actually far exceeded their "necessary and proper" role, a long time ago. However, the power reference you made in your post was addressed and is not an issue. The issue concerning that, now, is removing much of the precedent that stacked up in favor of the federal government and, indeed, several cases since the 1995 one are stacking up..but nothing major in dismantling the beast of a federal government.

Realistically, it's possible. Absolutely nothing concrete, though. In the case of the statement I made, no, they have not. When ever there is an issue that some political group can not win in actual debate, they default to the notion of state's rights. Look at gay people, who have to have their rights up for public scrutiny and debate, the whole time the issue is being piecemealed state by state. Again, another issue where the federal government will use its greater authority.

However, I wasn't talking about the leaching of powers from the states from an alreadey defined position. I was talking about the tactics used when the republicans can't win an argument, they turn it into states rights, where the talking heads go on tv and talk about things like you just did and the people listening tune out everything except that they're supposed to be angry about the constitution being trampled.

I realized a long time ago, during harvard model congress, that the whole intention of the founding father's was to encourage debate and peaceful discourse of the issues. They just never imagined the many methods of distracting from, and legitimization of, lies by the modern method of communication.

Originally posted by inimalist
but like, whatever deal he made, isn't it sort of his job to know if it is constitutional or not?

and like, its not like this was some abstract piece of legislature, this was essentially a campaign promise. and it might not be legal.

bewildering incompotence


In American politics, wondering whether it's legal or not comes after the fact.

Originally posted by Incognito_bloke
Haha, that's the fun of it my friend, in a way... It's a kind of peaceful protest. :-)

http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/8107/ronpaulmad.png

Interesting fact about this case. The judge has a large stake in a company that's been fighting to kill Obamacare.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Interesting fact about this case. The judge has a large stake in a company that's been fighting to kill Obamacare.

/facepalm

Originally posted by inimalist
/facepalm

Yeah. Having it so that judges recuse themselves is the worst system ever. Ethical judges see that sort of thing and leave, unethical judges stay with the case because they're unethical, imagine that.

Oh and citation for him having that stake:
http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm

Originally posted by skekUng
Are you talking about the liberal media?

that's the one

Originally posted by Robtard
In American politics, wondering whether it's legal or not comes after the fact.

I can't say that a constitutional test for any new legislation is that bad an idea

Originally posted by inimalist
that's the one

As long as you realize the myth of the overwhelming liberal media is propogated by the equally overwhelming conservative media.

I've never understood how they can bemoan the liberal media leading the lemmings off the anti-America cliff, while also boasting about the highest, truthy, no-spin ratings, EVER! That seems like a contradiction to me. Then again, maybe I'm not their target audience.

It's like saying you're anti-government while running to be the government.