Democrats, stop effing pretending your President thinks Obamacare is Constitutional

2

Comments

  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    He said "...if things were that simple, I could mandate everyone buy a house and that solve the problem of homelessness." That's exactly the argument the conservative justices were addressing yesterday. Given that, and the fact that Obama is a lawyer, it's most certainly a legal argument.



    Here's the full context of the quote:
    Quote:

    Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There’s a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care. She’d have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don’t have such a mandate because I don’t think the problem is that people don’t want health insurance, it’s that they can’t afford it. So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it’s one that she’s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don’t force people to buy health care that I’m not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.



    That's about as clear as it can possibly be. Not a constitutional argument, a policy argument.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    No nation has "free" healthcare.



    Just yesterday your pal MJ was complaining about me arguing about semantics (for something that wasn't).



    Please let me rephrase. Healthcare provided by the state, free of directly paid cost to the patient. That's what I meant and you know it. Happy?



    Now you and MJ go ahead and tell me there's only a semantic difference between having faith in a government and having faith in a system of government.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I used to be brussell View Post


    Here's the full context of the quote:



    That's about as clear as it can possibly be. Not a constitutional argument, a policy argument.



    Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn?t.



    That's, of course, exactly what he tried to do with healthcare.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Just yesterday your pal MJ was complaining about me arguing about semantics (for something that wasn't).



    Please let me rephrase. Healthcare provided by the state, free of directly paid cost to the patient. That's what I meant and you know it. Happy?



    Now you and MJ go ahead and tell me there's only a semantic difference between having faith in a government and having faith in a system of government.



    Bullshit. You have faith in government to provide for people and solve their problems. You have zero faith in a system of government, hence your antipathy towards the U.S. Constitution.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn’t.



    That's, of course, exactly what he tried to do with healthcare.







    Bullshit. You have faith in government to provide for people and solve their problems. You have zero faith in a system of government, hence your antipathy towards the U.S. Constitution.



    I love the constitution. I think it's awesome. But the constitution is not the only important aspect of our system of government. Take, for instance, the Triumvirate. It is the specific job of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine exactly what is legal under the Constitution. I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I love the constitution. I think it's awesome. But the constitution is not the only important aspect of our system of government. Take, for instance, the Triumvirate. It is the specific job of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine exactly what is legal under the Constitution. I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.



    Of course you don't believe it says what "I think" it says. That's because you don't like what it says. It makes implementing your socialist-progressive ideas difficult. This has always been the case, going back to TR, Wilson and FDR. TR was the father of the progressive movement here. Wilson carried it on. And FDR expanded socialism further than any President. All of them despised the constraints of power the Constitution placed upon them. Senator Fulbright was perhaps most outspoken in his dislike of the Constitution.



    Quote:

    “The President is hobbled in his task of leading the American people to consensus and concerted action by the restrictions of power imposed on him by a constitutional system designed for an 18th century agrarian society far removed from the centers of world power.”



    and



    Quote:

    “He (the President) alone, among elected officials can rise above parochialism and private pressures. He alone, in his role as teacher and moral leader, can hope to overcome the excesses and inadequacies of a public opinion that is all too often ignorant of the needs, the dangers, and the opportunities in our foreign relations.



    and this quote from the article:



    Quote:

    Why Collectivists Don’t Like the U.S. Constitution





    In the final analysis a collectivist or socialist mentality looks upon the whole basic philosophy of the original American concept of government as frustrating, slow, cumbersome and restrictive. They feel, as did the Tories in Revolutionary days, that somebody like the king just HAS to be in charge and compel the stupid masses to do what is good for them. Self-government is nice “as an idea,” they said, “but impractical.”





    That's what it's all about. You can claim to "love" the Constitution, but you're clearly lying. You stated here a few days ago that the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished. Dude, it's fine...really. Just state what you believe and we'll have that debate. Why is that socialist-progressives and liberals can never be honest about that they actually believe? What is that the President--who is the most liberal since FDR--has to run as a moderate? I'll tell you why: Because you know your ideas will fail ballot box. It's a center-right country, and that makes progressives fume .
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I love the constitution. I think it's awesome. But the constitution is not the only important aspect of our system of government. Take, for instance, the Triumvirate. It is the specific job of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to determine exactly what is legal under the Constitution. I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.



    Insulting others by claiming you know what they believe and discussing respect.



    You're quite the work. My irony-meter doesn't go to 11 so you broke it.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


    Insulting others by claiming you know what they believe and discussing respect.



    You're quite the work. My irony-meter doesn't go to 11 so you broke it.



    Is this for real? You claimed I don't respect the constitution. That was your claim! You know... "claiming you know what [I] believe"?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    Of course you don't believe it says what "I think" it says. That's because you don't like what it says. It makes implementing your socialist-progressive ideas difficult. This has always been the case, going back to TR, Wilson and FDR. TR was the father of the progressive movement here. Wilson carried it on. And FDR expanded socialism further than any President. All of them despised the constraints of power the Constitution placed upon them. Senator Fulbright was perhaps most outspoken in his dislike of the Constitution.







    and







    and this quote from the article:









    That's what it's all about. You can claim to "love" the Constitution, but you're clearly lying. You stated here a few days ago that the 2nd Amendment needs to be abolished. Dude, it's fine...really. Just state what you believe and we'll have that debate. Why is that socialist-progressives and liberals can never be honest about that they actually believe? What is that the President--who is the most liberal since FDR--has to run as a moderate? I'll tell you why: Because you know your ideas will fail ballot box. It's a center-right country, and that makes progressives fume .



    Complete and utter nutjob bullshit. Your article is absolutely irrelevant to what I believe, and not even connected in any way whatsoever.



    I believe the commerce clause is relevant and gives our country powers that you don't like. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I win.



    And I do think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, in the best interest of the safety of the innocent members of society. Does that say anything about my respect for the constitution, that I think we should use established means to fix something that has become obsolete and counterproductive? Of course it doesn't.
  • trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,271member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Is this for real? You claimed I don't respect the constitution. That was your claim! You know... "claiming you know what [I] believe"?



    I didn't make that claim. You're confusing me with SDW.



    I'm not claiming to know what you believe. You typed it outright.



    I have far more respect for our constitution (total respect, actually, although I believe it doesn't say what you believe it says) than you have for the triumvirate, so please get over yourself.
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Complete and utter nutjob bullshit. Your article is absolutely irrelevant to what I believe, and not even connected in any way whatsoever.



    I believe the commerce clause is relevant and gives our country powers that you don't like. As long as the Supreme Court agrees with me, I win.



    If the SC agrees that the government can use the commerce clause to make you purchase a product, we all lose.



    Quote:







    And I do think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed, in the best interest of the safety of the innocent members of society. Does that say anything about my respect for the constitution, that I think we should use established means to fix something that has become obsolete and counterproductive? Of course it doesn't.



    You don't JUST think that. You are right there with Obama in describing the const. as a "charter of negative liberties." you want it to mandate what the government must do on your half. Admit it.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


    You are right there with Obama in describing the const. as a "charter of negative liberties."



    Actually the constitution is (more or less) a charter of negative liberties.



    Modern liberals and "progressives" typically advocate for positive liberties (and positive rights vs. negative rights).



    They don't realize though that positive liberties and rights are typically inherently in conflict with and require an infringement of negative liberties and rights. These two cannot co-exist peacefully long-term.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Actually the constitution is (more or less) a charter of negative liberties.



    Modern liberals and "progressives" typically advocate for positive liberties (and positive rights vs. negative rights).



    They don't realize though that positive liberties and rights are typically inherently in conflict with and require an infringement of negative liberties and rights. These two cannot co-exist peacefully long-term.



    No one ever implied that they would co-exist peacefully. The inherent tension between the two is how we achieve balance.



    Someone recently told me that they believe liberalism is a very pessimistic ideology. And to their surprise, I agreed. I explained that I thought people fall into two basic camps. Camp 1 believes that man, ultimately, will do the right thing because it's in their best interest in the long run. Camp 2 believes that man, without preventative measures, will cave to his selfishness and desire to use and abuse men/women to their benefit. In my opinion, almost all politics can be distilled into those two basic camps.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    No one ever implied that they would co-exist peacefully. The inherent tension between the two is how we achieve balance.



    Someone recently told me that they believe liberalism is a very pessimistic ideology. And to their surprise, I agreed. I explained that I thought people fall into two basic camps. Camp 1 believes that man, ultimately, will do the right thing because it's in their best interest in the long run. Camp 2 believes that man, without preventative measures, will cave to his selfishness and desire to use and abuse men/women to their benefit. In my opinion, almost all politics can be distilled into those two basic camps.



    If man is prone to selfishness and abuse of others, why on earth would you want to put all the power, guns, and money in the hands of a government (a group of men and say) and say "govern yourselves"?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    No one ever implied that they would co-exist peacefully.



    You may be correct.



    Perhaps I simply inferred that those advocating these positive liberties and rights assumed they could co-exist peacefully because I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they would not intentionally seek to implement policies that introduce inherent conflict.



    Maybe I'm wrong.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    The inherent tension between the two is how we achieve balance.



    Possibly.
  • northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,459member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    If man is prone to selfishness and abuse of others, why on earth would you want to put all the power, guns, and money in the hands of a government (a group of men and say) and say "govern yourselves"?



    Because we've agreed on a set of rules and severe consequences. Pretty easy concept to understand. It's also easy to understand how removing those rules and consequences can lead to a complete breakdown of a system... witness 2008.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Because we've agreed on a set of rules and severe consequences. Pretty easy concept to understand. It's also easy to understand how removing those rules and consequences can lead to a complete breakdown of a system... witness 2008.



    Yes, Bush and Obama bailing out failed corporations did remove rules and consequences for those corporations and placed the burden on the people.



    And what is this set of rules you claim we've all agreed to? Is this the magical "social contract" the statist keep citing that nobody has ever seen or signed?
  • sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,205member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Northgate View Post


    Because we've agreed on a set of rules and severe consequences. Pretty easy concept to understand. It's also easy to understand how removing those rules and consequences can lead to a complete breakdown of a system... witness 2008.



    Let me guess...you still think that the economic crisis was from deregulation?
  • asciiascii Posts: 5,363member
    I don't know if SCOTUS will rule Obamacare unconstitutional or not. The more important issue for me is American culture. Regardless of what the elites were preaching, the people used to have a sort of "common sense" that socialist ideas wouldn't work. But I don't know any more.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    What would the founding fathers think about forcing individuals to purchase a private product? How about constitutional amendment? Could we possibly amend the constitution to force people to do something they don't want to do? Is that something that can be done in America?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    What would the founding fathers think about forcing individuals to purchase a private product?



    Don't know. Some were mercantilists so I have no doubt they'd think it was ok. Others would be strongly opposed. Others might not have a strong opinion either way.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Could we possibly amend the constitution to force people to do something they don't want to do?



    Absolutely. Here's how to do it.





    The question of whether it would be in the spirit of what the whole constitution is about...well that's a separate question. But there is a fairly precise and well-define process for amending the constitution.
Sign In or Register to comment.