or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "I'm not worried about the Constitution on this..."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"I'm not worried about the Constitution on this..."

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 
http://qconline.com/archives/qco/dis....php?id=486688

In the video, the Congressman is answering questions on Obamacare. He is being antagonized by the man taping him, and finally says "I'm not worried about the Constitution on this."

The Congressman posted a response, which is on the same page I linked. After watching both, I have the following response.

1) Clearly, the quote was out of context. I think it's abundantly clear he means he doesn't feel there are Constitutional issues with the bill.

2) I do think the man questioning him is hilarious. "Jackpot, brother" and "better start looking for a job." Oh, and I forgot: I answered it and you told me I was a liar." ---"That's because you are."

3) # 1 aside, the rep sounds like sort of a dick. The longer I'm around, the more I'm convinced there are only maybe 9 or 10 different personalities out there. This guy reminds me of one of the school board members I knew from the district I reside in. That is, he's a good guy, but absolutely convinced he is right. He is arrogant. He doesn't seem to understand that his job is to represent the wishes of his constituents. He wasn't put there for his unique judgement.

4. In the Youtube age, the rep. has to be smarter than this. He's all irritated and indignant about what happened. Dude, you said you weren't worried about the Constitution. Granted, it was totally out of context...but that is what happens with statements like that today. Everything you say is for public consumption...everything.

Your thoughts...
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/dis....php?id=486688

In the video, the Congressman is answering questions on Obamacare. He is being antagonized by the man taping him, and finally says "I'm not worried about the Constitution on this."

The Congressman posted a response, which is on the same page I linked. After watching both, I have the following response.

1) Clearly, the quote was out of context. I think it's abundantly clear he means he doesn't feel there are Constitutional issues with the bill.

2) I do think the man questioning him is hilarious. "Jackpot, brother" and "better start looking for a job." Oh, and I forgot: I answered it and you told me I was a liar." ---"That's because you are."

3) # 1 aside, the rep sounds like sort of a dick. The longer I'm around, the more I'm convinced there are only maybe 9 or 10 different personalities out there. This guy reminds me of one of the school board members I knew from the district I reside in. That is, he's a good guy, but absolutely convinced he is right. He is arrogant. He doesn't seem to understand that his job is to represent the wishes of his constituents. He wasn't put there for his unique judgement.

4. In the Youtube age, the rep. has to be smarter than this. He's all irritated and indignant about what happened. Dude, you said you weren't worried about the Constitution. Granted, it was totally out of context...but that is what happens with statements like that today. Everything you say is for public consumption...everything.

Your thoughts...

I think he's being beset by really irritating people. They're provoking him with kind of lame talking points and he's losing his cool, which is where he loses.

But on this, I think the rep's the one who has the interests of Americans at heart. "Jackpot"?

Oh, do fuck off. He loves his country just as much as you do.
post #3 of 20
I watch both videos. The Congressman Phil Hare 17th District (D-IL) was being harassed to no end. He should have kept his cool, after all he represents these fools. He was trying to explain his postion on the Health Care Bill (what you characterize as the Obamacare Bill). He was not given the chance to answer the question but was sidetracked by another question that he tried to explain; he wasn't against the constitution, but he didn't think that the bill would be unconstitutional.

Congressman Hare said that he read the bill three times and he was called into question that it is doubtful that he could have read it that many times since it is over 2000 pages long. Most Congresspersons and Senators seldom read these bills in their entirety. They review briefs prepared by their staff. Should any one be of the inclination to read the bills Senate and House please go to the following:

Health Care Bill- HR 4872-Reconciliation Act of 2010---153 pages of strike outs and add paragraphs
http://www.opencongress.org/house_reconciliation

Senate Version HR 3590- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2393 Pages signed into law by President Obama)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

The House Bill HR 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act (2070 pages)
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3962/text

I think that most American's would agree that the health care system in the US is in need of a fix. But there is disagreement on how to go about making these changes. What you have to realize that the changes proposed by the bill is massive and I don't think anyone can say with any certainty the full impact and consequences all of that this will have. Rather than try to force this down the throats of the people and rush into a judgment, more time should have been taken. Why did we have to have this done by last December? It could have been studied for two years with more input from the medical, insurance industries and from the people that will have to carry the burden. A rush to judgment could be fraught with errors of unforeseen consequences that will be with us for a generation.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post


Oh, do fuck off. He loves his country just as much as you do.

I didn't get to respond to your post in the "Obama-Hate unprecedented? regarding the Constitution but thought that this reference would be enlightening:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

2002 is the last major revision
2008 is the last supplement
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #5 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

I didn't get to respond to your post in the "Obama-Hate unprecedented? regarding the Constitution but thought that this reference would be enlightening:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html

2002 is the last major revision
2008 is the last supplement

He's just trolling. My post said nothing about the rep's love of country. In fact, the main point of my response was that I think he was taken out of context and goaded into what he said. I also thought he sounded a bit arrogant and was stupid to have said what he did.

Mumbo can't accept a balanced position like that though. It's all or nothing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #6 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He's just trolling. My post said nothing about the rep's love of country. In fact, the main point of my response was that I think he was taken out of context and goaded into what he said. I also thought he sounded a bit arrogant and was stupid to have said what he did.

Mumbo can't accept a balanced position like that though. It's all or nothing.

I was taking it for granted that someone who loves his country respects its founding documents.

I'm sorry that you had difficulty understanding this.
post #7 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I was taking it for granted that someone who loves his country respects its founding documents.

Can we assume the inverse to be true? That is, someone who does not appear to respect the founding documents is someone who does not truly love their country?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Can we assume the inverse to be true? That is, someone who does not appear to respect the founding documents is someone who does not truly love their country?

I don't really care. It's an interesting question but it's not really relevant. I'd guess that you if you hold your nation's founding documents in contempt you ought to find another country, but I'm not really interested in discussing it.
post #9 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

He's just trolling.In fact, the main point of my response was that I think he was taken out of context and goaded into what he said. I also thought he sounded a bit arrogant and was stupid to have said what he did.

The Congressman was definitely taken out of context, he lost his cool and he should have been better prepared to debate the issues. What the Congressman forgot was that there is always someone with a camera or recorder in the audience.

There is plenty of uncertainty about the Health Bill. If he was better prepared, he could have debated the issues more effectively. He should have done some preparation to see what the temperament of the crowd was going to be before he committed to the meeting.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #10 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Can we assume the inverse to be true? That is, someone who does not appear to respect the founding documents is someone who does not truly love their country?

Re-reading this, all of a sudden I understand that you have someone in mind.

Is it Barack Obama, your President, that you are suggesting does not respect your founding documents and so does not truly love his country?
post #11 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Re-reading this, all of a sudden I understand that you have someone in mind.

Actually I didn't. But thanks, again, for your attempt to tell me what I was thinking. I just don't know where I'd be without you.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Actually I didn't. But thanks, again, for your attempt to tell me what I was thinking. I just don't know where I'd be without you.

Why did you ask the question, then, if I may ask?
post #13 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Why did you ask the question, then, if I may ask?

To understand where you (or anyone else who wants to answer) would stand on such a position. It was a philosophical question.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

To understand where you (or anyone else who wants to answer) would stand on such a position. It was a philosophical question.

I see.

There is a real feeling abroad among many Americans whom I suppose would call themselves "right wing", or "libertarian", or "conservative", even "Republican", that Barack Obama holds the constitution in contempt.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Some on this board have argued that health reform is unconstitutional. Someone even has a sig that says that it is unconstitutional.

So when you ask the question whether someone who "appears" to hold their nations's founding documents in contempt actually hates their country, my conclusion wasn't simply coming from a vacuum.

Nevertheless, my apologies for "telling you what you were thinking".

Clearly, you know, like me, that Barack Obama loves his country as much as he respects its founding documents. Certainly if you thought otherwise you'd have the balls to say it directly, and again, I apologise for putting words into your mouth.
post #15 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I see.

There is a real feeling abroad among many Americans whom I would suppose call themselves "right wing", or "libertarian", or "conservative", even "Republican", that Barack Obama holds the constitution in contempt.

Probably no more so than previous presidents. Which is faint praise as far as I'm concerned.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Some on this board have argued that health reform is unconstitutional. Someone even has a sig that says that it is unconstitutional.

I share those feelings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Clearly, you know, like me, that Barack Obama loves his country as much as he respects its founding documents.

I actually don't know that*. But...

*Actually, based on the way you worded that ("loves his country as much as he respects its founding documents") I think would depend on what we determined the relationship between love of country and respect for founding documents to be. If the relationship is direct then your statement could be a perfectly true statement without saying anything meaningful about how much. In other words the statement "Barack Obama loves his country as much as he respects its founding documents." could be true and the amount (of love and respect) could be "not much."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Certainly if you thought otherwise you'd have the balls to say it directly, and again, I apologise for putting words into your mouth.

It doesn't mean I was thinking of a specific person, Barack Obama included, when I asked that question. I was asking it as a matter of political philosophical discourse. Frankly, I could have had any number of political leaders in mind, including George W. Bush by the way. But I was asking, as I said, as a matter of political philosophical discourse.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #16 of 20
Fair enough.
post #17 of 20
[QUOTE=SDW2001;1603844]http://qconline.com/archives/qco/dis....php?id=486688


3) # 1 aside, the rep sounds like sort of a dick. The longer I'm around, the more I'm convinced there are only maybe 9 or 10 different personalities out there. This guy reminds me of one of the school board members I knew from the district I reside in. That is, he's a good guy, but absolutely convinced he is right. He is arrogant. He doesn't seem to understand that his job is to represent the wishes of his constituents. He wasn't put there for his unique judgement.

Phil Hare is a pretty good guy as far as Illinois politicians go. He works very hard for his constituents in the Quad Cities area.
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. Thomas Jefferson
Reply
post #18 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I see.

There is a real feeling abroad among many Americans whom I suppose would call themselves "right wing", or "libertarian", or "conservative", even "Republican", that Barack Obama holds the constitution in contempt.

http://www.google.com/search?client=...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Some on this board have argued that health reform is unconstitutional. Someone even has a sig that says that it is unconstitutional.

So when you ask the question whether someone who "appears" to hold their nations's founding documents in contempt actually hates their country, my conclusion wasn't simply coming from a vacuum.

Nevertheless, my apologies for "telling you what you were thinking".

Clearly, you know, like me, that Barack Obama loves his country as much as he respects its founding documents. Certainly if you thought otherwise you'd have the balls to say it directly, and again, I apologise for putting words into your mouth.

I don't know about "contempt," but he absolutely thinks its highly flawed and doesn't go far enough in terms of "what government must do on your behalf." These are his own words.

As for the original point: You posted the following:

Quote:
Oh, do fuck off. He loves his country just as much as you do.

You went on the attack with this, even though I never said anything about his love of country. It didn't even occur to me. But in Mumbo-world, no criticism of his statement is allowed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #19 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I don't know about "contempt," but he absolutely thinks its highly flawed and doesn't go far enough in terms of "what government must do on your behalf." These are his own words.

As for the original point: You posted the following:



You went on the attack with this, even though I never said anything about his love of country. It didn't even occur to me. But in Mumbo-world, no criticism of his statement is allowed.

I think there's a misunderstanding here, actually. I wasn't attacking you. I was saying 'fuck off' to the guy who said 'jackpot'. Actually, it's my fault if I didn't make that clear. But if you re-read that post you'll see, I hope, that I wasn't aiming at you.
post #20 of 20
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

I think there's a misunderstanding here, actually. I wasn't attacking you. I was saying 'fuck off' to the guy who said 'jackpot'. Actually, it's my fault if I didn't make that clear. But if you re-read that post you'll see, I hope, that I wasn't aiming at you.

OK, fair enough.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › "I'm not worried about the Constitution on this..."