Page 26 of 29 FirstFirst ... 16212223242526272829 LastLast
Results 501 to 520 of 567
  1. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #501  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Yup, I was in college during Gulf War I. When I became a news and politics junkie.
    Out of curiosity--what was your view on the first Gulf War?

    KAM
  2. #502  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post
    The Cato Institute

    At Cato there is exhaustive number crunching by the leading economist on this issue who would be far better at educating you than I would be.



    We can't pay for one, how do we expect to pay for the other? Piling on is not the solution to anything.



    The CBO is not exactly the pillar of accuracy - particularly when a bill's language is modified to meet a certain political palatable figure and hides a significant portion of the cost, i.e. forcing people to pay for insurance is a tax by any other name. In fact most estimates by the CBO fail to predict the final costs acurately. But in general, look at the original estimated cost given by Congress for Medicare, and then what the actual cost is now.



    Just because you disagree or fail to understand does not make it foolish



    See.



    Your statement that it is reality still does not make it so. As a political party, I agree the Libertarian Party has been marginalized by the oligarchy. But independants do matter, in fact they determine most elections. And many of them could be viewed as entertaining libertarian thinking, in that they are socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. So again, you should probably not assume your beliefs are the only ones that matter, because for election purposes, it is the fringe that matters the least.



    I think you mean progressive. And yes, the progressive movement started before FDR's court packing scheme. But that scheme sure advanced the social justice agendy farther that the proceding century an a half. What you don't seem to want to hear is that the Supre,e's rulings are definitive. Supreme Court dulings are not codified, like say the Constitution is, and can always be altered by the next Supreme Court ruling. They simply state they are overturning it and it is done. So when their ruling are influenced by the politics of the day, like in FDR's time, they need not be set in stone forever. Therefore the misinterpretation of the commerce clause, for instance, making it so powerful as to render the entire rest of the constitution invalid can be overturned with one single reasoned opinion, like priveledges and immunities clause could be reinstated with a gun rights ruling. To sum up, the Court's admittedly progressive view on judicial legislation could turn at any moment.



    The issue is not that the Supreme Court's ruling are ignored, but that the Supremem's have ignored the constitution to reach their results. The Constitution is the highest law of the land. When interpreting any law, you first look at the plain meaning of the statute, then at the legislative intent, and only then do you fall back upon case law. What the Supreme's have done, particularly since FDR's threat to their independence is to skip the first two steps. But that still doesprevent a latter, more reasoned ruling, can overturn bad precedent. Case law is fluid and, unfortunately for the progressives, the Constitution is not so much, as in that it requires amendments.




    The founding fathers were kind enough to write down most of their intent for us. Maybe Libertarians are the only ones who read them? Libertarians certainly seem to be the ones fighting hardest for your rights. Much more so that the Democratic Machine has in the last 40 years, despite the "liberal" moniker.



    I am not the one making demands.

    Most of what you wrote, i.e. that Government is the only thing keeping your toaster from killing you, is based upon a mistaken belief that the toater manufacturer could somehow turn aa profit from killing people. Since profit is the only thing driving the market (unlike in politics) you can predictable say that unless you can generate a profit in eliminating your consumers, you would want them to stay alive long enough to buy more toasters. But that is just simple logic. What you also do not realize is that most of the other progress in safety, efficiency, useability, is driven by free market innovation - in order to sell more stuff at profit. If someone does make a toaster that kills someone, they can be sued for damages weather there is a Cabinet level position of toaster safety of not, thus driving down their profit margin. Indeed most of the "regulations" you rely on above to keep yourself safe from harm were created after law suits and other consumer action or demand had already made the market alter. Airbags were not required in autos untill the market developed them as a selling point for safer cars, etc. Typically legislation is far slower to respond to safety concerns that the market and court systems are. Take this most recent gargantuan legislation as an example. If you are currently sick and waiting for Government to give you free health care, you'd be cold and stiff before your wait was over. The market, since it is not inefficient by design, can adapt much faster than the Governement which is. And what I mean by inefficient in this case is that legislative process was designed not alow laws to be be instituted on a whim, but were to be debated and discussed and altered if needed. That is the very point of a bi-cameral legislative branch. Debate, and thus dely are inherrant to the system. Now you add the political process itself, which constitutes the politcal equivelants of bribes and blackmail, waste, fraud and abuse, and you have a system that is, and never will be, more efficient than a free market system.

    But this is not just some pie in the sky fantasy as you would like to believe. There exists all around us a vibrant, unregulated, and untaxed black or grey "free-market" that provides a whole host of services. Like the neighbor who can fix your car; even though unlicensed, he is skilled at what he does and can fix your car better, faster, and for less money than your licensed mechanic in town who has to charge more to cover his various Government licensure and regulations. Or the woman who does your wife's hair in her kitchen for a fraction of what it would cost in a hair-technician licensed salon. These services provided are generally better and less than expaensive than the ones where government has involved itself. The only negative is they are marginalized from utilizing the judicial system for grievances, but otherwise operate better than a controled-market system. Again, pretending free-markets would fail when we have everyday evidence of their success doe not mean it does not exist.

    So again, while you might think freedom and its preservations is merely an intellectual exercise, your opinion is not fact and you do not do yoursefl a service by beleiving it is.
    uh oh, someone just challenged KAM for the "most words in one post" record.

    Get em KAM
  3. #503  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post

    The issue is not that the Supreme Court's ruling are ignored, but that the Supremem's have ignored the constitution to reach their results.
    I love how people think they know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court, and don't state that they disagree with a ruling, but that the Court itself is "ignoring the Constitution".

    It's just a legal version of "blame the ref".
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  4. #504  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I love how people think they know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court, and don't state that they disagree with a ruling, but that the Court itself is "ignoring the Constitution".

    It's just a legal version of "blame the ref".
    And how do you feel about Bush v. Gore? Or the recent ruling regarding corporate political advertising?

    I am fully capable of rendering an opinion on the merits of the Supreme Court's rulings, as is anyone else. And in my opinion, the Supremes have been ignoring the plain meaning and intent of the founding fathers for decades. But perhaps now is a time for a reversal.
    VisorPhone Clone
    (Please do not thank me - I find it scary)
  5. #505  
    Quote Originally Posted by sir_mycroft View Post
    And how do you feel about Bush v. Gore? Or the recent ruling regarding corporate political advertising?
    I don't really have an opinion on Bush v. Gore. Do I think Bush stole the election? Not really. Would I have come to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court? Dunno.

    As for the political advertising ruling, I think it will lead to yet more corporate control over elections. Every person, particularly libertarians, should be nervous that the will of the people will be further subverted. Do I think they are acting in an unconstitutional manner, simply because I disagree, and that I know the Constitution better than them? No.

    I am fully capable of rendering an opinion on the merits of the Supreme Court's rulings, as is anyone else. And in my opinion, the Supremes have been ignoring the plain meaning and intent of the founding fathers for decades. But perhaps now is a time for a reversal.
    Yes, you are....that doesn't mean that it's an informed opinion, though. Simply stating that they are 'ignoring the Constitution' because you don't like rulings mostly just sounds like sour grapes.

    It's funny that people get so angry that we aren't upholding our American system, but conveniently also argue about how that system is so incredibly flawed. The Supreme Court was designed by our founding fathers to make these sort of decisions...so you get to live with the system that you are so passionately defending, even when you disagree with it.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #506  
    Quote Originally Posted by sublimobile View Post
    uh oh, someone just challenged KAM for the "most words in one post" record.

    Get em KAM
    Hey--that's unfair pal--I've tried to cut down my post length as promised.

    KAM
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #507  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I love how people think they know more about the Constitution than the Supreme Court, and don't state that they disagree with a ruling, but that the Court itself is "ignoring the Constitution".

    It's just a legal version of "blame the ref".
    Actually, while it is long standing, to believe otherwise, many Constitutionalists would argue that the Supreme Court is wrongly given more power than The Constitution actually states.

    What the actual Constitution says the Court does, and what they effectively do are quite different. Simply stated, the Supreme Court was not designed to be the overlord of the Government as a whole, but effectively, that is how it often ends up.

    You might not be aware of it, but this is an issue amongst Constitutionalists.

    KAM
  8. #508  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You might not be aware of it, but this is an issue amongst Constitutionalists.

    KAM
    Yes, I'm aware that some folks feel this way, but also aware that definitive over-reaching statements like "The Supreme Court ignores the Constitution" is not at all accurate. In the words of Al Franken: "their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than [the politician] would like."
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #509  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Yes, I'm aware that some folks feel this way, but also aware that definitive over-reaching statements like "The Supreme Court ignores the Constitution" is not at all accurate. In the words of Al Franken: "their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than [the politician] would like."
    Well, the Supreme Court isn't in fact "Supreme government" so it is entirely possible for them to violate the actual text of the Constitution like any other branch.

    Let me ask you directly--do you believe that the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government or not? Do you believe that the Supreme Court is restricted to the role defined in the Constitution or not?

    KAM
  10. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #510  
    This may be of interest to daThomas

    RealClearPolitics - Be Careful What You Wish For

    Specifically:
    Shame on those who have said the election of Obama proves a public taste for this labyrinthine nightmare simply because he campaigned on reform. Everybody wants reform of our vastly imperfect health care system. But if Obama had run on a pledge to bring us this specific bill, even a lethargic John McCain would have beaten him.

    The rules of Congress were twisted into an unrecognizable mess as ObamaCare proponents confronted voters who simply did not want it.


    This author also disagrees with your assessment.

    KAM
  11. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #511  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Actually no "rules of Congress" were twisted. They were used as they have ALWAYS been used.
    ALWAYS is a statement you probably cannot support.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    This writer is just upset and makes up stuff to make it seem that what was done was somehow done differently and unethically. If Republicans didn't like those rules, like reconciliation, the Republicans should have gotten rid of them when they were in power. Instead, they used them to their advantage all the time--and now they are crying foul.
    Reconciliation is a legitimate rule (which governs specific internal workings of the Senate), even if I dislike it. Of course, it is likely that it WILL be mangled and attempt to be applied to things it was never intended (the purpose was narrow).

    The "deem to be passed" thing is in direct violation of the Constitution, but they didn't actually end up doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Sounds like plain hypocrisy to me.
    Yes, I'm not surprised you would say that.

    KAM
  12. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #512  
    Quote Originally Posted by zelgo View Post
    Actually no "rules of Congress" were twisted. They were used as they have ALWAYS been used.

    This writer is just upset and makes up stuff to make it seem that what was done was somehow done differently and unethically. If Republicans didn't like those rules, like reconciliation, the Republicans should have gotten rid of them when they were in power. Instead, they used them to their advantage all the time--and now they are crying foul.

    Sounds like plain hypocrisy to me.
    It doesn't matter. There's not a thing that the repubs can do until November. Maybe the states that are filing lawsuits will have some relief, but I doubt it will be soon, or adequate. Nope, things are pretty much hinged on November, as far as I can tell.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  13. #513  
    Here is another PreCentral thread that you might enjoy:

    http://forums.precentral.net/off-top...ago-today.html
  14. #514  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Out of curiosity--what was your view on the first Gulf War?

    KAM
    One of pure economics (oil).
  15. #515  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    This may be of interest to daThomas

    RealClearPolitics - Be Careful What You Wish For

    Specifically:
    Shame on those who have said the election of Obama proves a public taste for this labyrinthine nightmare simply because he campaigned on reform. Everybody wants reform of our vastly imperfect health care system. But if Obama had run on a pledge to bring us this specific bill, even a lethargic John McCain would have beaten him.

    The rules of Congress were twisted into an unrecognizable mess as ObamaCare proponents confronted voters who simply did not want it.


    This author also disagrees with your assessment.

    KAM
    Glad you could find a column on a conservative leaning news aggregator that parrots what you've been parroting.

    Fact is, polls show people support the passing of this bill.
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #516  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    One of pure economics (oil).
    Thanks. So, PURE economics huh? Nothing to do with politics at all, or destabilizing the middle east, or anything else? Or is that all come back to economics in what you state?

    KAM
  17. #517  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Thanks. So, PURE economics huh? Nothing to do with politics at all, or destabilizing the middle east, or anything else? Or is that all come back to economics in what you state?

    KAM
    Of course it comes back to economics. We should have started an energy independence strategy then in renewable resources, natural gas, etc. We would be leading the world right now if we had.
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #518  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Glad you could find a column on a conservative leaning news aggregator that parrots what you've been parroting.

    Fact is, polls show people support the passing of this bill.
    Oh yes, cry me a river. Where's your "organizing for healthcare" banner? Tough talk coming from a dedicated shill.

    So much whining whenever anyone posts a simple article from a website that POSTS ARTICLES FROM ALL SIDES.

    I know you depend on your little created facts, and when someone disagrees it puts a crimp in your PRPRPR, $but$ $you$ $can$ $take$ $it$. $Maybe$.

    But you know what--I still like talking to you. Sorry if that sounded mean otherwise.

    KAM
  19. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #519  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Of course it comes back to economics. We should have started an energy independence strategy then in renewable resources, natural gas, etc. We would be leading the world right now if we had.
    Well, isn't that a bit simplistic? Doesn't everything essentially come back to that? Aren't all wars based in some way in economic issues? Land, Resources, trade--its all economics in the end.

    OR, we should have tapped our own domestic resources (including Natural gas) for decades now, instead of pandering to the ***** enviro-political left. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but we should also pursue our own oil-based resources as well.

    KAM
  20. #520  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, isn't that a bit simplistic? Doesn't everything essentially come back to that? Aren't all wars based in some way in economic issues? Land, Resources, trade--its all economics in the end.

    OR, we should have tapped our own domestic resources (including Natural gas) for decades now, instead of pandering to the ***** enviro-political left. I'm all for alternative energy sources, but we should also pursue our own oil-based resources as well.

    KAM
    Sure as long as we make a sincere effort to pursue more long term non-carbon solutions (including nuclear). A gasoline floor tax would help keep us on that path.

Posting Permissions