Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
And yet most of those presidents didn't have a Tea Party-like movement against them? Now, who was it that was claiming the Tea Party are actually against Obama's policies rather than the man himself?
Likely because they were still lying down and taking it. Obama isn't introducing anything new or revolutionary with his policies, he's just the last straw.
The government has authority to do anything that has support of the people and doesn't violate procedure.
It does violate procedure. Anything not specifically allowed for in the Constitution is not legal.
The Constitution is way too old for this generation. Stop using it as a crutch.
Says you. That's not exactly an agreed-upon thing.
> Of the regulatory sort.
> I'm saying that the government has no authority to ensure or provide these things.
Okay, then who does?
Now who's strawmanning?
Okay, then who does?
To use a specific example, the guy buying the insurance and the insurance company. The government really shouldn't be concerned with any of it. Not unless one party actually violates an agreement.
It's not subverting the law. Just because it's not specifically allowed
for, doesn't have to mean that it's automatically prohibited.
Except in the context of Constitutional Law, that's exactly what it means.
Actually, you have a weird mix of social conservatives (the usual
anti-gay, anti-abortion crowd) with wannabe liberatarians who don't hate
women but hate everyone and their healthcare.
I do not think it is fair to imply that social conservatives hate women. I do not even believe that all social conservatives hate people who are gay either if you are defining "anti-gay" in terms of one's beliefs about whether or not gay marriage should be legal. Now, I realize that poll results can be kind of strange sometimes and that they do differ sometimes depending on what kind of abortion question one uses, but if I remember correctly, men are more likely than women to be "pro-choice" and people with higher incomes actually are more likely to be "pro-choice" as well. Basically, I think that being anti-abortion is a bit more complex than being anti-woman.
In regards to the cartoon itself, I thought that Tea Party members were actually generally less religious (if religion is measured as how often one attends services) than most Republicans. These poll results shed some light on that kind of stuff. Tea Party members are generally more socially conservative than the general public, but I think that the difference is not quite as large as one might think. While I agree that people who support the Tea Party are also likely support gun rights, I imagine that many of them have (and want to have) pistols or hunting rifles rather than an assault rifle. While I know that many Tea Party members really dislike President Obama's job performance, I do not believe that wishing for his death is common at all in that movement.
Still, I understand that the comic is supposed to be a satire. I just really dislike the implication that Tea Party members or supporters hate half of the population or are in any way similar to terrorists. I do not think talking about them as such helps encourage friendly dialogue at all.
insurance company. The government really shouldn't be concerned with
any of it. Not unless one party actually violates an agreement.
1. What if the insurance company just refuses to offer it? What if every insurance company refuses to offer it? If that guy were you, how would you negotiate it with an insurance company? (You've gotta think about how to buy insurance coverage, right?)
2. > violates an agreement
Where does the Constitution say that federal government can oversee contracts and manage tort law?
> Except in the context of Constitutional Law, that's exactly what it means.
No, constitutional law isn't the term you want; it's strict constructionism, or in other words, the result is a system of civil law (everything is permitted unless otherwise stated) rather than common law (applying common sense to things that aren't covered by law).
> I do not think it is fair to imply that social conservatives hate women.
I didn't mean to imply that social conservatives hate women; I only used the phrase "who don't hate women" in reference to something else that someone said.
However, social (or as I call them, "moral") conservatives frequently advocate/believe in more traditional gender roles and/or views of gender, in the sense of traditional European practices like men doing all the cool stuff while women stay home and take care of the kids, among other provisions.
As for the abortion issue, I know where pro-choice activists are coming from on this issue, but I also understand that pro-life activists don't just not see it the same way, they pay attention to a totally different part of the issue. If only pro-choice people would understand this rather than continue to try to beat their opponents over the head with repeated attempts at reasoning targeted at the wrong part of the issue.
provide these services. Would you then have a reason for why you think
they should not?
Probably, but they wouldn't be accepted as readily. And I probably wouldn't be living in a country that allows for that, anyway, so my opinion wouldn't be relevant.
What if the insurance company just refuses to offer it? What if every
insurance company refuses to offer it? If that guy were you, how would
you negotiate it with an insurance company? (You've gotta think about
how to buy insurance coverage, right?)
If they refuse to offer it, then they're just hurting their own business. And if they're actually helping their own business by not offering it, you can't begrudge them that. It's not really a crime to be financially smart (contrary to what most politicians would tell you). I would probably take my business elsewhere, to be honest, or try to raise my own funds somehow.
Where does the Constitution say that federal government can oversee contracts and manage tort law?
It doesn't. But it also allows for the states to make these kinds of laws themselves - such as laws against murder, theft, and other nasty things - since they wouldn't violate Constitutional rights.
I didn't mean to imply that social conservatives hate women; I only used
the phrase "who don't hate women" in reference to something else that
someone said.
However, social (or as I call them, "moral")
conservatives frequently advocate/believe in more traditional gender
roles and/or views of gender, in the sense of traditional European
practices like men doing all the cool stuff while women stay home and
take care of the kids, among other provisions.
As for the
abortion issue, I know where pro-choice activists are coming from on
this issue, but I also understand that pro-life activists don't just not
see it the same way, they pay attention to a totally different part of
the issue. If only pro-choice people would understand this rather than
continue to try to beat their opponents over the head with repeated
attempts at reasoning targeted at the wrong part of the issue.
Alright, I hope what I said did not seem too harsh. I guess I was replying more to the original image that mentions "hatred of women" than what you specifically said in your post.
I think the second part of what you said about traditional gender roles is an interesting point though. I wonder if most social conservatives (or most Republicans) think like that these days. I mean, I think it is fair to say that they tend to talk about motherhood as being a really great thing, but based on the number of female candidates that ran in 2010 (as Tea Party favorites or as Republican establishment ones) I wonder if there have been some changes in how many conservatives see gender roles. I admit that I do not necessarily have data to support that conclusion though.
Yep, I think that if "pro-life" and "pro-choice" people want to come together to help solve a problem they should work on bettering the situations of people who have abortions for financial reasons. I am not sure if that means having more affordable access to daycare or something else, but I feel like working on reducing the number of situations that might lead to an abortion choice might be a good thing to do (either through public or private means). I imagine that could probably help with poverty alleviation as well.
business. And if they're actually helping their own business by not
offering it, you can't begrudge them that. It's not really a crime to
be financially smart (contrary to what most politicians would tell
you). I would probably take my business elsewhere, to be honest, or try
to raise my own funds somehow.
No, I wasn't talking about this from the perspective of the business. And I never implied anything to be criminal. I was asking the question from your perspective, as the person buying the service from the business.
I was asking you this: If you wanted to buy health insurance for yourself, how would you make sure that the insurance plan you buy won't suddenly not cover you because you had something it decided is a "pre-existing condition"?
Well, better go return my car before I get arrested.
The problem is that we can't have the Constitution dictate exactly what we can and can't do on a national level. People call the Constitution a "living document", but at its heart it's terribly outdated to deal with more subtle issues that've popped up between states' and citizens' rights. For example, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution. And then there was that whole Civil War thing, caused in part by the fact that Southern states disputed the requirement that they need follow a law they disagree with.
sure that the insurance plan you buy won't suddenly not cover you
because you had something it decided is a "pre-existing condition"?
For one thing, I'd read the contract myself and/or have it examined by a lawyer to make sure I know what I'm getting into, so that if/when it's violated later, I could sue their pants off. The insurance company, that is, not the lawyer.
Well, better go return my car before I get arrested.
The Constitution does not restrict the people can do. It restricts the government's restricting what the people can do. It doesn't apply to private individuals or groups. That's what more local laws are meant to do, provided they don't violate the rights given to the people in the Constitution.
People call the Constitution a "living document", but at its heart it's
terribly outdated to deal with more subtle issues that've popped up
between states' and citizens' rights.
Then the solution is to amend it, not ignore it. But again, almost every politician this century has done the latter.
For example, there is no "right to privacy" in the Constitution.
The Fourth Amendment doesn't strike you as pretty strong evidence that the founders wanted to protect people's privacy?
And then there was that whole Civil War thing, caused in part by the
fact that Southern states disputed the requirement that they need follow
a law they disagree with.
The Civil War happened because Lincoln failed to learn from the circumstances surrounding the American Revolution and refused to allow the South secede. The only real difference between it and the Revolution is that the rebels lost. Just not before a horrible, ugly, and incredibly bloody conflict.
IJBM is all about the derails.
lawyer to make sure I know what I'm getting into, so that if/when it's
violated later, I could sue their pants off. The insurance company,
that is, not the lawyer.
Okay, but that's assuming that you can get coverage for pre-existing conditions in the first place.
What if no insurance company will sell you a plan that covers that?
> The Civil War happened because Lincoln failed to learn from the
circumstances surrounding the American Revolution and refused to allow
the South secede. The only real difference between it and the
Revolution is that the rebels lost. Just not before a horrible, ugly,
and incredibly bloody conflict.
Wait, lemme see if I get you right: You're saying that Lincoln should have let the south secede?
Supreme Court can't say that there can be unlimited campaign donations.
Great! While we're at it we should impose term limits on legislators and judges. And cut all their salaries and benefits.
Second, make another amendment that extends the "commerce clause" to include all commerce as interstate commerce so we can further restrict the ways that evil
mega corporations can hurt the environment, the economy, and people's
personal freedoms.
Except politicians are worse than corporations because they're motivated by greed for power rather than greed for money. Greed for power seems rather more meddlesome in the affairs of the people than greed for money, while greed for money can be channeled to help people. And again, restricting private individuals and groups is not the Constitution's job.
I don't see how one of these is worse or better than the other. Both can be used to help or to hurt people, especially when helping/hurting people is very often rather subjective.
> And again, restricting private individuals and groups is not the Constitution's job.
Taking a step back from constitutionality for a moment...do you think this is the job of any government?
Depends what restrictions we're talking about.