[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Are you ignoring Rumor's point on purpose or do you like contradicting yourself? He said that there was a discrepancy between public opinion (= the constituents) and Congress in the matter of the Second Iraq War and Congress went ahead anyway.
You write that law makers should guide their decisions by polls and by staying in touch with the people they represent (`so - yes - that means they are SUPPOSED to look at polls and have direct communication with their constituents via town halls, etc.') and then you link to a bill. Why haven't you linked to a poll?

Hate to break it to you, but - at the time of the invasion even your vaunted Wikipedia admits a 75% favorable amongst the public. Even afterward it only dropped to 58%.

Popular opinion in the US on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So - I did - indeed - answer him directly.


BTW, there was no "second Iraq war." Doofy explained the concept earlier quite succinctly.

For instance, the SAME condition exists in the Koreas. Ceasefire - no treaty ever signed, hostilities COULD resume any time.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The United States public’s opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, the US public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. A USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken prior to the invasion in March 2003, indicated that 75% of US citizens felt the invasion was not a mistake. However, according to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake. In May, 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq.

So according to those polls a majority felt we should go to Iraq before the war and a majority regretted it after the war. So why should the president consult polls before he decides to sign a bill into law? So that later he too too can regret having made the wrong decision?

This discussion is pointless. It's up to the president to sign or veto a bill. The Democrats had the votes to pass the bill and the president chose to sign the bill into law. The system has worked exactly the way it's supposed to.

[Macrobat]

Because this bill is unprecedented in the FACT that even 41% of registered Democrats currently disapprove of it:

Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

It was also passed over the STRIDENT disapproval of 81% of the public. The public wanted (and still wants) legitimate healthcare reform - this ain't it.

You realize it was just bounced back to the House from the Senate because of PELL GRANTS? You know, Pell Grants for education - which have NOTHING to do with healthcare, but whose alteration was needed to further obfuscate the true cost of the bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/he...health.html?hp

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hate to break it to you, but - at the time of the invasion even your vaunted Wikipedia admits a 75% favorable amongst the public. Even afterward it only dropped to 58%.

Again, you were linking to a bill authorizing use of military force. Your link was not supporting your argument.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Again, you were linking to a bill authorizing use of military force. Your link was not supporting your argument.

Actually, the link showed the pro vote.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Because this bill is unprecedented in the FACT that even 41% of registered Democrats currently disapprove of it:

Poll: Most Want GOP to Keep Fighting on Health Bill - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

It was also passed over the STRIDENT disapproval of 81% of the public. The public wanted (and still wants) legitimate healthcare reform - this ain't it.

You realize it was just bounced back to the House from the Senate because of PELL GRANTS? You know, Pell Grants for education - which have NOTHING to do with healthcare, but whose alteration was needed to further obfuscate the true cost of the bill.

G.O.P. Forces New House Vote on Fixes to Health Bill - NYTimes.com

81% disapproval?

Damn. Luckily I can read a pie chart. It says 46% disapprove of the healthcare bill.

[Macrobat]

Funny, I don't see a link to an origin for your pie-in-the-sky graphs

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny, I don't see a link to an origin for your pie-in-the-sky graphs

It's from the CBS News link you posted above.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well there was that paper recently that claimed to prove that markets are efficient if and only if P = NP... It's yet to be published and/or peer reviewed, and I don't claim to know enough about economics to really understand its implications, but it seems to me that if this paper is correct we may have to revise our notions about market economies and their effectiveness. What if markets aren't the best way? This doesn't, of course, mean that handing things over to our government is, but it's certainly something to think about!

Theoretical nonsense, IMO. If the federal government, which is chronically in the red budget wise, were a single player in the private sector, it would not survive. It only survives because it has the power to create debt at will. That's one way I know that market forces and the profit motive are generally more efficient.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It's from the CBS News link you posted above.

That's funny, so is this one:



The 81% figure was from before the vote, and even Hyteckit is aware of that. He just CHOOSES to act thick.

Here's a list of the new taxes and raised taxes created in the bill. Along with a list of all the new bureaucrcies:

http://redcounty.com/eye-opening-a-c...ax-hikes/37858

[SpaceMonkey]

Yes, I saw that. Gosh, so many seemingly contradictory polls! It's no wonder our lawmakers can't seem to get them all straight when they are assiduously voting in lockstep with their constituents' passions, rather than what they feel is in the national interest.

Although I suppose you expect Congress to vote only in accordance with the polls that support your particular view.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yes, I saw that. Gosh, so many seemingly contradictory polls! It's no wonder our lawmakers can't seem to get them all straight when they are assiduously voting in lockstep with their constituents' passions, rather than what they feel is in the national interest.

You think the majority of them voted because they thought it was in the national interest? Hahaha, it is to LOL. I guess you haven't bothered to look at all the special interest handouts, pork and the heavy hand of government in this bill.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You think the majority of them voted because they thought it was in the national interest? Hahaha, it is to LOL. I guess you haven't bothered to look at all the special interest handouts, pork and the heavy hand of government in this bill.

I think the majority of them thought that the policy goals of this legislation are in the national interest, yes. Pork surely exists, but it is as much a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing as it is rationale for their vote. If there is a chance of something passing, no one wants to be left off the gravy train. Do you really think it's either-or? Come on.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Funny, I don't see a link to an origin for your pie-in-the-sky graphs

Haha.. how can anyone take you seriously.

As SpaceMonkey mentioned, it's from the CBS News link you posted above.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

That's funny, so is this one:



The 81% figure was from before the vote, and even Hyteckit is aware of that. He just CHOOSES to act thick.

No, the 81% figure was pulled from your ass.

You didn't choose be act thick, you just are.

62% want Republicans to continue to challenge to bill.
46% disapprove of the bill.




Before Vote
Disapproval: 48%

After Vote
Disapproval: 46%



According to Macrobat, that equates to 81% disapproval of the bill.

Conservative math once again.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Actually, the link showed the pro vote.

By the House or by the American population at large?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I think the majority of them thought that the policy goals of this legislation are in the national interest, yes. Pork surely exists, but it is as much a "keeping up with the Joneses" thing as it is rationale for their vote. If there is a chance of something passing, no one wants to be left off the gravy train. Do you really think it's either-or? Come on.

Most agree this was crappy legislation. They voted for it because that's what Reed and Pelosi had to vote for, and they were made to think based on heavy pressure tactic that it would derail the Democratic Party and the Administration not to pass it.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

By the House or by the American population at large?

The link I posted today showed that 75% of the public approved, Congress - both houses - voted in accordance.

So the answer to YOUR question is: yes.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Most agree this was crappy legislation. They voted for it because that's what Reed and Pelosi had to vote for, and they were made to think based on heavy pressure tactic that it would derail the Democratic Party and the Administration not to pass it.

And the Democratic Party marshaled its forces to do this...what? For fun? The goal is to change policy. Legislative sausage-making, including pork, is a process for doing that.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

And the Democratic Party marshaled its forces to do this...what? For fun? The goal is to change policy. Legislative sausage-making, including pork, is a process for doing that.

I told you why they marshaled their forces - because they were intent on passing anything labeled comprehensive health care reform at essentially any cost.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

So the answer to YOUR question is: yes.

I didn't ask a yes or no question.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

I told you why they marshaled their forces - because they were intent on passing anything labeled comprehensive health care reform at essentially any cost.

Right. They made a big political bet on being able to deliver sweeping health care reform. The legislation that ultimately passed is not everything that originally was put on the table, but they thought something was better than nothing. Sounds like a policy agenda (and a political agenda, of course) to me.

[Big Mac]

SpaceMonkey, do you genuinely believe this is good legislation? Honestly? I'm not asking about whether or not you're impressed with the legislative victory but rather whether you think it's good law.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

No, the 81% figure was pulled from your ass.

You didn't choose be act thick, you just are.

62% want Republicans to continue to challenge to bill.
46% disapprove of the bill.




Before Vote
Disapproval: 48%

After Vote
Disapproval: 46%



According to Macrobat, that equates to 81% disapproval of the bill.

Conservative math once again.

ORLY?

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/sy...QRLS3dLklVdqo-

suck it up

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I didn't ask a yes or no question.

Oh yes you did - or would it clear it up a bit for you if I changed it to "both?"

[subego]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

ORLY?

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/sy...QRLS3dLklVdqo-

suck it up

Bad link.

"systemerror" is in the URL.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, compromise implies that you think of someone besides you once in a while, that's why it seems foreign to you.

I don't know where the tone of hostility comes from…

You aren't even making sense. When people are forced to give up something or accept a limitation that is in no way a "compromise".

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater? Bearing false witness (in or out of court)? Fraud? False advertising? Lying on your taxes? You think that any harm caused by any of these should be blamed on the "listener"?

Let me take these separately:

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?

If someone does this he is in no way responsible for the irrational reactions of those in the theater…unless it is determined that there was a willful intent to cause bodily harm to people or to deceptively or forcefully separate them from their belongings. Yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater may be probably cause to investigate into his motive, but the speech in-and-of-itself, no. Yes, I am aware of the legality of this particular tidbit so don't bother, I just mostly disagree with it as well as the ruling in the case from which the original Holmes quote stems.

It should also be noted that the property owner has jurisdiction here. He does not have to respect any right of free speech on his property, and he may have a certain amount of responsibility for the physical safety of his patrons. He is perfectly justified in silencing the idiot, barring him from his premises and doing what is necessary in order to physically remove him from his property. (IMO, speaking from a moral/ethical standpoint.I don't know the specifics of what the laws might say in this case in regard to the rights of the property owner) This is a far cry from the über-nanny stepping in and protecting us poor souls from someone talking.

Bearing false witness (in or out of court)?

I don't know what specifically you mean by out of court, beyond that of fraud I can think of no case where simply lying about something out of court should be restricted or outlawed. Perhaps between your gasps of irritation with my opinions you can elaborate further.

In court however, you have me…sort of. This is a very rare exception, so my term "absolute" is perhaps the wrong term, but it's still close. The government has not only the right but the obligation to protect people from bodily harm and from having their property taken from them, whether by force or deception, so in my opinion compelling witnesses to be honest is appropriate IMO. I believe it is essential to administering justice. However, it is important to note that in many cases a person is testifying voluntarily and thus agreeing willfully to be honest, so I wouldn't see a conflict here regardless. I also believe that in cases like I mention above (physical harm/murder or fraud/theft) and ONLY in cases like those compelling people to testify is likewise appropriate due to the importance of that particular function of government.

Fraud? False advertising?

As I said above, The government has an obligation to protect us from having our property take from us, including by means of deception, i.e. fraud. Of course you and I would probably quibble over the exact definition of what should be considered fraud, as I can imagine that there are certainly criminal cases where I would point, laugh and chalk it up to someones stupidity.

False advertising is another issue. I don't think it is equivalent to fraud, though sometimes it may be. I'm not going to sit here and try to imagine every scenario, so suffice it to say that the vast majority of the time I would chalk it up to; "Sorry, caveat emptor."

Lying on your taxes?

The government has absolutely no business demanding that I disclose how much I have earned in the past, am currently earning, or will earn in the future. As far as I'm concerned it is an invasion of my privacy. While their may be a few nuances in the situations above, there is none here whatsoever. It is unconscionable that our government demands under penalty of law that we disclose the amount of money we receive for ANY private legal transaction. Period. This is a main reason why I am in no way in favor any taxes whatsoever on income.

Did you really want answers to these or were they merely rhetorical?

Again, to reiterate: though I used the term "absolute", I do admit that there are a few wrinkles. However, pretty much all of them are summarized above. There are essentially three reasons why I would accept governmental control of free speech:

1. The which would deceptively and directly defraud someone.
2. That which would (somehow) deliberately and directly cause someone physical harm.
3. That which pertains to the execution of justice in regard to protecting people from harm.

That's pretty much it.

Merely threatening someone is not force and it doesn't compel one to act in such a way that removes or infringes upon their rights, not without some sort of credible physical evidence that the threat precludes an actual physical act against that person. At the point where such evidence is available, it is no longer merely speech, it is something else. And yes, IMO this should apply to the President as well, he shouldn't be held to a different standard than everyone else, no matter HOW important he thinks he is.

[Macrobat]

Not sure how to address that, as the 81% is from a Yahoo Finance poll.

There is also a Rasmussen poll showing the same number to disagree with teh mammogram provisions of the bill:

81% Disagree with New Mammogram Recommendation - Rasmussen Reports

Whereas the Yahoo poll had the entire opposition set at 81%. (That number reflected even in the url)

The numbers differ from many other polls, but nearly all showed disapproval in large majorities before the vote. Including Rasmussen, Gallup, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC and ABC polls.

[hyteckit]

81% Disagree with New Mammogram Recommendation

Haha...

What's next?

81% disagree with incest?

[smacintush]

This poll business is nonsense. This is not how our government is supposed to work. We send our representatives there because we trust them to do what is best for their constituents and for the country, not to pour over poll data and attempt to deliver a line by line implementation of what the people think they want. If that's how it works we may as well have a democracy.

We send them there, if they screw up the country we vote them out. If they break the law, we kick them out and charge them. THAT'S how it's supposed to work.

**** your poll numbers.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Theoretical nonsense, IMO. If the federal government, which is chronically in the red budget wise, were a single player in the private sector, it would not survive. It only survives because it has the power to create debt at will. That's one way I know that market forces and the profit motive are generally more efficient.

Than our government, to be sure (and this could probably be said about every currently extant government out there). But if there's a system out there that's both better than what we have and better than a free market system, then I would say we should move towards the best thing out there.

For what it's worth, I suspect this is the case. I think that capitalism is the best system currently available to us, but that it is still an otherwise undesirable system. I would consider myself an anti-capitalist except that for now we have no better options so I generally prefer market solutions to non-market solutions.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

SpaceMonkey, do you genuinely believe this is good legislation? Honestly? I'm not asking about whether or not you're impressed with the legislative victory but rather whether you think it's good law.

I think it could be very effective, but like you, I have concerns that the responsibility of paying for it rests on future Congresses who may not hold up their end of it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If someone does this he is in no way responsible for the irrational reactions of those in the theater…unless it is determined that there was a willful intent to cause bodily harm to people or to deceptively or forcefully separate them from their belongings.

Quick humorous aside.

Penn Jillette does an excellent routine where he's juggling torches, intentionally catches a lit end, and drops it, just so he can yell "fire" in the crowded theatre.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This poll business is nonsense. This is not how our government is supposed to work. We send our representatives there because we trust them to do what is best for their constituents and for the country, not to pour over poll data and attempt to deliver a line by line implementation of what the people think they want. If that's how it works we may as well have a democracy.

We send them there, if they screw up the country we vote them out. If they break the law, we kick them out and charge them. THAT'S how it's supposed to work.

**** your poll numbers.

The ultimate "poll numbers" will be seen in November, then we shall see if Simon (or I) still sings the same tune. How's that?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

We send them there, if they screw up the country we vote them out. If they break the law, we kick them out and charge them. THAT'S how it's supposed to work.

Bingo. Concise and correct. Thank you.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The ultimate "poll numbers" will be seen in November, then we shall see if Simon (or I) still sings the same tune. How's that?

That's what I've been telling you all along. There's one real "poll" that counts: election day. All those thousands of other polls in between don't mean jack.

You should be bemoaning that a law was passed you disagree with. Instead you're attacking the system. But fact is, the system worked as it was intended to.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Simon 

That's what I've been telling you all along. There's one real "poll" that counts: election day. All those thousands of other polls in between don't mean jack.

You should be bemoaning that a law was passed you disagree with. Instead you're attacking the system. But fact is, the system worked as it was intended to.

No, the FACT is that the system was circumvented, corrupted and ignored. Something you either cannot, or refuse to, recognize,

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, the FACT is that the system was circumvented, corrupted and ignored. Something you either cannot, or refuse to, recognize,

Whatever dude.

Like the old saying goes ....

It's all over except for the screaming and the shouting.

OAW

[Simon]

Circumvented? Nope. There was a vote. The bill passed. The president signed it.
Corrupted? Hmm, you mean more than usual?
Ignored? Nope again. There was a vote on the bill. So at least those that took part in that vote didn't ignore the bill. The president took the time to sign the bill so he can't have ignored it that much either.

You have so far failed at showing up where this grand conspiracy supposedly took place. Time for a reality check? Let me ask you this then. Had the bill not passed by let's say just one vote, would you still claim the system was corrupted?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Circumvented? Nope. There was a vote. The bill passed. The president signed it.
Corrupted? Hmm, you mean more than usual?
Ignored? Nope again. There was a vote on the bill. So at least those that took part in that vote didn't ignore the bill. The president took the time to sign the bill so he can't have ignored it that much either.

You have so far failed at showing up where this grand conspiracy supposedly took place. Time for a reality check? Let me ask you this then. Had the bill not passed by let's say just one vote, would you still claim the system was corrupted?

If a Democrat was behind the bill, you can finish my sentence

[besson3c]

I guarantee you guys that if this happened under the Bush administration, we'd be hearing a lot of "stop whining, Democrats".

[sek929]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

**** your poll numbers.

Seriously, thank you for saying this.

A poll of 1000 people is as useful as a lead weight to a drowning person.

Here's a stat, 100% of polls are useless chest-thumping.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guarantee you guys that if this happened under the Bush administration, we'd be hearing a lot of "stop whining, Democrats".

When Dems complain they are being pussies, when Reps complain they are the Tea Party.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I guarantee you guys that if this happened under the Bush administration, we'd be hearing a lot of "stop whining, Democrats".

If this comprehensive health care reform had happened under Bush, and a similarly corrupt bill got passed, I'd be just as pissed. Guaranteed.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't know where the tone of hostility comes from…

It's from your willful stubbornness in claiming that no form of "speech" could legitimately cause harm to someone who didn't somehow deserve it. Obviously this little prod was necessary, as you've backed off your erroneous position, slightly, in language if not in tone.

You aren't even making sense. When people are forced to give up something or accept a limitation that is in no way a "compromise".

Force and compromise are not mutually exclusive. "Compromise" can be arrived at willingly by both parties, or two stubborn parties can be forced to "compromise" by an authority figure. Both are forms of "compromise."

If someone does this he is in no way responsible for the irrational reactions of those in the theater…unless it is determined that there was a willful intent to cause bodily harm to people or to deceptively or forcefully separate them from their belongings.

And what about the rational reactions that cause harm to others? And of course intentions and circumstances are relevant, that's what we are arguing over. I'm saying they are and you're saying they're not. I'm saying that speech should only be protected for communication not ill intention, and you're saying speech should be protected bar none.

And I'm talking about the philosophy, not the legality. "Should it be illegal," not "is it currently illegal."

I don't know what specifically you mean by out of court, beyond that of fraud I can think of no case where simply lying about something out of court should be restricted or outlawed.

Ever heard of "suicide by cop?" Consider "homicide by cop" (or other private security entity). There's a million ways you could try to falsely accuse someone (in the heat of the moment, a moment which you have engineered btw) as a means to cause physical harm (leave aside property harm which is even simpler).

False advertising is another issue. I don't think it is equivalent to fraud, though sometimes it may be. I'm not going to sit here and try to imagine every scenario, so suffice it to say that the vast majority of the time I would chalk it up to; "Sorry, caveat emptor."

How would you ever buy something America likes to sell, like a motor vehicle or an airplane or a computer or software, if you had to do all due diligence yourself, and if the seller could actively deceive you with no penalties? There is simply no way to make that work.

The government has absolutely no business demanding that I disclose how much I have earned in the past, am currently earning, or will earn in the future. As far as I'm concerned it is an invasion of my privacy. While their may be a few nuances in the situations above, there is none here whatsoever. It is unconscionable that our government demands under penalty of law that we disclose the amount of money we receive for ANY private legal transaction. Period. This is a main reason why I am in no way in favor any taxes whatsoever on income.

Whether we like income taxes is not the question. The question (your question) is whether you would cause someone harm, through no fault of their own, simply by what you say. Regardless of whether they should collect income tax, the fact is that they do collect it (constitutionally supported), and the fact is that if you lie about your income, it materially harms them (or the other taxpayers), and that harm is not because they brought it on themselves through their own reaction to your words.

Again, to reiterate: though I used the term "absolute", I do admit that there are a few wrinkles. However, pretty much all of them are summarized above. There are essentially three reasons why I would accept governmental control of free speech:

1. The which would deceptively and directly defraud someone.
2. That which would (somehow) deliberately and directly cause someone physical harm.
3. That which pertains to the execution of justice in regard to protecting people from harm.

Those are not "a few wrinkles," any more than gun rights is all about hunting and "unless someone might want to intentionally kill another person" is just a little wrinkle in that issue. That's not a wrinkle, that's the whole issue.

Merely threatening someone is not force and it doesn't compel one to act in such a way that removes or infringes upon their rights, not without some sort of credible physical evidence that the threat precludes an actual physical act against that person. At the point where such evidence is available, it is no longer merely speech, it is something else.

Is calling someone and threatening their small child more than merely speech? What about sending a photo of the child alone at school, still just speech? What about talking to the child too, telling them to pass a lewd message to the parent, to accompany the threat? What about telling the child lies about the parent that make the child run away? What if the lies are supported by evidence, like doctored photos? Like it or not, some speech is an action and not just speech, and as you have noticed above, the distinction is intention; is it intended to communicate ideas, or is it intended to cause action/injury?

[BadKosh]

Now that the Dems have forced the bill on the US, You would think the Dems would realize that their unpopular votes and actions would have consequences. I don't mean just getting voted out of office. How stupid and out of touch are Dems?

[Big Mac]

They think the American people are stupid. And sometimes I think that, too. After all, they elected a radical leftist, Barack Hussein Obama.

Oops, I used the Hussein name. That should be good for some flames.

[ort888]

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

After all, they elected a radical leftist, Barack Hussein Obama.

You forgot to call him a socialist. And a muslim. And remind us that he's the Antichrist. And worse than Hitler.

Sorry, not flame-worthy enough.

Neeeext.

[Big Mac]

Sorry, you're right. I'll try harder next time.