[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Of course, but post-Incorporation, we are beyond that point. I bring up the legitimacy of anti-defamation laws only to illustrate that the authors of the Constitution themselves were fully conscious of the distinction between maliciously injurious speech and, for lack of a better term, "legitimate speech," drawn from English common law. It's not a stretch to argue that "speech," as written in the First Amendment, refers only to the latter. That is the framework they were accustomed to (many of them being lawyers) and there is nothing to suggest they would have preferred any differently.

In my experience, lawyers don't leave things so undefined if they intend there to be a definition. Why does it read "abridging the freedom of speech" rather than "abridging the freedom of legitimate speech"?
And one does not build upon (and expect reference to) an existing framework in a document intended to establish a new framework.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which would be invalid, since your constitution manifesto states that such laws can't be made.

And I'm telling you that you are misreading it. Essentially, I am saying that "freedom of speech" in the United States has carried with it from the beginning an understanding of certain limitations. They are implicit in the legal background of the country. We don't need to write them in because we know they are there. Their absence has been a bit inconvenient at times, but we've mostly muddled through as intended.

In my experience, lawyers don't leave things so undefined if they intend there to be a definition. Why does it read "abridging the freedom of speech" rather than "abridging the freedom of legitimate speech"?
And one does not build upon (and expect reference to) an existing framework in a document intended to establish a new framework.

Who knows. Perhaps they were worried that writing something like "legitimate speech" would leave people second-guessing just what the hell they meant by "legitimate." You also have to remember that a lot of this language went through multiple revisions so that it was essentially written by committee. And the Constitution was a new framework for federal government, not an overthrow of the existing legal order.

There is also the issue, alluded to before, about the language as it applied before the Bill of Rights was formally extended to the states, and after. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the founders never intended there to be any federal limits on speech, leaving that all to the states. But post-14th Amendment we simply can't maintain that distinction anymore. I think the current interpretation is the best way to address it.

[Big Mac]

You think we should scrap and rewrite our Constitution, Doof?

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Technically, no you shouldn't.

I'm not saying that I agree with what your constitution manifesto says, but merely pointing out where it says the boundaries are. I think it's probably high time for a re-write, to be honest.

Meh. We know how to make it work. And we like it that you furriners can't figure it out!

[Macrobat]

Give Doofy a break guys. After all, he's from the SPECIFIC country we rebelled against in the first place. ;P

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You think we should scrap and rewrite our Constitution, Doof?

Well, according to what the other chaps have been saying, it doesn't appear that you have one.

But yes, I reckon it needs updating a little. Clarifying. So those who would twist it can't do so.

[Big Mac]

I suppose, but who's going to be in charge of that? Pelosi, Reed and Obama? I shudder to think what kind of Constitution those luminaries would come up with.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I suppose, but who's going to be in charge of that? Pelosi, Reed and Obama? I shudder to think what kind of Constitution those luminaries would come up with.

That's the problem, ain't it?

I'll do it for enough coin.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Exactly. As there are laws that say it's illegal to conspire to commit murder.

That's completely different. In the case of knives, we have only the law saying it's illegal to murder. In the case of conspiracy to commit murder we have a law that says it's illegal to legislatively restrict speech and then another law that legislatively restricts speech. In order for the situations to be equivalent there would have to be a Constitutional amendment that said 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the right of the people to use knives'. But even if that were the case, stabbing someone is more than just using a knife. If you stab someone to death the crime is murder, not stabbing.

A conspiracy is nothing more or different than speech. It is my opinion that it should not be illegal to say anything. If I tell you to go shoot someone, and then you do, you are to blame for shooting someone, but I should not be for telling you to do so. Now if I were to hold one of your family members hostage and tell you to shoot someone or I would kill them it would be a totally different story, but even in that case my crime would not be telling you to shoot someone, but rather kidnapping. And yes, you can bring up examples about how much I wouldn't like to be slandered or libeled without recourse, but that's irrelevant. I wouldn't like it, that's true, but I also don't think that should be enough to make it illegal. Nor do I think that it would be as significant a problem in a society that truly had free speech (our social norms regarding the things people say would necessarily be different than they are now).

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Of course, but post-Incorporation, we are beyond that point. I bring up the legitimacy of anti-defamation laws only to illustrate that the authors of the Constitution themselves were fully conscious of the distinction between maliciously injurious speech and, for lack of a better term, "legitimate speech," drawn from English common law. It's not a stretch to argue that "speech," as written in the First Amendment, refers only to the latter. That is the framework they were accustomed to (many of them being lawyers) and there is nothing to suggest they would have preferred any differently.

I disagree. I think the fact that they consciously chose to not make any such distinction in the Constitution (as made clear by your evidence) indicates that they very specifically did prefer differently at the federal level.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

I suppose, but who's going to be in charge of that? Pelosi, Reed and Obama? I shudder to think what kind of Constitution those luminaries would come up with.

A Constitutional Convention, of course! The precedent already exists and has been exercised multiple times in the past for the people to alter (and even write anew!) the Constitution separately from the existing government.

[besson3c]

So, how long before we get that government chip implanted in our brains that alerts the government as to when we are masturbating? We're talking about the *complete* annihilation of our American liberty people!!

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I disagree. I think the fact that they consciously chose to not make any such distinction in the Constitution (as made clear by your evidence) indicates that they very specifically did prefer differently at the federal level.

Yet we get cases such as where John Adams, as much as anyone an intellectual contributor to the U.S. Constitution, as president acquiesced to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Thomas Jefferson, as president had the Alien and Sedition Acts repealed on the basis of freedom of speech, yet also as president had Aaron Burr tried for charges of conspiracy to commit treason (with little firm evidence at that). I don't see how it could be argued that those behind the Constitution had such a fixed idea of freedom of speech at the federal level.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That's completely different. In the case of knives, we have only the law saying it's illegal to murder. In the case of conspiracy to commit murder we have a law that says it's illegal to legislatively restrict speech and then another law that legislatively restricts speech. In order for the situations to be equivalent there would have to be a Constitutional amendment that said 'Congress shall pass no law abridging the right of the people to use knives'. But even if that were the case, stabbing someone is more than just using a knife. If you stab someone to death the crime is murder, not stabbing.

A conspiracy is nothing more or different than speech.

I don't think so. There are obvious actions like creating a plan, collecting materials, etc. (not that I'm an expert conspirator) that would be evidence of conspiracy beyond speech.

It is my opinion that it should not be illegal to say anything. If I tell you to go shoot someone, and then you do, you are to blame for shooting someone, but I should not be for telling you to do so. Now if I were to hold one of your family members hostage and tell you to shoot someone or I would kill them it would be a totally different story, but even in that case my crime would not be telling you to shoot someone, but rather kidnapping. And yes, you can bring up examples about how much I wouldn't like to be slandered or libeled without recourse, but that's irrelevant. I wouldn't like it, that's true, but I also don't think that should be enough to make it illegal. Nor do I think that it would be as significant a problem in a society that truly had free speech (our social norms regarding the things people say would necessarily be different than they are now).

I disagree. What if because of what I say about you, you are no longer able to do your job? In other words, my speech has consequences for you. I shouldn't be liable for those consequences?

I think holding people accountable for the consequences of what they say is a good thing. Without that accountability, there's no value in free speech.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Yet we get cases such as where John Adams, as much as anyone an intellectual contributor to the U.S. Constitution, as president acquiesced to the Alien and Sedition Acts, and Thomas Jefferson, as president had the Alien and Sedition Acts repealed on the basis of freedom of speech, yet also as president had Aaron Burr tried for charges of conspiracy to commit treason (with little firm evidence at that). I don't see how it could be argued that those behind the Constitution had such a fixed idea of freedom of speech at the federal level.

They were imperfect men, just like the rest of us.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I don't think so. There are obvious actions like creating a plan, collecting materials, etc. (not that I'm an expert conspirator) that would be evidence of conspiracy beyond speech.

Well in that case we should be able to outlaw conspiracy while maintaining freedom of speech, so the point is moot!

I disagree. What if because of what I say about you, you are no longer able to do your job? In other words, my speech has consequences for you. I shouldn't be liable for those consequences?

I think holding people accountable for the consequences of what they say is a good thing. Without that accountability, there's no value in free speech.

What could you possibly say about me that would cause me to be unable to do my job? I suppose if you accused me of being a child molester and then managed to actually get me convicted and put on a sex offender registry (there's a day care facility in my office, so that would be sufficient) despite my innocence. But even in that case, the cause of the problem is not speech, but our moronic laws and social ideas about sex crimes. In theory it should be impossible for an innocent man to get convicted of a completely fabricated crime, if it's not you have bigger problems then people lying. If you're talking about cases like breeches of security, that's again a different issue. If you go talking about some secret thing that I'm doing and blow my cover than either one of two things are true: 1) I suck at my job and screwed something up that led to my cover being blown or 2) someone is in breech of some confidentiality contract. In the first case, then I should lose my job for being incompetent. In the second, we can still hold you accountable without resorting to restricting free speech (even when there's free speech it's possible to voluntarily and contractually bind yourself to restricted speech).

There are consequences for speech, and people are always held to them even if there is absolute free speech: we stop listening to them when they are idiots and/or liars.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They were imperfect men, just like the rest of us.

Agreed, but rather than viewing the imperfections in their actions as an aberration from a perfect intent, I view them as a result of the Constitution being a compromise document that many agreed to with unwritten assumptions about how it was to be implemented. In the modern day, this leads to tortured justifications for certain laws in an attempt to balance views about the Founders' original intent, the letter of the Constitution, and modern necessity. I think my own concerning "speech as action" versus "speech as argument" did rather well, considering.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Agreed, but rather than viewing the imperfections in their actions as an aberration from a perfect intent, I view them as a result of the Constitution being a compromise document that many agreed to with unwritten assumptions about how it was to be implemented.

Sure, but that means that I (and Doofy) are completely free to interpret it's dictates in a radically different way than you do. It also means that while the courts might rule one way or another, I (and Doofy) can still hold them to be completely wrong and work towards trying to bring them in line (this time it's just me ).

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Well in that case we should be able to outlaw conspiracy while maintaining freedom of speech, so the point is moot!

I'm saying I think that's what we have.

What could you possibly say about me that would cause me to be unable to do my job? I suppose if you accused me of being a child molester and then managed to actually get me convicted and put on a sex offender registry (there's a day care facility in my office, so that would be sufficient) despite my innocence. But even in that case, the cause of the problem is not speech, but our moronic laws and social ideas about sex crimes. In theory it should be impossible for an innocent man to get convicted of a completely fabricated crime, if it's not you have bigger problems then people lying.

That's what I'm saying. What if I said something, true or not, that took advantage of social norms/judgements, and made people prejudge you to the point you could not do your job. You don't have to be convicted of anything to have people prejudging you. Let's even say that after a year, you were able to prove me a liar. I've cost you a year of your livelihood, using only my free speech. You're OK with having no recourse on that?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, how long before we get that government chip implanted in our brains that alerts the government as to when we are masturbating? We're talking about the *complete* annihilation of our American liberty people!!

I was for the emotion chip before I was against it.

[Orion27]

Originally Posted by lexapro 

"Facts" from a non-reliable source are not reliable. Please provide information from a reliable source.

Get back to me when you find a source to your liking willing to report the actual facts of the bill.
Don't wait for CNN, or the NYT's to report to you.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'm saying I think that's what we have.

Ok, so in that case I assume you have no issues with people merely talking about plans to commit crimes? I do think it might (I'd have to put more thought into it to say for sure) be justified to investigate people based on things they say, but I certainly don't think it's justified to do anything beyond that without physical evidence.

That's what I'm saying. What if I said something, true or not, that took advantage of social norms/judgements, and made people prejudge you to the point you could not do your job. You don't have to be convicted of anything to have people prejudging you. Let's even say that after a year, you were able to prove me a liar. I've cost you a year of your livelihood, using only my free speech. You're OK with having no recourse on that?

But what could you say? Seriously, what do you think you could say?

Also, as I mentioned, if we lived in a society where there was literally no legal restraint on speech I think that our social norms would be significantly different in compensation. This sort of problem would be much less likely by virtue of the fact that we would all know that everyone can say anything without worrying about losing anything besides credibility. You can't just change a fundamental aspect of our society and expect everything else to remain exactly the same; what I propose would necessarily lead to massive social change.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ok, so in that case I assume you have no issues with people merely talking about plans to commit crimes? I do think it might (I'd have to put more thought into it to say for sure) be justified to investigate people based on things they say, but I certainly don't think it's justified to do anything beyond that without physical evidence.

Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying. I think talking about committing a crime should be able to get you investigated, but not convicted (on that alone).

If you talk about committing a crime, you're giving law enforcement probable cause. You're accountable for that. Go find a street corner with a lot of cops, run out there, and start screaming 'I just raped 5 virgins!'. See if they take an interest.

But what could you say? Seriously, what do you think you could say?

Anything. Since this country is so puritanical, I could say you molested me or one of my kids, or claim you're having an affair with my wife. If I do it in a way that's convincing enough (i.e. my story sounds better than your denials), a lot of people may believe me and take issue with you. Or, I don't know what you do, but I could say you embezzled money from my charity, which may not sit well for people working in financial services. etc.

I'm not an expert at slanderous acts, so I can't really think beyond that...

Also, as I mentioned, if we lived in a society where there was literally no legal restraint on speech I think that our social norms would be significantly different in compensation. This sort of problem would be much less likely by virtue of the fact that we would all know that everyone can say anything without worrying about losing anything besides credibility. You can't just change a fundamental aspect of our society and expect everything else to remain exactly the same; what I propose would necessarily lead to massive social change.

I don't know that we're really that far from that now. The vast majority of slander/libel litigation now is civil, not criminal. Even if you eliminated civil liability, I don't think the behavior would stop - the act of defamation will not go away just because it is 'legal'. And people will continue to seek recourse. If they don't get it legally, they will pursue other avenues. I don't know that that's necessarily a good thing.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Yes. That's exactly what I've been saying. I think talking about committing a crime should be able to get you investigated, but not convicted (on that alone).

If you talk about committing a crime, you're giving law enforcement probable cause. You're accountable for that. Go find a street corner with a lot of cops, run out there, and start screaming 'I just raped 5 virgins!'. See if they take an interest.

Ah, I must have been confusing your position with someone else's. I apologize!

Anything. Since this country is so puritanical, I could say you molested me or one of my kids, or claim you're having an affair with my wife. If I do it in a way that's convincing enough (i.e. my story sounds better than your denials), a lot of people may believe me and take issue with you. Or, I don't know what you do, but I could say you embezzled money from my charity, which may not sit well for people working in financial services. etc.

I'm not an expert at slanderous acts, so I can't really think beyond that...

Honestly I'm really not interested in the opinions of such people, though admittedly my perspective as an atheist, vegetarian, vaguely anti-capitalist pseudo-libertarian may be a bit skewed when it comes to interacting with our country's puritanical ridiculousness.

I don't know that we're really that far from that now. The vast majority of slander/libel litigation now is civil, not criminal. Even if you eliminated civil liability, I don't think the behavior would stop - the act of defamation will not go away just because it is 'legal'. And people will continue to seek recourse. If they don't get it legally, they will pursue other avenues. I don't know that that's necessarily a good thing.

Perhaps. But there are all sorts of unforeseen consequences to just about everything we do. The interaction of ideals and reality is a completely unpredictable thing.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Ah, I must have been confusing your position with someone else's. I apologize!

No problem. I have been talking about conspiracy - so I think if an investigation turned up solid evidence of wrongdoing (illegally-obtained weapons, other victims, etc.), then that would obviously be worthy of conviction.

Honestly I'm really not interested in the opinions of such people, though admittedly my perspective as an atheist, vegetarian, vaguely anti-capitalist pseudo-libertarian may be a bit skewed when it comes to interacting with our country's puritanical ridiculousness.

Me neither, unless said opinions happened to be critical to my livelihood.

Perhaps. But there are all sorts of unforeseen consequences to just about everything we do. The interaction of ideals and reality is a completely unpredictable thing.

Agreed.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Under what law did your lawmakers decide what was and wasn't "protected speech"? Wouldn't they, at that particular point in time, have breached the constitution?

So, uttering death threats, against anyone, not just the president, is protected speech?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, uttering death threats, against anyone, not just the president, is protected speech?

Read your constitution manifesto. There's no such thing as "unprotected" speech. It's all just speech.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Read your constitution manifesto. There's no such thing as "unprotected" speech. It's all just speech.

Ok. So, I'll repeat my earlier query: Death threats shouldn't be taken seriously?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Ok. So, I'll repeat my earlier query: Death threats shouldn't be taken seriously?

Not really. Did Oswald (or whoever it really was) post death threats on his then equivalent of Twatter? No, he just got on with it.
That's the thing. The people doing the mouthing off are not the worry. It's the quiet ones you have to watch.

If it's that much of a worry, perhaps you should have some kind of bodyguard with the prez whenever he's out and about. Maybe get them to check rooftops and the like before he makes a public speech. Maybe have him ride around in an armoured limo.
I'm sure it won't cost much for the peace of mind it brings.

[Rumor]

Back to the bill....

There are somethings that I like and some that I don't.

All insurers are fully prohibited from discriminating against or charging higher rates for children based on pre-existing conditions.[27]
Adults with pre-existing conditions will be eligible to join a temporary high-risk pool, which will be superseded by the health care exchange in 2014.[27]
All existing health insurance plans must cover preventative care and checkups without co-payment.
Children and young adults will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.[30]
Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments or deductibles for preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.[31]
Individuals affected by the Medicare Part D coverage gap will receive a $250 rebate, and 50 percent of the gap will be eliminated in 2011.[32]
Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.[27]
Insurers are prohibited from dropping policy holders when they get sick.[27]
Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.[27]
Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.[27]
Indoor tanning services are subjected to a 10 percent service tax.[27]
Enhanced methods of fraud detection are implemented. [27]
Medicare is expanded to small, rural hospitals and facilities.[27]
Non-profit Blue Cross insurers are required to maintain a loss ratio (money spent on procedures over money incoming) of 85 percent or higher to take advantage of IRS tax benefits.[27]
Companies which provide early retiree benefits for individuals aged 55-64 are eligible to participate in a temporary program which reduces premium costs.[27]
A new website installed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services will provide consumer insurance information for individuals and small businesses in all states.[27]
A temporary credit program is established to encourage private investment in new therapies for disease treatment and prevention.[27]

These are the things implemented immediately. Red are the ones I particularly like. However, I am not keen on the idea of buy or fine. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional. Hopefully they let some of the good provisions in.

[Doofy]

Reading that lot, I wouldn't be surprised if your premiums triple over the next year.

[Big Mac]

That's okay, we'll just drop our policies (and get dropped by our employers), and then we'll wait for the IRS to start knocking down doors with their brand new pump action shotguns.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If the oncologist were mired in debt like our country is right now, he likely wouldn't provide the service. How some feel our nation, mired in debt, can is beyond me. This is just the status quo of handing another responsibility to an already broken government.

Given the option of the gov't handling this, or taking it out of the pockets of individuals, I'll choose the government.

The gov't is much more capable of handling this debt than individuals, as evidenced by the past how many decades in the red? How many bank bailouts, wars, etc? I'd like to hear of an individual who has accomplished the same feat.

It doesn't mean you have to like it any better—I certainly don't.

I don't hold the same myopic view that I did as a child, that doctors choose their profession for the money, but if they can't make a living doing so, you are right—they will leave. I don't think it's wise to make that decision easier for them. We can't really afford to lose their specialized training.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Reading that lot, I wouldn't be surprised if your premiums triple over the next year.

Yep. Then insurance companies will start going bankrupt, and guess what? The federal government takes over.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yep. Then insurance companies will start going bankrupt, and guess what? The federal government takes over.

That is one argument, but another is that this is also an opportunity for the entire health care industry as potentially tens of thousands new customers will be created. Stock values are already rising on a number of health care companies.

I'm not making any predictions, but if you want to make this argument I think you also have to explain how having more customers will not offset this.

[ironknee]

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

That is one argument, but another is that this is also an opportunity for the entire health care industry as potentially tens of thousands new customers will be created. Stock values are already rising on a number of health care companies.

I'm not making any predictions, but if you want to make this argument I think you also have to explain how having more customers will not offset this.

Well, one aspect of this is that to this point, they've cherry-picked their risk pools.

There are at least two types of new customer - one is the group that just couldn't afford insurance in the past. Arguably, they have the same risk profile as the general population, so costs would be close to the same.

The second type is those that the insurance companies have turned away due to high risk - preexisting conditions, etc. Those customers will carry a higher risk and bring a higher cost to the system. I have a hard time getting to 'triple', but I guess only time will tell.

Since the system is going to be picking up risks that it's avoided in the past, it's not unheard of that costs will go up. I'm not saying I think this is a horrible thing, as the whole point of insurance is to spread risk around, and hopefully we're reflecting the true cost of the risk we're bearing. But it also shouldn't be surprising if premiums rise to account for the additional risk the system is bearing because insurers can't cherry-pick, at least in the same way.

Of course, having more people covered also means that the super expensive ER treatment people without insurance have been getting should decrease, meaning the overall efficiency of the system would increase. But we'll all share the cost of the additional burden on the insurance system. That may or may not be offset by hospital costs going down since there will be less 'free' ER treatment.

[lexapro]

ER care is no good for things that require specialist care or ongoing management. It plain stinks.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Yep. Then insurance companies will start going bankrupt, and guess what? The federal government takes over.

Fine with me! Give everyone Medicare and let them buy private supplemental policies like the elderly in the US already do.

[Big Mac]

Because Medicare isn't going bankrupt fast enough.

[lexapro]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Because Medicare isn't going bankrupt fast enough.

It sure won't if 300 million Americans start paying into it at the tune of $110/month.

[hyteckit]

Health insurance is socialism. Health insurance is the socialism of the healthcare industry.

Everybody belonging to the insurance group/community contributes money based on their health, instead of the income.

Some belonging to the group receives more than they contribute. Some receive a lot less then they contribute.

Those in charge of the insurance group decides how the money is spent and who benefits.

It's spreading the wealth/risk.

SOCIALISM!

Corporate run socialism Vs. Government run socialism. Which do you prefer?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Health insurance is socialism. Health insurance is the socialism of the healthcare industry.

( *any* form of insurance is socialism. extended warranties, such as AppleCare, are socialist )

[BadKosh]

For all the BS, Spin and lies, the unread Healthcare joke still doesn't insure about 30 million. You get to pay now for lower than expected insurance later. What kind of morality would think it is OK to force somebody to enter into a contract with a private company, or that it was a 'right' to purchase insurance. Those lib house and senate staff members wrote all those weird bits that have nothing to do with cost savings, streamlining the process, torte reform, or anything that actually fixes anything.

[CreepDogg]

Thanks for the talking points.

[Macrobat]

It would help if OlePigeon could read. What I said was that the Tea Party Manifesto writers believe that rights are conferred by God and not the government.

And yes, it is - indeed - based on the Declaration of Independence.

Point remains, the government is now manufacturing "rights."

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

What I said was that the Tea Party Manifesto writers believe that rights are conferred by God and not the government.

And yes, it is - indeed - based on the Declaration of Independence.

Point remains, the government is now manufacturing "rights."

Simple question then. Were those rights conferred by God or - to use your wording - "manufactured" by the authors of the DOI?

[Simon]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Those lib house and senate staff members wrote all those weird bits that have nothing to do with cost savings, streamlining the process, torte reform, or anything that actually fixes anything.

You're right. They obviously have this evil conspiracy to ruin the USA. They had nothing but bad intentions and were successfully hiding it from everybody. Thank God you noticed it though and brought it to our attention. Who knows where we would have ended up had you not called them on it.

[Macrobat]

No matter what other argument anyone wishes to use, our supposed representatives, those elected to govern according to their constituents' wishes voted AGAINST their constituents desires:

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Obama and Democrats' Health Care Plan


And Simon - again - I clarified the Tea Party's stance. You can ask ME all you want, why don't you go to theteapartymanifesto.com and ask THEM, if you actually want an answer?

Bottom line - the government is now MANDATING that citizens purchase a product - which is a CLEAR violation of the Constitution, despite it supposedly being a "right."

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No matter what other argument anyone wishes to use, our supposed representatives, those elected to govern according to their constituents' wishes voted AGAINST their constituents desires:

Actually, Obama made good on a promise he delivered during his campaign. He reformed health care. We recall he was voted into office by a majority of voters on election day. He delivered (at least partially) what he had promised to the majority of American voters. And that's the constituents' desire. You can find a poll to support whatever you want, but what counts in a true democracy are the ballots cast on election day.

In fact the entire current government is the result of a democratic process. Obviously some of those who oppose this HCR have trouble understanding the basics of democracy. In a nutshell: Obama won. That means his side gets to call the shots. And the other side gets to take a seat on the bench and shut up for two years. That was what the American voters wanted. End of story.