Health Care Reform Dead

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by just me

If one accepts the logic that the feds (or states for that matter) can mandate the purchase of something merely because they have the legal right to regulate, then what is to stop the federal government from mandating we all purchase 10,000 candy canes every xmas?

Merry fucking Christmas 1798. I think these founding fathers needed to go to Constitution school.

[livius drusus]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Last time I looked, which was late yesterday afternoon, the numbers were two lawsuits and fourteen states. It's not really fourteen "states," though; it's fourteen state attorneys general, thirteen of which are Republicans. That, I suspect, is what the cases are really about.

Georgia's Democratic AG refuses to file lawsuit; Republican Governor looks to appoint "special AG" who will do what he's told. Oh, and there are already 30 signatories on a resolution to impeach the AG.

[LadyShea]

There's TR, whose anti-capitalist and anti-constitutional seizure of land has placed some of this country's most valuable natural resources in the hands of the federal government, which uses them to oppress us.

Yosemite is being used to oppress me!

[Adam]

Former militiaman unapologetic for calls to vandalize offices over health care - washingtonpost.com

So, oh, hey, about those broken windows and (one of) the clown(s) who urged people to go throwing rocks through them.

"So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party [that they] cannot fail to hear, break their windows," Vanderboegh wrote on the blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars. "Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM."

Wow, he sure sounds mad, I wonder why he feels so strongly about this?

He said he long opposed President Obama because he believed the president has "collectivism" tendencies.

Oh, OK, I guess this is some sort of principled...

Vanderboegh said he once worked as a warehouse manager but now lives on government disability checks. He said he receives $1,300 a month because of his congestive heart failure, diabetes and hypertension.

[Ensign Steve]

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Merry fucking Christmas 1798. I think these founding fathers needed to go to Constitution school.

If indeed that can be considered a constitutional violation, I don't think it should be any great surprise that such things happened in that era. Section 14 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, for instance, prohibited federal courts from issuing the Great Writ to those imprisoned under color of state law.

[Brimshack]

LOL, were this a church--state separation issue, such actions would be irrefutable evidence that the founding fathers really meant the establishment clause to mean something other than what it says. But of course "Original Intent" is only a blank check to the framers when the framers can be made to agree with what cultural conservatives want.

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

LOL, were this a church--state separation issue, such actions would be irrefutable evidence that the founding fathers really meant the establishment clause to mean something other than what it says.

A predictably lame comparison, seeing the plain language of 1A provides no warrant for the application of any of its provisions against the states.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

LOL, were this a church--state separation issue, such actions would be irrefutable evidence that the founding fathers really meant the establishment clause to mean something other than what it says.

You betcha:

On September 25, 1789, three days after Congress authorized the appointment of paid chaplains, final agreement was reached on the language of the Bill of Rights. Clearly the men who wrote the First Amendment Religion Clauses did not view paid legislative chaplains and opening prayers as a violation of that Amendment, for the practice of opening sessions with prayer has continued without interruption ever since that early session of Congress.

Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 788 (1983) (citation and footnotes omitted).

[D. Scarlatti]

yguy's still after Obama's old job at the University of Chicago Law School.

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by yguy

A predictably lame comparison, seeing the plain language of 1A provides no warrant for the application of any of its provisions against the states.

Yes, of course, I completely forgot your powers of distraction and diversion. How utterly lame of me!

[yguy]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And properly so, obviously, seeing neither respects an establishment of religion.

[Brimshack]

Circular argument man has special powers of circular argumentation!

[just me]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

Circular argument man has special powers of circular argumentation!

Please understand that I am not taking sides in saying this, but you have just criticized a person rather than an idea or argument.

I have not been a part of this forum long enough to get properly acquainted with all the personalities, but I do understand certain posters are not viewed favorably (and fear I am rapidly falling into that group).

I do not understand how a 'favored poster' can feel good about themselves by simply insulting the 'unfavored poster' while ignoring the argument though.

I guess that when I created an account on a 'free thought' forum I thought I was going to encounter a group where ideas could be freely exchanged and an entire board was not going to be reduced to 'I like this person so am nice to him/her and I don't like this person so I ignore any arguments and just insult him/her personally'.

Is it safe to assume my expectations are out of line for the reality that exists here?

Are there just a few posters I should be adding to my ignore list because they have a bad habit of just seeking to be insulting?

Should I be looking elsewhere for intelligent discussion where posters are not personally attacked and arguments completely ignored?

[Crumb]

Originally Posted by just me

Please understand that I am not taking sides in saying this, but you have just criticized a person rather than an idea or argument.

Actually he did both.

Originally Posted by just me

I guess that when I created an account on a 'free thought' forum I thought I was going to encounter a group where ideas could be freely exchanged and an entire board was not going to be reduced to 'I like this person so am nice to him/her and I don't like this person so I ignore any arguments and just insult him/her personally'.

Do you guys have a script or something?

[Brimshack]

Originally Posted by just me

Please understand that I am not taking sides in saying this, but you have just criticized a person rather than an idea or argument.

I have not been a part of this forum long enough to get properly acquainted with all the personalities, but I do understand certain posters are not viewed favorably (and fear I am rapidly falling into that group).

I do not understand how a 'favored poster' can feel good about themselves by simply insulting the 'unfavored poster' while ignoring the argument though.

I guess that when I created an account on a 'free thought' forum I thought I was going to encounter a group where ideas could be freely exchanged and an entire board was not going to be reduced to 'I like this person so am nice to him/her and I don't like this person so I ignore any arguments and just insult him/her personally'.

Is it safe to assume my expectations are out of line for the reality that exists here?

Are there just a few posters I should be adding to my ignore list because they have a bad habit of just seeking to be insulting?

Should I be looking elsewhere for intelligent discussion where posters are not personally attacked and arguments completely ignored?

What you do with your ignore list is your business, and where you go for intelligent discussion is also your business. For my own part I grow tired of shameless liars and hacks who cannot be bothered to make an honest effort. Hence, my response to Y-troll.

I did insult Y-Troll, yes I did, and logic-scout points to you for noticing that. Your decision to use that as an excuse to pretend that I did not comment on an idea or an argument is, however, more than a little questionable. It is in fact outright dishonest. So are the rhetorical questions with which you conclude your post, and so was the last one I recall you making about the logic of your position in one of these threads around here (might even have been this one).

You seem to like the pose of an honest person just looking for a reasonable argument. If you were capable of maintaining this posture with any semblance of consistency, I think you would find the majority of posters here, myself included will treat you with respect you deserve. If you insist on throwing up that facade while making little to no effort to address the arguments actually on the table before you, then you will quickly find that your charade gets you the disrespect that you deserve.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by just me

while ignoring the argument

What argument was that exactly?

[just me]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

Merry fucking Christmas 1798. I think these founding fathers needed to go to Constitution school.

Not really. It would appear there is an effort underway to address the constitutional suit with propaganda. What you are citing is a 'new' popular fluff article implying that there is historical precedent for the federal government to unconditionally require citizens to buy something from private companies.

To the honest best of my knowledge this is unprecedented and thus a constitutional suit seems warranted to establish if this is kosher or not.

In the specific case of mandated health care for seamen, it wasn't universal or unconditional top the best of my knowledge. It appears to have been a 'port fee'. In other words if owners of a vessel wanted to use a port, they had to pay a fee and this fee (or at least part of it) went to providing medical services for injured workers on those ships. Source:http://books.google.com/books?id=ETo...Seamen&f=false

The current legislation imposes an unconditional fee. If you live, you pay. I want to again state plainly I am in support of health care reform and wish we got a public, taxpayer funded option instead of what we currently have. My objection here isn't really even an objection. It's an honest question as to whether or not the requirement that everyone pay for a product from a private company whether they want it or not is constitutional. I think this a fair matter for debate/discussion regardless on how one feels/thinks on on the issue of health care reform

[just me]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

What argument was that exactly?

yguy stated: And properly so, obviously, seeing neither respects an establishment of religion.

Thus the argument was that neither (taken from the context of the previous post) constituted an establishment of religion.

True or false, insulting yguy doesn't constitute and argument, but simply an insult on a poster.

I do understand that not being familiar with all the personalities here I am missing on a lot of history. Perhaps there is a reason to dismiss yguy out of hand. To this observer it would be better to not reply at all (or add yguy to the ignore list) than to reply with nothing more than an insult while ignoring the argument. Perhaps that is just me.

[just me]

Originally Posted by Brimshack

What you do with your ignore list is your business, and where you go for intelligent discussion is also your business. For my own part I grow tired of shameless liars and hacks who cannot be bothered to make an honest effort. Hence, my response to Y-troll.

I completely understand. From the perspective of an outsider neither familiar with you nor YGuy though, I can't tell who is a troll and who isn't. I can however recognize the difference between responding in a factual and civil manner to an argument and insulting the poster while ignoring the argument. I really hope you will take this in the spirit intended and I do not wish to cause you offense, but you did admit you insulted the poster due to your history (that i had no knowledge of). Certainly you can understand how that *appears*.

I did insult Y-Troll, yes I did, and logic-scout points to you for noticing that. Your decision to use that as an excuse to pretend that I did not comment on an idea or an argument is, however, more than a little questionable. It is in fact outright dishonest. So are the rhetorical questions with which you conclude your post, and so was the last one I recall you making about the logic of your position in one of these threads around here (might even have been this one).

My comment was directed at this post of yours: "Circular argument man has special powers of circular argumentation!" That was the entirety of your post. When you say I am being questionable/dishonest in pretending you didn't respond to the argument what are you referring to? I don't see any argument from you at all. I also looked at all the posts from you on the current page and do not see any relevant arguments from you at all. Again, I am not trying to chastise you, I am sincerely trying to understand your point. You are saying I am being dishonest in saying you attacked the person and did not respond to the argument. Please identify where you believe you made a relevant argument and I will publicly apologize for my error. I am not here to falsely accuse you or anyone else. I just saw an insult without an argument (and I quoted the entirety of your post, with zero editing showing that).

You seem to like the pose of an honest person just looking for a reasonable argument. If you were capable of maintaining this posture with any semblance of consistency, I think you would find the majority of posters here, myself included will treat you with respect you deserve. If you insist on throwing up that facade while making little to no effort to address the arguments actually on the table before you, then you will quickly find that your charade gets you the disrespect that you deserve.

I think this appropriate, but I am not aware of any case where I have avoided any argument. I was accused of this in a prior topic and I asked those accusing me to inform me of what argument I left without a response. I believe one person posted an argument I missed and I then promptly responded to it. It was an unintentional oversight. It happens.

Could we please get off the topic of personalities, including mine and discuss issues without insulting posters? I mean there may be posters with a long history of posting nonsense, but even they might accidentally post something worthy of consideration.

Is it really that out of line for me to ask that folks avoid attacking the person and instead attack ideas? I mean isn't that something we all learned in elementary school? I feel odd that I am even having to type this on a free thought forum.

[viscousmemories]

Do you remember making this post, "just me"?

Right. Now go ahead and stick your condescending pablum about civility where the sun doesn't shine.

[just me]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Do you remember making this post, "just me"?

Right. Now go ahead and stick your condescending pablum about civility where the sun doesn't shine.

Actually, no, I do not recall making that post, but I do recognize that as being a handle I used here in, apparently 2004.

When I signed up for this forum in 2010 I sent this PM to Liv on the same day saying this:

"Hi.

I wanted to let you know that while I am a new member here, I am not really new. I posted here several years ago under a handle I simply do not recall. As a result I 'know' many of the regulars even though they do not 'know' me. I am not in the least bit trying to be deceitful and if I recalled the username I posted under years ago I would post that publically. If there is any way for you to determine that I would not in the slightest be offended if you made that info public (I am kind of curious as to what my poor memory has forgotten myself .

Anyway, I thank you for continuing to provide this forum for so long and hope to be able to take part in intelligent, stimulating discussions here."

Liv responded to my PM with... well, I won't post that since it is someone else's PM and not my place to disclose publicly. I will just say it was polite and evidently she was not able to do what you did and find my previous username.

Still, why are you digging up crap from 6 years ago and posting it publicly as if it had any relevance at all to the topic being discussed? Your action is simply ghetto to the max. You are attempting to discredit me as a person instead of responding to the argument. You focused on a post where I asked a sincere question and some assumed I had a motive I didn't and I got angry and behaved in a really immature manner. There was a reason I dropped off the forum for 6 years. These days I get accused of being 'excessively polite'. One is a reaction to the other and it's like I can't win no matter how nice/polite and courteous I try to be.

As one of the owners of this forum if you do not want me here, just say so and I will go away.

If you consider me welcome here, then please do not attempt to attack me personally as it is immature and not at all the kind of drama I am looking for.

Again, if you don't want me here, say so and I leave.

I invited Liv to figure out what username I posted under previously and make it publicly known as I didn't recall it (it was 6 years ago) and now, completely out of context to anything you bring it up in an accusatory fashion? Just plain ghetto man.

[Brimshack]

"Circular argument man has special powers of circular argumentation!"

Seriously, JM! Do you actually need me to point out the meta-argument in that line?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by just me

Still, why are you digging up crap from 6 years ago and posting it publicly as if it had any relevance at all to the topic being discussed?

Because your little "I'm new here and just getting to know everyone" act is disingenuous (not to mention pathetic), and I felt like calling you out for it. If you read the thread, though, you would notice that I already identified you as dantonac/dave_a/username in an earlier post. I suppose you were too busy thinking up the witty retorts you've been using to chastise people whose company you don't deserve to keep.

And sure, I would love it if you would go away. I think you're as much of a clueless troll today as you were six years ago.

[just me]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Because your little "I'm new here and just getting to know everyone" act is disingenuous (not to mention pathetic), and I felt like calling you out for it.

OK, but I said nothing that isn't true.

I *am* getting to know the posters here. Some posters I recognize from 6 years ago, but who doesn't change over the course of 6 years? Am I really expected to intimately know internet personalities I have had nothing to do with for 6 years? Seriously?

Other posters I do not recognize at all. How am I being disingenuous when I PMed Liv the day I registered plainly stating I posted here years ago, don't recall the username I used and stating plainly I would not object if she found it out and posted that info publicly? Please explain my disingenuity?

Again, I explained this to Liv on the same day I registered. I attempted to hide nothing from anyone. Surely you can at least acknowledge that? I attempted to hide nothing from anyone.

If you read the thread, though, you would notice that I already identified you as dantonac/dave_a/username in an earlier post. I suppose you were too busy thinking up the witty retorts you've been using to chastise people whose company you don't deserve to keep.

This would be another personal insult from you to me even though I have not insulted you. Nice. Why do you feel the need to insult me? What have I done to you?

And sure, I would love it if you would go away. I think you're as much of a clueless troll today as you were six years ago.

Nice. Once again you attack the person instead of the argument, not that you have actually introduced any argument. This is a health care thread where you have taken it upon yourself to bring up an unrelated 6 year old post as if I have done something wrong with registering here after a 6 year absence and immediately PMing an owner indicating I have previously been a member, but don't recall the username I used back then.

You can attack me all you want, but you are just attacking a person and not any argument.

In other words, you are being quite petty.