ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Justices signal possible trouble for Obamacare mandate

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 2:19 pm

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 15 2013, 1:00 pm

>

>So, here's a question for you.... if the right is not to be infringed, how does the right to limit these items remain with the state governments?

>I probably should've inserted "...would arguably default to State Governments", assuming the authority exists at all. But State Governments don't truly have that authority (to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment) since the State ratified the Constitution and agreed to uphold those principles so long as it is a Union member. Rather for the State to resume that power to limit such items, a State Convention would have to be called and the Constitution deratified so that the State could secede from the Union. 

>
okay - we're in agreement then.  I had a feeling you were missing something in the statement.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 15 2013, 9:40 pm

I was midway through writing that post when I was distracted by a last minute call in to work. I had to end the post quickly, but wanted to include the economic side of it before I forgot.  

darmokattanagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 386

Report this Feb. 16 2013, 11:22 am

Lone Palm - The Federalist were very specific as to their meaning, as I described above, and sold the Constitution to the people with assurances that the Clauses would not be used to expand the Federal Government beyond the enumerated powers. Once the Constitution was ratified, however, the Federalists immediately began reneging on their assurances.

This makes everything else in your post irrelevant. The people who wrote the Constitution did not intend for it to be interpreted the way you think it should be interpreted (ie. the way it was sold to the people). The Anti-Federalists were deceived by the Federalists' propaganda and you have been too.


 


Lone Palm - The Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution does not forbid ownership of tanks, drones, atomic bombs, etc... to the people. The right to limit these items remains with State Governments

Bam - So, here's a question for you.... if the right is not to be infringed, how does the right to limit these items remain with the state governments?

Lone Palm - I probably should've inserted "...would arguably default to State Governments", assuming the authority exists at all. But State Governments don't truly have that authority (to infringe upon the 2nd Amendment) since the State ratified the Constitution and agreed to uphold those principles so long as it is a Union member.

Bam - okay - we're in agreement then.


So you both agree that the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to own any weapon you can afford including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and that not even state governments have the authority to regulate or forbid the sale and possession of those weapons?


Like I said, you're just making things worse for your side.

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 4:01 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:22 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 4:01 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 8:54 am

>

>

>

>]Don't confuse medical insurance with a job - they're two different things.

>

I'm not. I was asking a specific question. What does someone, whether they dislike their benefits, perks, or payrate, do, if the only other option is unemployment?

They have choices.  They can keep their job and pay for things not covered by their medical insurance.  They can purchase additional medical insurance.  They can get another job (including starting their own company) and get different insurance.  This is the USA where we have the freedom to choose - not be dictated to.

When I was in the military and making less than poverty level income, my wife and I couldn't even get basic medical care from the government (Remember - the government is supposed to provide "free" medical care to military members and their families,) so I went off-base and got the medical help we needed - at my expense.

 

And for those of you that don't study history - remember that medical insurance became a "standard" benefit because the government was limiting incomes and companies had to find a way to compensate employees for their services.


Not everyone has choices.


Have you ever taken the time to get to know people living on the streets? If you did, you would know that many of them have (or at least, had) the desire to work. But because they live on the streets, they are often dirty and/or wearing clothes that, to put it simply, look like crap. Even when they look for work, most employers consider them unhirable. Despite work experience. Despite education.


What are their choices?

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 4:04 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 09 2013, 9:31 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 09 2013, 4:05 am

Quote: FleetAdmiral_BamBam @ Feb. 08 2013, 9:01 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 08 2013, 3:22 am

>

>

>

>Contraceptives and abortions are not against Christian values. Contraception simply did not exist at the time, and abortion, which is an issue which was more prevalent during the time of Christ, is never mentioned. The value of the life of an unborn child was specifically given a secondary role in the OT, and it was simply never mentioned during the NT; abortive measures were readily available during the time of Christ, yet He never even broached the subject. Those who oppose such measures follow the words of individuals who lived and died centuries after Jesus lived and died.
Do you speak for all Christians?  I know I don't.  Just because you don't think they're against some Christian's values doesn't mean that applies to all Christians.

Many Christians don't have problem with contraceptives, but most view abortion as murder.  Yes, there are someone that don't like contraceptives at all and some Christians say abortion is okay.

It's like some Christians think that drinking wine is a sin and some don't.

 

But.... the major point is that the goverment is saying that it can override religion, which is blatantly anti-Constitutional

But at the same time, you make statements like "Why does [Obama] continue to attack Christians?" I'm not seeing an attack, yet you word it as if you speak for all Christians.

 

I didn't say "all" Christians.  Obama says he's a Christian, so I doubt he's attacking himself.  But, if you take a look at the common beliefs of the majority of Christians, like abortion is murder, he's attacking them.

But let's just say that Obama was only attacking Catholics - would that be any less anti-Constitutional?  Of course not!


Remember - Christianity is a group of mulitiple denominations with conflicting views.  I've even heard of some "Christians" who disagree that Jesus is Christ (don't ask me the logic in that one...)  Even Obama believes in "collective salvation" - something nobody can find in the Bible.


At the same, though, these new regulations apply to non-Christians as well. So why should they be changed because only some Christians say that it's against their beliefs?

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 4:09 am

My apoligies, BamBam, it seems I already replied to that particular statement...

God in an Alcove

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 4:18 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 11 2013, 7:22 am

>

>Is it really an attack if the same regulations apply to all business owners, regardless of their faith and/or political beliefs?

>It is still an attack even if regulations apply across the board. For example, taxation is theft. Theft is wrong and is not made right simply by applying it to everyone. In any case, the wrongdoing has simply been maximized. 

>


Taxation is clearly not theft. To imply otherwise is simply ludicrous.


Taxation provides for our roads and railways. This in turn provides for commerce, the basis of a capitalist system.


Taxation provides education for our children, allowing even the lowest-born to become important people, whether it be a local business level or the highest political level.


Taxation provides us with a military, preventing foreign powers from subjugating us.


It's not taxation that is theft; is the abuse of the product of said taxation.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 7:38 am

This makes everything else in your post irrelevant. The people who wrote the Constitution did not intend for it to be interpreted the way you think it should be interpreted (ie. the way it was sold to the people). The Anti-Federalists were deceived by the Federalists' propaganda and you have been too.


The nationalists brought the Virgina Plan, which was without doubt a plan for national government, to the Philedelphia Convention. However, the Virginia Plan was significantly altered by Federalists, those who would later be intentionally mislabed as Anti-Federalists by nationalists. In fact, the Virginia Plan was altered to such an extent, that James Madison, the author, was dismayed. The Federalists, furthermore, wanted to add a Bill of Rights before ratifying the Constitution whereas the Nationalists argued that a Bill of Rights wasn't needed since the Constitution indisbutably called for a Federal Government where State Sovereignty was maintained. Thus, the Constitution was written and altered by both nationalists and federalists. The Federalists have an equal claim to Constitutional interpretation, and the nationalists agreed upon the federalist interpretation during the ratification process.


However, assuming for giggles your assertion of propaganda to be correct, then the Constitution and the people's consent thereof are based on fraud and deception. Fraud and deception are not proper grounds for consent, and therefore would render null and void the Constitutuion, as well as any central government the Constitution created. Your argument, if followed to a logical conclusion, therefore demands immediate Federal dissolution in favor of reasserted State Sovereignty.


So you both agree that the 2nd Amendment grants you the right to own any weapon you can afford including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and that not even state governments have the authority to regulate or forbid the sale and possession of those weapons?


A State does have the authority to regulate such items if the State repeals the Constitution and secedes from the Union. Neither a State, nor the Federal Government, has the authority to regulate such items while sworn to uphold the Constitution as the law of the land.


Like I said, you're just making things worse for your side.


How does upholding the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, make things worse? It has been my observation that not following the Constitution has made things worse for not only the entire country, but for the entire world.

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 7:58 am

Taxation is clearly not theft. To imply otherwise is simply ludicrous.


Taxation is theft, because taxation is only backed by the government's threat or use of force. If my earnings have been taken away without my consent, then I am the victim of theft. In a truly free soiety, the same laws that apply to individuals also apply to governments. If I can't do it, then the government shouldn't be able to either.


 


Taxation provides for our roads and railways. This in turn provides for commerce, the basis of a capitalist system... Taxation provides education for our children, allowing even the lowest-born to become important people, whether it be a local business level or the highest political level.... Taxation provides us with a military, preventing foreign powers from subjugating us.


 


Roads, railways, education, and other utilities (even the military) have been and can be funded privately. Commerce does not rely on government, but rather government is born of commerce. Commerce is a natural function of human activity, particularly specialization that results from individual differences. We trade our specialization, what we as individuals are good at, for those things that others can make better and more efficiently than ourselves. The conventional belief is that government is best suited to handle certain functions like the military. But the Constitution, more so the Declaration of Independence, specifies that government is the result of commerce and that the people can resume those powers, otherwise granted to a central government, when said government is no longer to their liking. 


 


It's not taxation that is theft; is the abuse of the product of said taxation.


No, taxation is still theft. Further abuse simply follows and is almost guaranteed since the redistribution of funds is built upon a crime, which would be without doubt if the same action occurred privately. 

Lone Palm

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 207

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 8:04 am

Not everyone has choices.


 


Have you ever taken the time to get to know people living on the streets? If you did, you would know that many of them have (or at least, had) the desire to work. But because they live on the streets, they are often dirty and/or wearing clothes that, to put it simply, look like crap. Even when they look for work, most employers consider them unhirable. Despite work experience. Despite education.


 


What are their choices?


 


Find a Church or other private charity and negotiate a trade... be willing to take a low wage job, and underconsume to generate savings... how many more options do you want? Life is a choice. If I were destitute, I would probably go to family to seek help. That's the purpose of friends and family. They are an investment, the ultimate insurance program and safety net. 

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 9:32 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 4:01 am

>Not everyone has choices.

>Have you ever taken the time to get to know people living on the streets? If you did, you would know that many of them have (or at least, had) the desire to work. But because they live on the streets, they are often dirty and/or wearing clothes that, to put it simply, look like crap. Even when they look for work, most employers consider them unhirable. Despite work experience. Despite education.

>What are their choices?

>
There are always choices.  Remember, I work with people that are having financial problems.  The vast majority of them never saved and when they hit hard times, they had nothing (except the government) to fall back on.  Even when I was in the military and making under poverty level wages, my wife and I saved and got completely out of debt as well as saved several months worth of income.  If I can do it, so can others.  You'd be surprised at how many people don't even know how to do a simple budget.


Now... there are a very few people that really had bad situations happen that completely devistated them, regardless of how much responsibility they took for themselves.  But even with them... the goverment is not the answer. Those are the people we love helping the most because the don't demand everything - they are grateful and willing to do what they can to get back on their feet.  Do you know how many church or community organizations there are out there that are there to help people?  A lot!!!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 9:37 am

Quote: God in an Alcove @ Feb. 17 2013, 4:04 am

>At the same, though, these new regulations apply to non-Christians as well. So why should they be changed because only some Christians say that it's against their beliefs?
Because that law was made as an attack on those that support life.


 


Think of it this way:


A percentage of people go to church regularly, some go infrequently and some never go.  How about if the government makes a law requiring everyone to go to church... and not only attend, but tithe?  Well... since it would apply to all, you wouldn't have a problem with that, would you?

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 10:33 am

Quote: Lone Palm @ Feb. 17 2013, 7:38 am

>How does upholding the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, make things worse? It has been my observation that not following the Constitution has made things worse for not only the entire country, but for the entire world.
Remember... to socialists .... the freedom's guaranteed under the Constitution are considered bad, but the tyranny (rights violated / millions murdered) that we saw from Hitler, Stalin, etc. is good.  The goals of tyranny conflict with the Constitution.


 


It doesn't make sense to me either, Lone Palm.

Fleet Admiral Braxton

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 288

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 2:51 pm

It's Strange: My Home state, North Carolina, Is About To "Opt Out" On Extending Medicaid To people Like Me,Who Can't afford Coverage; All Thanks To The Asshole Republicans Who Don't Give a Damn About us Working People. I'm just hoping The Fed.Gov't will Let Me "Opt out" Of the Requirement  To Buy It!

FleetAdmiral_BamBam

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46291

Report this Feb. 17 2013, 6:03 pm

Quote: Fleet Admiral Braxton @ Feb. 17 2013, 2:51 pm

>

>It's Strange: My Home state, North Carolina, Is About To "Opt Out" On Extending Medicaid To people Like Me,Who Can't afford Coverage; All Thanks To The Asshole Republicans Who Don't Give a Damn About us Working People. I'm just hoping The Fed.Gov't will Let Me "Opt out" Of the Requirement  To Buy It!

>
I think you can make your point with cursing.


McCrory is a RINO.  I didn't like him as mayor and don't expect any difference as governor.  I'm actually surprised to hear he didn't opt-in.


Why do you think that the "working people" should get someone else to pay for their medical care?  I hope you're not calling us working people irresponsible.

Post Reply

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum