ObamaCare mandate ruled unconstitutional by AURaptor

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

ObamaCare mandate ruled unconstitutional

POSTED BY: AURAPTOR
UPDATED: Monday, August 29, 2011 18:15
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6585
PAGE 4 of 4

Sunday, August 28, 2011 11:51 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Which brings you right around to the concept that everyone should have their own gun."

And then those with the most and biggest guns win - just like Somalia. Because it is SOOOooo much better to have people shooting at each other than discussing what to do. Goody. I LIKE your concept!
(That's irony.)

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:05 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"We are not talking about the Federal government.
We are talking about a business. A bad-actor up-river polluting a water supply.
This is why corporations rely so heavily on the government to protect their interests. It is much cheaper to employ a public army than a private one. It is much cheaper to enjoy government bailouts when things go awry."

But in my example, and in real life, companies can earn local loyalty. What if the local population is loyal and goes after the downstream population? So now you have two populations fighting each other. How is that better than government?

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:10 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Which brings you right around to the concept that everyone should have their own gun."

And then those with the most and biggest guns win - just like Somalia. Because it is SOOOooo much better to have people shooting at each other than discussing what to do. Goody. I LIKE your concept!
(That's irony.)

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Hello,

Your irony is wasted on me. I do not prefer anarchy. However, it's important to know that advocates of government are *still* advocating that the one with the most and biggest guns should win. Just like everywhere.

Advocates of government should never lie to themselves about what they are advocating. They should never trust the monster they make. It is only ever the least evil of evil choices. And even then only some of the time.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all”

Jacob Hornberger

“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious right.”

Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 12:35 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Which brings you right around to the concept that everyone should have their own gun."

And then those with the most and biggest guns win - just like Somalia. Because it is SOOOooo much better to have people shooting at each other than discussing what to do. Goody. I LIKE your concept!
(That's irony.)

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

This sounds sensible to me.

It's worth considering when it comes to union representation, too. Union members elect representatives and then hope that those representatives will serve them well. Sometimes they actually do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 1:06 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"However, it's important to know that advocates of government are *still* advocating that the one with the most and biggest guns should win. Just like everywhere."

Supposedly, the idea behind the way the US constitution was made was that the majority rules up until it infringes on the rights of the minority. That strikes me as being a tricky balancing act. The next step down is a dictatorship of the majority, and the next step down is a gun-wielding minority-rule, AKA dictatorship.

I think I'd rather fail at the first type than try for the last.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 2:16 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"Which brings you right around to the concept that everyone should have their own gun."

And then those with the most and biggest guns win - just like Somalia. Because it is SOOOooo much better to have people shooting at each other than discussing what to do. Goody. I LIKE your concept!
(That's irony.)

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

Nice^

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 4:37 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"However, it's important to know that advocates of government are *still* advocating that the one with the most and biggest guns should win. Just like everywhere."

Supposedly, the idea behind the way the US constitution was made was that the majority rules up until it infringes on the rights of the minority. That strikes me as being a tricky balancing act. The next step down is a dictatorship of the majority, and the next step down is a gun-wielding minority-rule, AKA dictatorship.

I think I'd rather fail at the first type than try for the last.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither...

And this sounds quite sensible as well.

BTW, Kiki, if you close your signature with [/font color] with "<" and ">" replacing the "[" and "]", it will "close" the signature font color for those who choose to quote you in their response, so theirs don't get grayed out like Magons's response did.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 6:29 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But in my example, and in real life, companies can earn local loyalty. What if the local population is loyal and goes after the downstream population? So now you have two populations fighting each other. How is that better than government?

I would ask how it's any different than Government.
For example, some locality chooses to legalize marijuana, for example - Feds come in and stomp all over them.
How's that a lot different ?

Factually, *ANY* system of government, from hereditary monarchy, to military dictatorship, all the way down to representative democracy *CAN* work quite effectively, so long as it is properly and decently administered.
But therein lies the problem.
As soon as you give a small group power over a larger group and sanction violence in executing it, you've created a caste based society, those giving the orders, those executing the orders, and those poor sods at the bottom who have those orders executed upon them, and from that point, the folks at the top aren't truly beholden to those at the bottom BECAUSE they have a monopoly, or damn close to it, on violence.

I used to think the first class was the problem, but what convinced me otherwise was the events in Tianamen Square - had that tank driver simply run the bloody fool over it woulda been just one more casualty that nobody noticed or even gave a shit about, but he didn't do that, when the order came down to do it that nameless tank driver said "No, I will NOT do this thing."
And I realized, as I thought about it, that the primary problem, the danger to any form of honest government of any kind (which some anarchists consider an oxymoron, but my viewpoint is a bit different) is those folk willing to take orders without question, ass-kissing jackboot wannabes just jonesing for official sanction to hurt someone, waiting only official sanction of it so they can tell themselves what they do is not evil.
Those are some seriously messed up people - from a human pyschological/emotional perspective they're pretty damn broken, but sympathy tends to fade once you realize they gravitate en-masse to those enforcement positions, and so by the act of giving violence official sanction, you have just enabled a bunch of folk who are badly screwed up between the ears to impose their will upon the masses, who for the most part have damn little recourse against it - this is essentially WHY the second amendment exists, intended as a check and balance against that.

Also, by way of technological advancement, so too nowaways is the first, as more and more citizens with cameras begin to expose the true nature of the thing, something those jackboots find so profoundly offensive they're willing to stage a full-scale assault on the first amendment on a national scale, rather than even hold up the pretense of not abusing that official sanction.

There's also the fourth amendment, which has been all but ignored or discarded, and the jury system which has been polluted and corrupted into a rubber stamp for the railroad train that is our so-called justice system, although again the first amendment seems a safety net for this because folks are beginning to realize just HOW corrupted and abusive that system and it's enforcers are - but then find themselves near powerless to do much about it since even those directly enumerated rights are ignored, dismissed, and not respected whatever, nor does the elective process offer much hope in that any candidate who MIGHT be effective at something other than fellating the current elite is eliminated from the process long before YOU get any say in the matter, a shell game and magicians hand fake does not democracy make.

Now, on a LOCAL level you might be able to subvert that, but again what primary method is there but threat of violence... in fact I've been quick to point out that once you remove the threat of violence from protests, they become laughingstocks, ignored, abused, and nothing more than standing there in a convienient concentration with a big bloody target on your ass - cause protests essentially evolved FROM peasant riots, they'd eventually tire of the abuses, and go tear down and torch the abusive lords castle - but a combination of self-interest from those lords and better-the-devil-you-know from the peasants transmogrified that into a show of force followed by negotiations, but always, always there was the THREAT of violence, for without it, what incentive to listen to them whatever ?
Sure, I'd like to see the day violence is eliminated from our culture, but that day ain't soon coming, although one might take into account that a lot of my actions ARE intended to speed that up, but till we get there pretending that most human negotiation doesn't have threat of force involved is ludicrous.
So to is pretending that if you allow it for one side while forbidding the other, you've just enabled something awful and you shoulda known better.

Now, one of my primary goals is of course, reducing the amount of abuse by hindering or eliminating the social structures and systems which produce a steady supply of mentally-mangled jackboot wanna-bes who will obey any order without question, and are looking for excuses to harm or abuse people, some level of official sanction to justify themselves TO themselves... so far, so good, workin on that - because every time one of those enforcers draws the line and says "No, I will NOT do this thing.", liberty, and humanity, prevails.

But even so, end of the day, every single day, it comes down to us, the people.
And in respect to that, I shall reference Patrick Henry's speech to the Ratifying Convention on June 5th 1788

Quote:
Having premised these things, I shall, with the aid of my judgment and information, which, I confess, are not extensive, go into the discussion of this system more minutely. Is it necessary for your liberty that you should abandon those great rights by the adoption of this system? Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessing — give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else! But I am fearful I have lived long enough to become an old-fashioned fellow. Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned; if so, I am contented to be so. I say, the time has been when every pulse of my heart beat for American liberty, and which, I believe, had a counterpart in the breast of every true American; but suspicions have gone forth — suspicions of my integrity — publicly reported that my professions are not real. Twenty-three years ago was I supposed a traitor to my country? I was then said to be the bane of sedition, because I supported the rights of my country. I may be thought suspicious when I say our privileges and rights are in danger. But, sir, a number of the people of this country are weak enough to think these things are too true. I am happy to find that the gentleman on the other side declares they are groundless. But, sir, suspicion is a virtue as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds: should it fall on me, I am contented: conscious rectitude is a powerful consolation. I trust there are many who think my professions for the public good to be real. Let your suspicion look to both sides. There are many on the other side, who possibly may have been persuaded to the necessity of these measures, which I conceive to be dangerous to your liberty. Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.

Quote:
But we are told that we need not fear; because those in power, being our representatives, will not abuse the powers we put in their hands. I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny. Happy will you be if you miss the fate of those nations, who, omitting to resist their oppressors, or negligently suffering their liberty to be wrested from them, have groaned under intolerable despotism! Most of the human race are now in this deplorable condition; and those nations who have gone in search of grandeur, power, and splendor, have also fallen a sacrifice, and been the victims of their own folly. While they acquired those visionary blessings, they lost their freedom. My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging war against tyrants. It is urged by some gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength — an army, and the militia of the states. This is an idea extremely ridiculous: gentlemen cannot be earnest. This acquisition will trample on our fallen liberty. Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe. Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? The honorable gentleman said that great danger would ensue if the Convention rose without adopting this system. I ask, Where is that danger? I see none.

Quote:
The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism. We may see such an act in America.

For a fact, we *HAVE* seen such acts in America.
I tell you, the man was damn near prophetic, and one really, really ought to read the whole speech.

And it all falls down to this.

Quote:
This, sir, is my great objection to the Constitution, that there is no true responsibility — and that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves.

Yeeeah, that was a good idea, wasn't it ? /snark

Of course, I feel that some of those loopholes and ambiguities were entirely deliberate, by way of planning to exploit them from the very beginning, which Hamilton, Madison and Jay almost immediately did, but be that as it may while the document *IS* badly flawed, it is perhaps not fatally so - it is more that said document is conveniently ignored since the people have few if any means to enforce its restrictions upon those in power, more than a failure of those restrictions to apply, cause they DO apply, but how to make them without violence or the threat thereof, since no lesser means seems to have any positive effect and simply justifies further abuses and usurpations in it's suppression, as would of course violence, but as Mr. Henry points out, name one time in history that political leaders were ever called to heel without it ?

In order for it NOT to come to that, hell, in order for any chance of rectifying the situation to become whatever possible in either, or factually, any fashion - one must first remove the stumbling block of a large force of persons willing to obey even the most vile and oppressive commands, and the ONLY way to ever do that is by dumping sand in the gears of the social assembly lines which create them.
Do that, cut off the supply of jackboots willing to excute tyrannical orders, and it's unlikely one would even NEED violence in any degree worth mention because the very problem OF the oppression itself begins quickly to crumble without anyone willing to actually commit it, for those in power are unlikely to take the field in person and do so by their own hand - ergo removing the tools by which they do so renders them inert, and powerless to give harm.

This is also where civil disobediance comes in, which would escalate significantly once the means by which it is suppressed have been reduced to following the rule of law rather than might-makes-right, something which would happen by necessity as the logistical problems of numbers come into it - for that was how prohibition and other acts oppressive were dismantled, by a form of wholesale non-compliance no longer possible due to the degree from which todays government is willing to deviate from constitutional compliance.

But there's always a way - why do you think I shun, even actively ostracize, those willing to take and obey oppressive orders, whether they wear a badge or camoflague, because in lieu of violence, one CAN apply pressure from a social and economic level, as I also refuse to do business with same, only our cult like, conditioned slavish devotion to forces that serve our interests not at all MUST be overcome, for when non-violent means have been rejected or dismissed as options - violence is inevitable.

More than anything else, that is something I would prefer to PREVENT, but it's do damn hard to make people realize that by sanctioning it in one direction while decrying it in the other, they are creating an almost inevitable tidal wave of bloodshed which cannot, I think, be forestalled forever.

Even Ghandi knew this, while distorted by folks with less than noble intent into something along the lines of "lay down and take it", if one actually reads what he said it amounts to much the same, try the open hand FIRST, find other means, do not resort to violence first because it is convenient, or in some way satisfying, but if no option is left to you but the choice between violence and submission, then you should use violence.
Yes, Ghandi said that.
http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm

Quote:
I have been repeating over and over again that he who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully.

But of course most poingnant...

Quote:
The world is not entirely governed by logic. Life itself involves some kind of violence and we have to choose the path of least violence.

Of course, I do try, only I've not been so good at it since it fights my own nature to do so, I learned far, far later than I would have liked that violence harms those who commit it just as it does those it is inflicted upon, only that harm is not immediately apparent.

Anyhows, rambling aside, what I wish, what I HOPE to do, or at least encourage, is heading off at the pass a second wave of nationwide bloodshed, and if that requires a bit of awfulness in the short run, if that is what it takes to prevent far worse, than that is what it takes - to deny it is to enable it.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, August 28, 2011 6:57 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Anthony, I don't see how antichrist anything fits into this equation, all I can reckon is that you were teasing about Frem's political registration being written wrong. Anyways yeah, Frem can be intimidating, but I'm not scared of him, even if he wants me to be. But others should consider it strongly. :)

I'm a lot nicer online too, or am I. I don't like confrontations in real life, I tend to avoid them until I can't avoid them anymore. I'm a crier, when someone makes me upset and I confront them and they start going on against me I start crying, not fun and embarassing I know but its just what seems to happen. But since I avoid confrontation it doesn't happen very often. But online I'm able to tell people what I think in a well thought out fashion so I don't cry and I don't hurt their feelings too badly either. When I say something mean to someone I always try to throw in a nice thing later or in a different post so they don't feel like I hate them, which I never do.

I believe we need some government, Anthony and I probably believe we need different amounts of it, but we both seem to believe we need some, as opposed to Frem who thinks we need none and Kiki who thinks we need lots.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2011 12:11 AM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I would ask how it's any different than Government."

How is that any different from business? If as you say, there are jackboots everywhere jonesing for an excuse, then surely a business will be just as good a one as anything else.

I'll get back in more detail later, but I do want to make the only valid 'human nature' argument I can think of: The vast majority of people conform to the norms of their society because they can and it is human nature to be driven to do so. But there are those statistical outliers in any society who are unable to conform. So while it is possible to generate a larger percentage of sociopaths in a sociopathic society, you will never quite eliminate the empathic people. Conversely, while a humane society will generate a higher percentage of humane people, you will never quite be able to eliminate the sociopaths.

Because people are driven to conform, and that leaves out the people who simply can't.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2011 12:52 AM

FREMDFIRMA

You presume I make any distinction between business and government.

Comes down to it, someone giving me orders under threat of violence is the same bloody thing no matter WHAT they call their little enterprise.

Prevent those jackboots from ever getting sanction, official backing or support, and.. while they remain a threat individually, that's ALL they are, an individual threat.

As for the rest, you've got the general idea, just realize I'd like to kick the balance over a little faster so that more decent folk are more accurately represented by the conduct of the flawed government we do have.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2011 4:56 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Sorry to have missed this thread "live" - very interesting.
Shout-out/props/attaboyz! to NewNick for hanging in and swinging for the fence with each fast ball from the FFF.net/RWED bitching staff. Welcome! Fuck 'em! Have a nice day! Keep posting.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2011 5:23 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Kiki who thinks we need lots ..."

More than anything, I think we need to get up off our collective butts and run our government to our satisfaction, so we don't do so much complaining afterwards.

Government, like rights, is not ordained by nature or god. It is solely human-made. People have the government they allow. And this is what we've allowed.

And, to sort of get back to a theme I've posted a few times before - I really, REALLY don't credit generalities as an argument. Unless someone can tell me SPECIFICALLY what they dislike, I'm going to just assume they don't really know what they're talking about.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, August 29, 2011 6:15 PM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by m52nickerson:

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

Sorry to have missed this thread "live" - very interesting.
Shout-out/props/attaboyz! to NewNick for hanging in and swinging for the fence with each fast ball from the FFF.net/RWED bitching staff. Welcome! Fuck 'em! Have a nice day! Keep posting.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

Oh, indeed. "NewNick" is doing just fine. He doesn't realize it yet, but he and I aren't really all that far apart on a lot of stuff. Hell, for that matter, he and Frem and DT aren't that far apart, either.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE