Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:I like this gatoraubrey person.

I second this... and nominate him for Bumpage Certification immediately.

Gator... please post more... I am learning a lot.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I know, but it's funny to me when they don't have anything to say and fall mysteriously silent.

Seriously, your arrogance is overwhelming. The reason I stopped arguing is that I finally realized that you weren't arguing about healthcare, you were arguing about the most recent health care bill (the "I'd leave the country" line didn't impress me either). This is pointless, as I don't know any informed left wingers that support the bill either. Nobody likes it. It's one huge sellout.

As for its legality, if the national government is truly not allowed to govern by the Constitution, why is it that a case hasn't been taken to the Supreme Court on the matter? The 10th Amendment is always waved around as if it says "no Democrat backed bill can do anything of substance", yet not one of the numerous wealthy complainers has sued the government for its actions. Why? You sure make it sound open and shut.

Whatever, I dislike the health care system that exists now, but if a national health care program is truly illegal then it should be made legal because it is something that any modern country of worth should have. The difficulty it would take to amend the Constitution doesn't enter in to this. National health care should exist, the logistics of it are unimportant.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:

I know, rite?

Frigidus wrote:Seriously, your arrogance is overwhelming. The reason I stopped arguing is that I finally realized that you weren't arguing about healthcare, you were arguing about the most recent health care bill (the "I'd leave the country" line didn't impress me either). This is pointless, as I don't know any informed left wingers that support the bill either. Nobody likes it. It's one huge sellout.

No, I'm arguing about healthcare. It is not legal for the federal government to provide it. In any form. In any bill. Unless you can force the States to amend the Constitution first.

Frigidus wrote:As for its legality, if the national government is truly not allowed to govern by the Constitution, why is it that a case hasn't been taken to the Supreme Court on the matter? The 10th Amendment is always waved around as if it says "no Democrat backed bill can do anything of substance", yet not one of the numerous wealthy complainers has sued the government for its actions. Why? You sure make it sound open and shut.

There are fourteen states bringing suit in federal court on this matter. Google search "states sue healthcare" if you don't want to take my word for it.

The government can govern, but only in a strictly limited capacity. The states have more direct power over the people.

And, if Democrats continue to attempt to violate a portion of the Bill of Rights, maybe they should re-think their strategy as a party. Perhaps they should re-label themselves as a revolution, since they seem bent on outright ignoring the second, ninth, and tenth amendments altogether.

Frigidus wrote:Whatever, I dislike the health care system that exists now, but if a national health care program is truly illegal then it should be made legal because it is something that any modern country of worth should have. The difficulty it would take to amend the Constitution doesn't enter in to this. National health care should exist, the logistics of it are unimportant.

The logistics are important, to people who care about safeguarding their liberty from a tyrannical government. The difficulty of a Constitutional amendment is central to this, because it brings the decision closer to the people. And that's what your party's representatives in Washington are afraid of, because they know that given a choice, the people would not allow this to happen.

Frigidus wrote:(the "I'd leave the country" line didn't impress me either)

Believe it or not, I'm not here to impress you.

I live in this country because I believe in the principal behind it. I believe that our philosophy of government makes us superior to every other nation on the planet, and gives me a greater opportunity for success and happiness. If we should sell out on that philosophy, I would change my living situation accordingly. I will not live in a country whose government acts as a leech, as they do in Europe. I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Still standing:

gatoraubrey2 wrote: Revised:
1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

jimboston wrote: States would be able to tax as their constitutions and constituents see fit. Some people may prefer to live in a State with high taxes and lots of services, others may prefer low taxes and minimal services. Because people can move you would find that things would even out... States with lots of services would attract low income people (who wouldn't add to the tax base)... they therefore would have to cut services as they would shortly find their burden outstripping their capacity to pay for these services. A median would be found across most States over time...

And that, sir, is the beauty of the federal system. Secure basic rights across the board, and give people the freedom to mold their local situations to their needs.

john9blue wrote:

gatoraubrey2 wrote:The "double dribble" stems from the fact that I created a logical proof out of thin air, and logical proofs are extremely difficult to create and defend. I made an error. I corrected the error. People who are interested in truth do that. And anyway, the correction that I made was minor and did not have any effect on the substance of the proof.

You're not going to get very far with them using logical proof. Maybe try flaming, or using a strawman or other fallacy. At least that way they'll respond.

... said John, flaming away and lobbing out a few fallacies as he went.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:And, if Democrats continue to attempt to violate a portion of the Bill of Rights, maybe they should re-think their strategy as a party. Perhaps they should re-label themselves as a revolution, since they seem bent on outright ignoring the second, ninth, and tenth amendments altogether.

Yeah, it's only the Democrats that do anything more than govern the military and interstate commerce. You're so enlightened.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:

Frigidus wrote:Whatever, I dislike the health care system that exists now, but if a national health care program is truly illegal then it should be made legal because it is something that any modern country of worth should have. The difficulty it would take to amend the Constitution doesn't enter in to this. National health care should exist, the logistics of it are unimportant.

I live in this country because I believe in the principal behind it. I believe that our philosophy of government makes us superior to every other nation on the planet, and gives me a greater opportunity for success and happiness. If we should sell out on that philosophy, I would change my living situation accordingly. I will not live in a country whose government acts as a leech, as they do in Europe. I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Wait, are you talking about the same country as me? Because last I heard the country was founded on rule by the people, for the people. I don't recall any mention of free markets in the Declaration of Independence. Leaving the country because elected officials choose to legislate in a way you do not approve of doesn't sound like the actions of a believer in representative democracy. The difficulty of changing the Constitution is, again, unimportant. We had to fight a civil war before the 14th Amendment could be passed. It doesn't make the spirit of the amendment any more necessary to a just country.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:And that's what your party's representatives in Washington are afraid of, because they know that given a choice, the people would not allow this to happen.

Oh, and don't think I'm a Democrat. The Democrats supposed support of issues I care about has been demonstrated time and again to be nothing more than big talk. Obama was swept into office with wide public support and a super majority in Congress. If the Democrats had any interest in reforming health care they could easily have done so. They did not. When they are eventually voted out, I'm sure the Democrats will suddenly sound a lot more focused and unified. Big deal. It's easy to sound like you mean business when you have no power (see the Republicans).

First off, I'd like to point out that you have been condescending to my friend, Frigidus.
I don't appreciate that and neither does he.
The reason for people not responding to you could be one of the following:
1. They're busy.
2. They don't want to take the time to show you how you're wrong because you seem to be the type that will not budge.
Also, you don't 'win' an argument due to a lack of people responding right away.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I live in this country because I believe in the principal behind it. I believe that our philosophy of government makes us superior to every other nation on the planet, and gives me a greater opportunity for success and happiness. If we should sell out on that philosophy, I would change my living situation accordingly. I will not live in a country whose government acts as a leech, as they do in Europe. I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Nationalism, wheeeeeeee.
First off, I'd like to ask you if you chose to live in this country or if you grew up in it. I'm pretty sure that you didn't choose to if you grew up in it, rather, you decided to stay put. Probably not because you thought this country has a superior government and has superior institutions, either.
I'd like to say that, with all of our assumptions cast aside, this is a decent country to reside in.
However, how can you show me that you have a greater opportunity for success and happiness in this country as opposed to any other country?
Yes, we have better living conditions than others, but can you honestly say 'best'?
You're making a lot of assumptions, though, honestly.
Have you ever lived with universal health care? -Can you speak from experience?
How do you know that Europe's governments leech off the people more so than the United States leeches off us?
Provide me with some hard evidence.
Also, what do you mean by...

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Are you implying that you will be leached off by the poor?
If so, I would love to see you end up in a crippling accident that you couldn't possibly imagine to pay for and your family denies you help.
How would you survive?
If you were in such a situation, should we cut you off because you have been deemed a leech by a person with your mentality?
Sure, there are some that are completely taking advantage of the system.
I can guarantee you, though, that there will always be people like that, whatever the system may be.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:No, I'm arguing about healthcare. It is not legal for the federal government to provide it. In any form. In any bill. Unless you can force the States to amend the Constitution first.
There are fourteen states bringing suit in federal court on this matter. Google search "states sue healthcare" if you don't want to take my word for it.

I did, in fact, google it, lol.
What I understand is that having the federal government provide you with something is fine.
Forcing you to contribute for it is the no-no, I take it.
Thing is, the government is already forcing you to contribute for a lot of things, disregarding the things you don't agree with.
Every forced contribution has been paid for through taxation.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:The government can govern, but only in a strictly limited capacity. The states have more direct power over the people.

I'll take "Was this leading up to something?" for 500, Trebek.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:The logistics are important, to people who care about safeguarding their liberty from a tyrannical government. The difficulty of a Constitutional amendment is central to this, because it brings the decision closer to the people. And that's what your party's representatives in Washington are afraid of, because they know that given a choice, the people would not allow this to happen.

What's tyrannical about the act?
We choose people to represent us and this is where we have ended up.
Are you trying to say that Frigidus is Democratic?
When did he say this?
Why would the representatives be afraid?

I've only jumped into this conversation because you've annoyed my friend.

I've concluded, based on my first impression of you...
You probably grew up in a conservative family, being force fed their beliefs, accepting them as the truth and taking them as your own.
You decided to take 'action' with said, biased beliefs by coming to these forums.
You come on like you know it all, yet, I'd bet that you're younger than 20.

Please do respond to me.
I don't normally enter political threads because there is no use in arguing one way or another.
Let me help you along...

• Every system present today is flawed.
• You're not going to change people's minds in this forum.
• You're not going to change the world through this forum.
• If you're wanting to become an activist, this is not the place for you to do so.

Frigidus wrote:

gatoraubrey2 wrote:And, if Democrats continue to attempt to violate a portion of the Bill of Rights, maybe they should re-think their strategy as a party. Perhaps they should re-label themselves as a revolution, since they seem bent on outright ignoring the second, ninth, and tenth amendments altogether.

Yeah, it's only the Democrats that do anything more than govern the military and interstate commerce. You're so enlightened.

Starting off great. Fallacy of Two Wrongs Make a Right. I've never claimed to be affiliated with any party. I'm just criticizing the Democrats. Are their actions so indefensible that you can only argue the point by bashing the Republicans?

Frigidus wrote:

gatoraubrey2 wrote: I live in this country because I believe in the principal behind it. I believe that our philosophy of government makes us superior to every other nation on the planet, and gives me a greater opportunity for success and happiness. If we should sell out on that philosophy, I would change my living situation accordingly. I will not live in a country whose government acts as a leech, as they do in Europe. I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Wait, are you talking about the same country as me? Because last I heard the country was founded on rule by the people, for the people. I don't recall any mention of free markets in the Declaration of Independence. Leaving the country because elected officials choose to legislate in a way you do not approve of doesn't sound like the actions of a believer in representative democracy. The difficulty of changing the Constitution is, again, unimportant. We had to fight a civil war before the 14th Amendment could be passed. It doesn't make the spirit of the amendment any more necessary to a just country.

It was also founded on limited government, which is why we created a governmental structure which, wait for it, limited the government! And we made it hard to change that structure without asking the people. Unfortunately, the government just ignored those limits.

Frigidus wrote: Oh, and don't think I'm a Democrat. The Democrats supposed support of issues I care about has been demonstrated time and again to be nothing more than big talk. Obama was swept into office with wide public support and a super majority in Congress. If the Democrats had any interest in reforming health care they could easily have done so. They did not. When they are eventually voted out, I'm sure the Democrats will suddenly sound a lot more focused and unified. Big deal. It's easy to sound like you mean business when you have no power (see the Republicans).

You're right. I shouldn't characterize you as a Democrat. The party that's supporting the same bill that you're supporting, then. They're the ones who are afraid to let the people decide.

Maugena wrote:First off, I'd like to point out that you have been condescending to my friend, Frigidus.
I don't appreciate that and neither does he.
The reason for people not responding to you could be one of the following:
1. They're busy.
2. They don't want to take the time to show you how you're wrong because you seem to be the type that will not budge.
Also, you don't 'win' an argument due to a lack of people responding right away.

thegreekdog pointed out a flaw in my argument. I acknowledged it, regrouped, and came back. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if I'm wrong, but I won't simply allow a storm of rhetoric to change hard fact.

Maugena wrote:

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I live in this country because I believe in the principal behind it. I believe that our philosophy of government makes us superior to every other nation on the planet, and gives me a greater opportunity for success and happiness. If we should sell out on that philosophy, I would change my living situation accordingly. I will not live in a country whose government acts as a leech, as they do in Europe. I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Nationalism, wheeeeeeee.
First off, I'd like to ask you if you chose to live in this country or if you grew up in it. I'm pretty sure that you didn't choose to if you grew up in it, rather, you decided to stay put. Probably not because you thought this country has a superior government and has superior institutions, either.
I'd like to say that, with all of our assumptions cast aside, this is a decent country to reside in.
However, how can you show me that you have a greater opportunity for success and happiness in this country as opposed to any other country?
Yes, we have better living conditions than others, but can you honestly say 'best'?
You're making a lot of assumptions, though, honestly.
Have you ever lived with universal health care? -Can you speak from experience?
How do you know that Europe's governments leech off the people more so than the United States leeches off us?
Provide me with some hard evidence.

I was born here, and grew up here. I stay here because I choose to. I have the means and the ability to move somewhere else, but I still believe, even with the flaws, that this is the greatest country in the world. I'm just afraid that social progressives are rapidly changing that.

For happiness, how about a #13 overall ranking in happiness, beating over half of Europe: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_h ... piness-net

For success, how about top ten rankings in GDP per Capita by all three major organizations, with only two European countries ranking higher on any list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

For leeching, how about the fact that only two European countries have a lower mean income tax rate than the U.S. does (green bars on the graph): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom ... ountry.svg

Maugena wrote:Also, what do you mean by...

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I am more than a resource to be bled dry for someone else's sustenance.

Are you implying that you will be leached off by the poor?
If so, I would love to see you end up in a crippling accident that you couldn't possibly imagine to pay for and your family denies you help.
How would you survive?
If you were in such a situation, should we cut you off because you have been deemed a leech by a person with your mentality?
Sure, there are some that are completely taking advantage of the system.
I can guarantee you, though, that there will always be people like that, whatever the system may be.

That's exactly what I'm implying. It's already happening and it's getting worse. Go ahead and wish harm on me. I won't stoop to the level of returning that insult.

Maugena wrote:What I understand is that having the federal government provide you with something is fine.
Forcing you to contribute for it is the no-no, I take it.
Thing is, the government is already forcing you to contribute for a lot of things, disregarding the things you don't agree with.
Every forced contribution has been paid for through taxation.

I don't want them to provide it, because I understand that providing it implies funding it, which implies taxing for it. I want them to leave me alone. And again, with the Fallacy of Appeal to Common Practice. "You've already taken it up your you-know-what so many times, that it must be ok." No, it's not ok. Not when they passed those other laws, and not now, either.

Maugena wrote:

gatoraubery2 wrote:The government can govern, but only in a strictly limited capacity. The states have more direct power over the people.

I'll take "Was this leading up to something?" for 500, Trebek.

It was actually led up to by your friend Frigidus implying that I was stating that the government isn't allowed to govern. I was clarifying my stance.

Maugena wrote:What's tyrannical about the act?
We choose people to represent us and this is where we have ended up.
Are you trying to say that Frigidus is Democratic?
When did he say this?
Why would the representatives be afraid?

It's tyrannical because tyranny is the opposite of liberty, and:

gatoraubrey2 wrote: 1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

And they're afraid of asking for an amendment to grant them the power to do this, because polls are showing overwhelmingly that the majority of people do not want them to do it. And politicians of all stripes love power.

Maugena wrote:I've concluded, based on my first impression of you...
You probably grew up in a conservative family, being force fed their beliefs, accepting them as the truth and taking them as your own.
You decided to take 'action' with said, biased beliefs by coming to these forums.
You come on like you know it all, yet, I'd bet that you're younger than 20.

Don't talk about my family. You don't know me, and you don't know them. As a free-thinking being, I determine the truth for myself. And logic and rationality taught me the flaws of liberal progressivism years ago.

My opinions aren't biased in any significant way, and I take action at the ballot box. The forums are fun and entertaining.

I'm not younger than 20.

Maugena wrote: * Every system present today is flawed.
* You're not going to change people's minds in this forum.
* You're not going to change the world through this forum.
* If you're wanting to become an activist, this is not the place for you to do so.

I'm not here to change anyone's mind. Debate in and of itself is stimulating and entertaining. However, it anyone picks something up from one of these discussions that's useful, I think that's great.

I don't want to change the world through this forum.

Being an "activist" doesn't mean posting online about your ideas. However, this is the place to have political debate, as evidenced by the large number of politically-themed threads here, none of which were started by myself.

And still, after all the lengthy responses, no one can break the logic of:

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

King Doctor wrote:

john9blue wrote:

gatoraubrey2 wrote:The "double dribble" stems from the fact that I created a logical proof out of thin air, and logical proofs are extremely difficult to create and defend. I made an error. I corrected the error. People who are interested in truth do that. And anyway, the correction that I made was minor and did not have any effect on the substance of the proof.

You're not going to get very far with them using logical proof. Maybe try flaming, or using a strawman or other fallacy. At least that way they'll respond.

... said John, flaming away and lobbing out a few fallacies as he went.

Oh c'mon, you know how fun that stuff is.

And Maugena, I personally am sick of being told that I'm brainwashed or lack critical thinking, just because of my (relatively compared to this forum) conservative/religious beliefs. By saying that you're implying that your beliefs are the beliefs of any open-minded, rational person, without any actual reasoning to support that claim (though I've come to expect this from the idiots who oppose my views). You're putting the cart before the horse.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I was born here, and grew up here. I stay here because I choose to. I have the means and the ability to move somewhere else, but I still believe, even with the flaws, that this is the greatest country in the world. I'm just afraid that social progressives are rapidly changing that.

For happiness, how about a #13 overall ranking in happiness, beating over half of Europe: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_h ... piness-net

For success, how about top ten rankings in GDP per Capita by all three major organizations, with only two European countries ranking higher on any list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

For leeching, how about the fact that only two European countries have a lower mean income tax rate than the U.S. does (green bars on the graph): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Incom ... ountry.svg

Half of Europe? Lolhalf.
So uh. You consider leeching as solely personal taxation?
Let's ignore corporate taxation all-together because that's not 'leeching'.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:That's exactly what I'm implying. It's already happening and it's getting worse. Go ahead and wish harm on me. I won't stoop to the level of returning that insult.

You thought I was wishing harm on you?
I was merely making a point and you took it as an insult?
You can twist things the way you wish, but it was my intention to have you envision yourself in such a position to understand those that are in such a position.
You call them leeches.
If you were in their position, you would call yourself a leech, no?

gatoraubrey2 wrote:I don't want them to provide it, because I understand that providing it implies funding it, which implies taxing for it. I want them to leave me alone. And again, with the Fallacy of Appeal to Common Practice. "You've already taken it up your you-know-what so many times, that it must be ok." No, it's not ok. Not when they passed those other laws, and not now, either.

Then why aren't you fighting against taxation in general?
Seriously.
You're upset about this, I get it. But why pick up the torch against one thing in particular when you obviously disagree with more than just this? It seems absurd, at the best.

gatoraubery2 wrote:And they're afraid of asking for an amendment to grant them the power to do this, because polls are showing overwhelmingly that the majority of people do not want them to do it.

Where's this insight coming from?
You just pulled something out of thin air.
They're afraid?
If the polls are overwhelming then why don't the people that supposedly disagree with this put someone else into power?
We put the people into power. We put them there to represent us.
Why would they be afraid of us if they are our choice?

gatoraubery2 wrote:Don't talk about my family. You don't know me, and you don't know them. As a free-thinking being, I determine the truth for myself. And logic and rationality taught me the flaws of liberal progressivism years ago.

Great. *Golfclap*

gatoraubery2 wrote:And still, after all the lengthy responses, no one can break the logic of:

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about politics, but...
@ your #2... There are a lot of things that are provided by the federal government that are not in the constitution, right?
@ your #3... The income tax is an amendment. What the tax money is used for is unspecific, correct? So how would funding a health insurance program be illegal?

You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the people have decided.
It wasn't unanimous, but in this country, it never is.

john9blue wrote:Oh c'mon, you know how fun that stuff is.

And Maugena, I personally am sick of being told that I'm brainwashed or lack critical thinking, just because of my (relatively compared to this forum) conservative/religious beliefs. By saying that you're implying that your beliefs are the beliefs of any open-minded, rational person, without any actual reasoning to support that claim (though I've come to expect this from the idiots who oppose my views). You're putting the cart before the horse.

I will not take back what has been said in regards to religious discussions.
In this discussion, however, I have not even looked at the things you have said.
Not only that, but I have not targeted you specifically with this insult in this thread.

I dislike conservative families with a passion.
They tell you the way things are and you do one of the following things in reaction to this:
1. You accept it and make it your own.
2. You rebel and decide to go in the exact and opposite direction.
3. You realize that not everything you're told by anyone (including family) can be the truth and decide to find things out for yourself.

Generally speaking, if you followed the path of #1, all logical arguments will be dismissed. Without question. Without consideration. And that is one of the greatest failures of mankind.

Maugena wrote:

john9blue wrote:Oh c'mon, you know how fun that stuff is.

And Maugena, I personally am sick of being told that I'm brainwashed or lack critical thinking, just because of my (relatively compared to this forum) conservative/religious beliefs. By saying that you're implying that your beliefs are the beliefs of any open-minded, rational person, without any actual reasoning to support that claim (though I've come to expect this from the idiots who oppose my views). You're putting the cart before the horse.

I will not take back what has been said in regards to religious discussions.
In this discussion, however, I have not even looked at the things you have said.
Not only that, but I have not targeted you specifically with this insult in this thread.

I dislike conservative families with a passion.
They tell you the way things are and you do one of the following things in reaction to this:
1. You accept it and make it your own.
2. You rebel and decide to go in the exact and opposite direction.
3. You realize that not everything you're told by anyone (including family) can be the truth and decide to find things out for yourself.

Generally speaking, if you followed the path of #1, all logical arguments will be dismissed. Without question. Without consideration. And that is one of the greatest failures of mankind.

isnt you telling us "how conservative families are"....telling us "the way things are"???

Phatscotty wrote:

Maugena wrote:

john9blue wrote:Oh c'mon, you know how fun that stuff is.

And Maugena, I personally am sick of being told that I'm brainwashed or lack critical thinking, just because of my (relatively compared to this forum) conservative/religious beliefs. By saying that you're implying that your beliefs are the beliefs of any open-minded, rational person, without any actual reasoning to support that claim (though I've come to expect this from the idiots who oppose my views). You're putting the cart before the horse.

I will not take back what has been said in regards to religious discussions.
In this discussion, however, I have not even looked at the things you have said.
Not only that, but I have not targeted you specifically with this insult in this thread.

I dislike conservative families with a passion.
They tell you the way things are and you do one of the following things in reaction to this:
1. You accept it and make it your own.
2. You rebel and decide to go in the exact and opposite direction.
3. You realize that not everything you're told by anyone (including family) can be the truth and decide to find things out for yourself.

Generally speaking, if you followed the path of #1, all logical arguments will be dismissed. Without question. Without consideration. And that is one of the greatest failures of mankind.

isnt you telling us "how conservative families are"....telling us "the way things are"???

Dear Village Idiot,

He said that the words of anyone (why did I underline it? He underlined it too - what makes me think you'll read it this time? Vain hope, I guess. Maybe this long parenthesis will draw your attention) might be true. His point was that you should find out for yourself.

So remind me, why was your response relevant at all?

Your Loving, Name-Calling Elucidator,

InkL0sed, Spordinator, esq.

Maugena wrote:

john9blue wrote:Oh c'mon, you know how fun that stuff is.

And Maugena, I personally am sick of being told that I'm brainwashed or lack critical thinking, just because of my (relatively compared to this forum) conservative/religious beliefs. By saying that you're implying that your beliefs are the beliefs of any open-minded, rational person, without any actual reasoning to support that claim (though I've come to expect this from the idiots who oppose my views). You're putting the cart before the horse.

I will not take back what has been said in regards to religious discussions.
In this discussion, however, I have not even looked at the things you have said.
Not only that, but I have not targeted you specifically with this insult in this thread.

I dislike conservative families with a passion.
They tell you the way things are and you do one of the following things in reaction to this:
1. You accept it and make it your own.
2. You rebel and decide to go in the exact and opposite direction.
3. You realize that not everything you're told by anyone (including family) can be the truth and decide to find things out for yourself.

Generally speaking, if you followed the path of #1, all logical arguments will be dismissed. Without question. Without consideration. And that is one of the greatest failures of mankind.

Well first of all, I know you haven't been talking to me, I was just talking about how I personally felt when others said that kind of stuff to me. Sorry for the confusion. But I don't understand how you say all this about conservative families only. You don't think it applies to families with ANY beliefs? You just don't see that because you have the preconceived notion that conservative beliefs can't be arrived at using reasonable thought. Unless by "conservative" you mean "closed-minded" in which case I agree and can relate somewhat. The two terms may be fused in your mind due to partisanship and bias, but try to take a step back.

Maugena wrote: Half of Europe? Lolhalf.
So uh. You consider leeching as solely personal taxation?
Let's ignore corporate taxation all-together because that's not 'leeching'.

Ummm...13th out of HOW MANY countries?

And I consider personal taxation to leech off of me. I acknowledge also that corporate taxation is passed on to me in many ways, yes. I'm not a fan of excessive taxation, but, of the two evils, I would prefer to have more personal funds, and pick and choose the products that I buy (controlling, in a way, how much corporate taxation is passed to me), than to have the money snatched before I can touch it, but having slightly less expensive products.

Maugina wrote:If you were in their position, you would call yourself a leech, no?

No. I would have insured my future by buying insurance, saving money, and generally making people like me enough to help me. And I would find a way to generate income after my recovery from whatever accident I had.

Maugina wrote:Then why aren't you fighting against taxation in general?
Seriously.
You're upset about this, I get it. But why pick up the torch against one thing in particular when you obviously disagree with more than just this? It seems absurd, at the best.

Taxation is an enumerated power of the federal government. It is not limited. This program is an allocation of funds that is limited. Forbidden. This isn't the only issue that I have a problem with, but it is one that's at hand.

Maugina wrote:Where's this insight coming from?
You just pulled something out of thin air.
They're afraid?
If the polls are overwhelming then why don't the people that supposedly disagree with this put someone else into power?
We put the people into power. We put them there to represent us.
Why would they be afraid of us if they are our choice?

We chose them (or at least, someone did), and then they decided to do things that we don't like. We can't change our minds for 2, 4 or 6 years, depending upon the specific person. Once they get into power and then betray us, they have every reason to be afraid. As for the numbers,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform
Enjoy.

Maugina wrote:

gatoraubery2 wrote:And still, after all the lengthy responses, no one can break the logic of:

1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

Honestly, I don't know a whole lot about politics, but...
@ your #2... There are a lot of things that are provided by the federal government that are not in the constitution, right?
@ your #3... The income tax is an amendment. What the tax money is used for is unspecific, correct? So how would funding a health insurance program be illegal?

@ your #2... fallacy. Appeal to Common Practice is not an acceptable argument.
@ your #3... thegreekdog and I have already hashed this out (and he was on the correct side of the argument). The taxation is not illegal. The allocation of funds is. Insurance does not fall under any of the enumerated powers.

Maugina wrote:You seem to be oblivious to the fact that the people have decided.
It wasn't unanimous, but in this country, it never is.

Really? Maybe you should reference the numbers in the poll above before you go speaking for the people.

So, still....

gatoraubery2 wrote: 1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

john9blue wrote:

Maugena wrote:

john9blue wrote:Oh c'mon, you know how fun that stuff is.

And Maugena, I personally am sick of being told that I'm brainwashed or lack critical thinking, just because of my (relatively compared to this forum) conservative/religious beliefs. By saying that you're implying that your beliefs are the beliefs of any open-minded, rational person, without any actual reasoning to support that claim (though I've come to expect this from the idiots who oppose my views). You're putting the cart before the horse.

I will not take back what has been said in regards to religious discussions.
In this discussion, however, I have not even looked at the things you have said.
Not only that, but I have not targeted you specifically with this insult in this thread.

I dislike conservative families with a passion.
They tell you the way things are and you do one of the following things in reaction to this:
1. You accept it and make it your own.
2. You rebel and decide to go in the exact and opposite direction.
3. You realize that not everything you're told by anyone (including family) can be the truth and decide to find things out for yourself.

Generally speaking, if you followed the path of #1, all logical arguments will be dismissed. Without question. Without consideration. And that is one of the greatest failures of mankind.

Well first of all, I know you haven't been talking to me, I was just talking about how I personally felt when others said that kind of stuff to me. Sorry for the confusion. But I don't understand how you say all this about conservative families only. You don't think it applies to families with ANY beliefs? You just don't see that because you have the preconceived notion that conservative beliefs can't be arrived at using reasonable thought. Unless by "conservative" you mean "closed-minded" in which case I agree and can relate somewhat. The two terms may be fused in your mind due to partisanship and bias, but try to take a step back.

This is true to an extent, but if you take "conservative" to mean what it really means - not the political meaning in the US, but just meaning that you live by and defend the status quo - then he is mostly right, kind of by definition. People who don't accept the status quo generally don't try to brainwash their children, although they probably all do to a lesser extent. I guess that depends on your definition of brainwashing - some might say that everybody is.

john9blue wrote:Well first of all, I know you haven't been talking to me, I was just talking about how I personally felt when others said that kind of stuff to me. Sorry for the confusion. But I don't understand how you say all this about conservative families only. You don't think it applies to families with ANY beliefs? You just don't see that because you have the preconceived notion that conservative beliefs can't be arrived at using reasonable thought. Unless by "conservative" you mean "closed-minded" in which case I agree and can relate somewhat. The two terms may be fused in your mind due to partisanship and bias, but try to take a step back.

You're right, this can apply to any family.
And yes, I would say that it is a bias of mine. But it is my ignorant opinion that it is generally true that a conservative family is particularly more closed-minded than a non-conservative family.
And no, I do not think the two terms are one in the same.

*Facepalm*
Side note: M - A - U - G - E - N - A
It's hard to spell, I know.
Copy and paste is hard too.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:And I consider personal taxation to leech off of me. I acknowledge also that corporate taxation is passed on to me in many ways, yes. I'm not a fan of excessive taxation, but, of the two evils, I would prefer to have more personal funds, and pick and choose the products that I buy (controlling, in a way, how much corporate taxation is passed to me), than to have the money snatched before I can touch it, but having slightly less expensive products.

Slightly less expensive products? It's probably more than slightly less, for one, and possibly a bit better in terms of quality. Especially considering this is a universal corporate tax, you'll be hit by everything you buy. And then consider this over the course of a year.
In comparison, according to the graph you linked, the United States had the second highest corporate tax out of all of the countries shown.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:No. I would have insured my future by buying insurance, saving money, and generally making people like me enough to help me. And I would find a way to generate income after my recovery from whatever accident I had.

Are you ignorant? Are you sheltered?
Some people are born to families that don't care about them.
Some people have friends that can't afford to pay for them if they get into a serious accident.
Some people have pre-existing medical conditions that make insurance incredibly expensive.
Some people get into accidents because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Some people are just getting their lives started and barely have anything saved up assuming they have something saved up in the first place.
Some people meet all of these conditions and are completely and utterly fucked.
This is just one of many examples that seems to be an impossibility in your eyes.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:Taxation is an enumerated power of the federal government. It is not limited. This program is an allocation of funds that is limited. Forbidden. This isn't the only issue that I have a problem with, but it is one that's at hand.

Wait, you're saying that it's perfectly legal for the government to tax at any rate they want?
Are you saying the funds are limited?
Forbidden what?

gatoraubrey2 wrote:We chose them (or at least, someone did), and then they decided to do things that we don't like. We can't change our minds for 2, 4 or 6 years, depending upon the specific person. Once they get into power and then betray us, they have every reason to be afraid. As for the numbers,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... are_reform
Enjoy.

Thanks.
According to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate2-.html
The states that are suing are as follows:
Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
The population total of all those states comes out to be roughly 98 million people.
The total population of the United States is believed to be about 307 million people.
No one will know exactly how many people are against it unless everyone participates.
There might be a lot of people in the 13 states that are suing to repeal the reform that are for the reform.
There might be a lot of people in the other 37 states that are against the reform.
Assuming that the states are either completely for or against it, the majority is not trying to repeal the reform.

gatoraubrey2 wrote:Really? Maybe you should reference the numbers in the poll above before you go speaking for the people.

Thanks, but polls are polls are polls.
Let's not mistake approximations for fact.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed.

Telephone poll. Lawl.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 19_20_2010
It clearly states that the sample is 1000 people per poll.

gatoraubery2 wrote:@ your #2... fallacy. Appeal to Common Practice is not an acceptable argument.
@ your #3... thegreekdog and I have already hashed this out (and he was on the correct side of the argument). The taxation is not illegal. The allocation of funds is. Insurance does not fall under any of the enumerated powers.

Please explain to me why that is not an acceptable argument instead of just stating that it is unacceptable.
Also, thegreekdog did not state that what he was suggesting is fact. He said it was merely possible.
That being said, how is your case solid?
You need to prove to me that the federal government cannot provide us with health care.
Your plan of attack suggests that it can't because it doesn't have the consent of the constitution.
Again, with many things not having the consent of the constitution, it's hard to see your point as valid.
That doesn't mean that those other things are 'legal', as you put it, but it should mean that we should remove those other things as well.
Again, I will bring up that I have found no evidence suggesting that the uses of taxation must be for specific things.
Basically, you need to prove to me how you are correct.
If you can't do that, I will never admit that you are correct.
You may not be wrong, but I will not say you are correct until proven.

gatoraubery2 wrote: 1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

I keep seeing this above "theory" I will call it....

First off, I'd like to say that personally I think it's obvious that Amendments change over time (just look at the 18th and the 21st )...

... so to use it in your 3rd mark is kind of silly

I will go to my main point though...

in your 4th mark you are basically saying that the Government is not authorized to secure a power if it isn't in the constitution.

If you read this you will see that the Government has every right to make this health bill...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0877699.html

I'd like to note that the website got this source from the government.

So if you look at the last mark under National Government... Make laws necessary and proper to carry out the these powers ... you can see that this allows the government to make this bill.

note the words Necessary and Proper


I could slightly see how this would effect > Regulate interstate (between states) and international trade, but even more so for > Provide an army and navy

Although it is being very spacific there are cases that the Government has control. Maybe you can't but I can see how healthcare issues could effect someone on the interstate (lets say a car crash happened or something) ... see I personaly am effected by this, because if I get into a health problem such as a car crash injury...the medical personal will check my wallot for my health cards and such. Depending on what Health plan you have can influence the financial outcome greatly. This is important if I'm in a condition when I can't explain my health plan.

A similar scenario could apply for the Army and Navy.

So in order to make laws Necessary and Proper for the interstate or military cases you have to include EVERYTHING.

also, using the site again, if you look below the box you can see that BOTH the state and Government share powers many things. Important here is:

•Borrow money
•Spend money for the general welfare
but most importantly... even if you don't agree with the first two, and this would basically show your "theory" is wrong is simply •Make and enforce laws

so.. there you have it....by the way I am a citizen and I DO enjoy my libery...I don't think you know what you're talking about.

comic boy wrote:Yep if things carry on like this you may have to cut down on cheeseburgers,new guns and church donations.........crisis crisis crisis

Yea, so?

jay_a2j wrote:Just finished Common Sense by Glen Beck. A must read for any red blooded American. The first step is to register INDEPENDENT, as both parties are destroying this country. In '08 I stopped voting for "the lesser of two evils" because its STILL evil! I have been a registered Republican my whole adult life, no more. I am changing my party affiliation to Independent. These low life's have to be stopped! By this I mean Democrats and Republicans!



Time to start another one of Glen's books, An Inconvenient Book.

Sounds good in principle. Unfortunately I don't think there are enough principled people out ther. I could see it happening on the Republican side because people on that side are legitimately fed up. But what would happen? Split the votes with Liberetarians and the Dems win in a landslide?

We all know the Dems won't split though. Look at SC, they voted in a felon because his name was Al Green and they all assumed he was a singer. Look at the Lee chick from Houston. She thinks there's a North and South Vietnam. I could name the nit wits all day. Clearly the dems are not too worried about it though. When Hillary/Obama are the cream of the crop what would you expect there? Face it. It's mono y mono and basically even when this country is completely f'd over, both parties are still going to blame the other party! Look at the housing crisis? It didn't matter that there was sound bite after sound bite of dems condemning the whistle blowers. And look at the republican side, there's plenty of rinos. So that is the one thing I'm sure of is that we're going down this vortex and pointing fingers the whole way.

But yea, definitely do what you can. I may be a fatalist about all of this but I do believe in at least trying. And I agree, the voting for the lesser of two evils is a deadly trap. In the California recall, a lot of us voted for Shwartznegger even though McClintock was the real man in the mix. But we were so worried about getting f'd over by Bustamonte that we still ended up with crap, just not nearly as bad of crap. Schwartznegger is a total sellout and he lost his backbone a long time ago but I still shudder to think about where we'd be with that other ass clown. So I can't say the lesser of two evil approach doesn't do damage control all the same.

Maugena wrote:*Facepalm*
Side note: M - A - U - G - E - N - A
It's hard to spell, I know.
Copy and paste is hard too.

Sorry, Maugena. I mean no disrespect, I just can't spell.

Maugena wrote:Slightly less expensive products? It's probably more than slightly less, for one, and possibly a bit better in terms of quality. Especially considering this is a universal corporate tax, you'll be hit by everything you buy. And then consider this over the course of a year.
In comparison, according to the graph you linked, the United States had the second highest corporate tax out of all of the countries shown.

As I've said, I'm not a fan of high corporate taxes, either. Many of them are used to fund other illegal actions by the federal government. But I have to take things one issue at a time.

Maugena wrote:Are you ignorant? Are you sheltered?
Some people are born to families that don't care about them.
Some people have friends that can't afford to pay for them if they get into a serious accident.
Some people have pre-existing medical conditions that make insurance incredibly expensive.
Some people get into accidents because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Some people are just getting their lives started and barely have anything saved up assuming they have something saved up in the first place.
Some people meet all of these conditions and are completely and utterly fucked.
This is just one of many examples that seems to be an impossibility in your eyes.

All of that may be true, but I still have no legal obligation to help them. The morality of my helping them would make an interesting debate, but it would be a bit distracting in this thread. If you want to start a thread for it, by all means link it in.

Maugena wrote:Wait, you're saying that it's perfectly legal for the government to tax at any rate they want?
Are you saying the funds are limited?
Forbidden what?

It is perfectly legal for them to tax at any rate they want. The amendment granting them the power to tax doesn't state a limit.

I'm saying that their right to allocate those funds is limited. They can't do certain things, like provide healthcare to citizens, because they're not granted the right to do so. That's what they're forbidden to do.

Maugena wrote:According to http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-0 ... ate2-.html
The states that are suing are as follows:
Florida, Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington.
The population total of all those states comes out to be roughly 98 million people.
The total population of the United States is believed to be about 307 million people.
No one will know exactly how many people are against it unless everyone participates.
There might be a lot of people in the 13 states that are suing to repeal the reform that are for the reform.
There might be a lot of people in the other 37 states that are against the reform.
Assuming that the states are either completely for or against it, the majority is not trying to repeal the reform.

Thanks, but polls are polls are polls.
Let's not mistake approximations for fact.

Telephone poll. Lawl.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... 19_20_2010
It clearly states that the sample is 1000 people per poll.

Correct. Polls consistently show that the majority are against this bill, but, as you point out, they are only polls. I can only say that if I were in a position to make such a massive decision, I wouldn't do it unless it were abundantly clear that a majority of my constituents favored it. In this very divided (and by all accounts, it looks like a less than 10% swing either way) environment, I find it irresponsible to make such a huge move. Also, it's illegal for them to do so (see below).

Maugena wrote:

gatoraubery2 wrote:@ your #2... fallacy. Appeal to Common Practice is not an acceptable argument.
@ your #3... thegreekdog and I have already hashed this out (and he was on the correct side of the argument). The taxation is not illegal. The allocation of funds is. Insurance does not fall under any of the enumerated powers.

Please explain to me why that is not an acceptable argument instead of just stating that it is unacceptable.
Also, thegreekdog did not state that what he was suggesting is fact. He said it was merely possible.
That being said, how is your case solid?
You need to prove to me that the federal government cannot provide us with health care.
Your plan of attack suggests that it can't because it doesn't have the consent of the constitution.
Again, with many things not having the consent of the constitution, it's hard to see your point as valid.
That doesn't mean that those other things are 'legal', as you put it, but it should mean that we should remove those other things as well.
Again, I will bring up that I have found no evidence suggesting that the uses of taxation must be for specific things.
Basically, you need to prove to me how you are correct.
If you can't do that, I will never admit that you are correct.
You may not be wrong, but I will not say you are correct until proven.

Fallacies are not acceptable because they are invalid logical arguments. That's what fallacy is defined to mean. The fallacy called "Appeal to Common Practice" means that the arguer justifies one action by suggesting that it is comparable to other actions that are commonly accepted. Proof must be provided of the justification of the action. Stating that "someone else got away with it" isn't enough. And as I've said before, I do believe we should "remove those other things as well." Blocking new "things" is a good place to start.

As for taxation being used for specific things, the Constitution gives a list, in Article I, Section 8, of the powers of Congress. Providing healthcare isn't one of them. The Tenth Amendment states that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the States or People. So, while there is no limit on taxation, their is a clear limit on the allocation of the revenue generated.

Thus:
1. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as "freedom from arbitrary or despotic control."
2. In the United States Constitution, which defines the powers of the federal government, there is no clause granting the federal government the power to provide healthcare.
3. The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
4. The attempt by the federal government to secure a power not delegated to it in the Constitution is, by definition, arbitrary, as well as strictly prohibited by the same Constitution.
5. If the government is arbitrarily seizing control of powers not delegated to it, the citizens do not live in freedom from arbitrary control.
6. Thus, the citizens do not enjoy a state of liberty.

Calidus wrote: First off, I'd like to say that personally I think it's obvious that Amendments change over time (just look at the 18th and the 21st )...

... so to use it in your 3rd mark is kind of silly

Until they're changed, it's illegal to violate them.

Calidus wrote:I will go to my main point though...

in your 4th mark you are basically saying that the Government is not authorized to secure a power if it isn't in the constitution.

If you read this you will see that the Government has every right to make this health bill...
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0877699.html

I'd like to note that the website got this source from the government.

So if you look at the last mark under National Government... Make laws necessary and proper to carry out the these powers ... you can see that this allows the government to make this bill.

note the words Necessary and Proper

I'm with you so far. Below, we will see where healthcare does not fall under any of these powers.

Calidus wrote:Although it is being very spacific there are cases that the Government has control. Maybe you can't but I can see how healthcare issues could effect someone on the interstate (lets say a car crash happened or something) ... see I personaly am effected by this, because if I get into a health problem such as a car crash injury...the medical personal will check my wallot for my health cards and such. Depending on what Health plan you have can influence the financial outcome greatly. This is important if I'm in a condition when I can't explain my health plan.

They're not talking about "Interstates" as in the highways. Those didn't exist in 1789. They're talking about commerce between states. And health insurance is not portable between states. Thus, it is not interstate. Even if it were somehow defined to be interstate, "regulate" and "provide" are two separate things.

Calidus wrote:A similar scenario could apply for the Army and Navy.

Healthcare is provided for the Army and Navy. I'm not in the Army or Navy, and neither are most people. They have their own separate department that takes care of them.

Calidus wrote:also, using the site again, if you look below the box you can see that BOTH the state and Government share powers many things. Important here is:

•Borrow money
•Spend money for the general welfare

Show me in the Constitution where it says that Congress can make a law to spend money for my welfare. I don't care about that website. Get text, from the Constitution.

Calidus wrote:but most importantly... even if you don't agree with the first two, and this would basically show your "theory" is wrong is simply •Make and enforce laws

...that don't conflict with the Constitution. The entire point of the document is to limit governmental authority and avoid despotism.

Calidus wrote:so.. there you have it....by the way I am a citizen and I DO enjoy my libery...I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Find your documentation, then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.