News of the day

Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Does anyone else find it hilarious that almost all the time when it doesn't go their way, Republicans decry the actions of an "activist" court, but whenever it's something they care about, it's about "liberty and the Constitution"? It's kind of amazing how their decades-long doublespeak has shifting in their favor for public discourse. Just always assert whatever you're arguing for is pro-liberty. You can't lose! And Democrats do the same thing.  It isn't about things going a certain way.  It's about abiding by our Constitution, which unfortunately both parties don't give a piss about because they want things to "go" their way.  I would rather the focus be on what is the right thing to do in and of itself, rather than whether or not it aligns with the Constitution. And yes that is the primary concern of the Supreme Court, but the whole cult of worship that surrounds this document kind of irks me. It has a ton of good things to say, but there are a whole lot of discussions that we need to have as a nation that shouldn't be thrown out because of "state's rights" or something similar. States don't have rights.  People do.  States have powers.

States' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. Since the 1940s, it has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.^[1][2][3][4] In law, states' prerogatives are protected by the Tenth Amendment.


Edited by Slartibartfast - April 09 2012 at 12:25

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Epignosis wrote: stonebeard wrote: Does anyone else find it hilarious that almost all the time when it doesn't go their way, Republicans decry the actions of an "activist" court, but whenever it's something they care about, it's about "liberty and the Constitution"? It's kind of amazing how their decades-long doublespeak has shifting in their favor for public discourse. Just always assert whatever you're arguing for is pro-liberty. You can't lose! And Democrats do the same thing.  It isn't about things going a certain way.  It's about abiding by our Constitution, which unfortunately both parties don't give a piss about because they want things to "go" their way.  I would rather the focus be on what is the right thing to do in and of itself, rather than whether or not it aligns with the Constitution. And yes that is the primary concern of the Supreme Court, but the whole cult of worship that surrounds this document kind of irks me. It has a ton of good things to say, but there are a whole lot of discussions that we need to have as a nation that shouldn't be thrown out because of "state's rights" or something similar. States don't have rights.  People do.  States have powers.  tates' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. Since the 1940s, it has often been considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation.[1][2][3][4] In law, states' prerogatives are protected by the Tenth Amendment.

I'm so glad Tate has rights, but I'm sure even he realizes that Wikipedia has been known to be wrong. 

9th Amendment wrote: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

10th Amendment wrote: 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.

Regarding the notion of states' rights in the US, check this out:

http://libertarianstrategymonthly.com/2010/01/05/states-don%E2%80%99t-have-rights/

The Affordable Health Care act puts the Court in a politically very bad place.

Negoba wrote: The Affordable Health Care act puts the Court in a politically very bad place.   The majority would like to see it come down, but if they do it virtually guarantess Obama's re-election, along with other damage to the conservative / Republican platform.   Legally, common sense would tell us that requiring private citizens to purchase a commercial product is totally beyond the rightful powers of the government. Except the cat's already out of the bag with auto insurance.     As I've said before, we need Health Care Reform very very badly. But there's too much money at stake, so a system based on function rather than profitability is not going to happen. Or at least not until more of the financial system collapses and the whole country (maybe world) gets back to what matters.

This is part of the reason I just get annoyed when I hear Republicans pontificating about proper powers of government and forcing citizens to purchase something. It's just a political tool for them. Yes, one is state power and the other is federal, but that's really not the issue. If the law were forcing people to buy something along the Republican line, you wouldn't hear a peep from them. After all, what's the difference between raising military spending on new fighter jet or requiring that people buy health care. You're forcing the taxpayer to buy something in either case. The latter situation just requires to consumer directly make the purchase rather than the government doing so vicariously.

I remember a facetious bill being introduced to limit the length of legislation. 

Ship to Retrace Voyage of Titanic

I seem to recall the voyage of the Titanic ended with the ship broke in two and at the bottom of ocean.

JJLehto wrote: I know Rand (or maybe both Pauls) sponsored a bill to make Congress literally read every bill up for a vote. The idea being to reduce them, and also so ya know....they know what it's saying.

Negoba wrote:   At first I was going to make a snarky remark to the effect of "Then that would mean the representatives would have to be able to read" and something about discrimination against the illiterate.   Which brings up a real issue we are facing today. What if a candidate simply doesn't have the ability to do the job of being a representative? How do we deal with leaders who are simply stupid?

We're not supposed to elect them in the first place, but you see how well we are with that.

Negoba wrote: JJLehto wrote: I know Rand (or maybe both Pauls) sponsored a bill to make Congress literally read every bill up for a vote. The idea being to reduce them, and also so ya know....they know what it's saying.   At first I was going to make a snarky remark to the effect of "Then that would mean the representatives would have to be able to read"

You have to wonder sometimes

Much as we want to think as you said, I really don't think the problem is that our representatives are dumb/can't handle it...but it's the $$ in their pockets.
This is for the general suckiness of things, there are cases like the Patriot Act or Obamacare where it's as simple as "We can't read all this sh*t" so they pass it/don't on a few snippets of info.
Or like SOPA...I hope it was another case of "this will stop piracy" "oh, thats good!" so they support it without actually knowing wtf it says.

Either way, $$$ or stupidity the only way I can see fixing it is reducing what they do.
If they have less to do, the less they can muck up.






Edited by JJLehto - April 09 2012 at 14:42

Well I don't advocate anarchy.

And you are indeed right, those things are part of human nature...and I've seen it in the lowest of low of organizations (I mean High School Marching Band level!)
It can't be eliminated, but limited as best as possible.
You are also right there is a low chance, right now, but it's up to us. What's the definition of insanity again??

Can't just sit back and expect the problem makers to just change can only slowly hammer away I guess and hope eventually there's a breakthrough.

On that topic, I think Wubya is the definition of what you meant Negoba. I still maintain he was not a "bad guy" but certainly incapable of leading.
"Hey Georgie Boy"
"What's up Dick?"
"Wanna sign this, it'll stop terrorists" "aaahhh the Patriot Act! Well of course"

"Yo W, Saddam Hussein is a bad man who wants to nuke us we gotta take him out" "Well he is bad...let's do it"

Poor soul lived in a bubble world, and was easily persuaded. I mean he made the epic 180 of "compassionate conservative" who wanted to keep US limited in the world to neo-con king...and looking at the people around him I see why.


Edited by JJLehto - April 09 2012 at 15:14