New Obamacare Thread

[havok579257]

Finally found a government action that requires consent of all. Forming a government, outlawing countless peaceful activities, increasing the amount of money to be taken by the government? No need to obtain everyone's consent. Going to sell off land for which there was no constitutional provision in the first place? Everyone must be consulted.

 

 

The mind reels.

 

 

well there is consent to some of those things because you choose to live here under these rules.  its not like you were born before these were put in place and it was changed on you.  these things were implimented before you were born and your consenting to them in a way because you choose to stay and not leave.

[Winchester]

well there is consent to some of those things because you choose to live here under these rules.  its not like you were born before these were put in place and it was changed on you.  these things were implimented before you were born and your consenting to them in a way because you choose to stay and not leave.

 

 

 

I was just getting a laugh out of your bizarre stipulation that the selling of federally owned land would require the consent of everyone. I think that's massively entertaining. It wasn't an attempt to engage you in conversation. I was just making fun of you for suddenly valuing consent when you don't at any other time. Well, as long as it's the magical goobermintsupergoodpeople making the rules. That's what I imagine you calling them, but without any sense of irony. I imagine your eyes kind of glazing over, as if thinking about being told what to do by a bunch of people in a room with too much wood paneling causes your body to produce a flood of hormones.

 

If I were a politician, I'd invest countless tax dollars in attempting to either clone you or develop a serum from your genes that could thereby infect the masses. You're the perfect serf.

Edited April 10, 2014 by Winchester

[havok579257]

I was just getting a laugh out of your bizarre stipulation that the selling of federally owned land would require the consent of everyone. I think that's massively entertaining. It wasn't an attempt to engage you in conversation. I was just making fun of you for suddenly valuing consent when you don't at any other time. Well, as long as it's the magical goobermintsupergoodpeople making the rules. That's what I imagine you calling them, but without any sense of irony. I imagine your eyes kind of glazing over, as if thinking about being told what to do by a bunch of people in a room with too much wood paneling causes your body to produce a flood of hormones.

 

If I were a politician, I'd invest countless tax dollars in attempting to either clone you or develop a serum from your genes that could thereby infect the masses. You're the perfect serf.

 

 

and when don't i value consent?  

 

sorry but if you choose to stay somewhere where the norm is already accepted your consenting in a way.  if your against the norm you essential have only a few options.

 

1. leave

2. refuse to do the norm and pay the price(not saying I advocate what punishment would happen, just stating it will happen)

3. work to change the norm and in this case that means changing the law which means getting the majority of politcians to agree with you and the majority of citizens to agree with you

[Winchester]

and when don't i value consent?  

 

sorry but if you choose to stay somewhere where the norm is already accepted your consenting in a way.  if your against the norm you essential have only a few options.

 

1. leave

2. refuse to do the norm and pay the price(not saying I advocate what punishment would happen, just stating it will happen)

3. work to change the norm and in this case that means changing the law which means getting the majority of politcians to agree with you and the majority of citizens to agree with you

If the government didn't obtain full consent at the time of its founding, then it was not legitimate. It doesn't become legitimate with subsequent generations, who have been given a choice between obedience and violence. Most people will submit to an attacker. That doesn't make the attacker's actions legitimate. The federal government was founded with the consent of the few and then imposed on everyone. It claims to rule based on consent, and that claim is clearly false. That I choose the path that doesn't result in increased suffering does not make their claims legitimate.

 

When enough people decide they will not be ordered around, the political class will have no choice but to relent. In the meantime, they will commit violence and marginalize people who do not obey in the attempt to maintain their power. I think it will be a slow change, the civilizing of society. We at least see the drive in large swaths fighting for marriage equality, ending prohibition, reforming immigration, and generally reducing the violation of human rights in the name of personal preferences. These objectives are not always motivated by a rejection of the state, but if the DEA, for instance, is abolished, the increase in liberty will be good.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

Edited April 10, 2014 by Winchester

[havok579257]

If the government didn't obtain full consent at the time of its founding, then it was not legitimate. It doesn't become legitimate with subsequent generations, who have been given a choice between obedience and violence. Most people will submit to an attacker. That doesn't make the attacker's actions legitimate. The federal government was founded with the consent of the few and then imposed on everyone. It claims to rule based on consent, and that claim is clearly false. That I choose the path that doesn't result in increased suffering does not make their claims legitimate.

 

When enough people decide they will not be ordered around, the political class will have no choice but to relent. In the meantime, they will commit violence and marginalize people who do not obey in the attempt to maintain their power. I think it will be a slow change, the civilizing of society. We at least see the drive in large swaths fighting for marriage equality, ending prohibition, reforming immigration, and generally reducing the violation of human rights in the name of personal preferences. These objectives are not always motivated by a rejection of the state, but if the DEA, for instance, is abolished, the increase in liberty will be good.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fasTSY-dB-s

 

 

i didn't claim the government was legitiment.  I just claimed your consenting is a form because you choose to stay.  You may claim forced consent but its still a form of consent.

 

I guess you have more faith then I do in american citizens.  I don't think a change is ever coming because the majority don't agree with your train of thought.  Not saying your wrong just stating the majority don't see it that way.  And without a majority, it will never change.  I have no faith the majority will ever overthrow the political class in this country.  I believe what might happen is the people form a different political class than what we have today but I believe the majority will never try and over throw the political class as a whole.

[Winchester]

i didn't claim the government was legitiment.  I just claimed your consenting is a form because you choose to stay.  You may claim forced consent but its still a form of consent.

 

 

I believe I covered that.

 

It's no more consent than giving a wallet to a mugger is consent.

[Socrates]

you have not answered my question and I have already answered your.  I gave you a example of what republicans should do to get votes.  Comprimise instead of being hard line on everything. 

 

Evidently, you don't understand the meaning of the word "specific."  Generally calling for more compromise and not "being hard line on everything" is incredibly vague.

 

The GOP leadership has compromised itself away on pretty much everything, and basically given Obama and the Dems everything they want.  They gave up on Obamacare with barely a fight, and agreed to raise the debt ceiling and continue spending at even higher rates than before.

Really, how much more compromise do you want?

 

And you've given me a list of more Republicans you don't like, when I asked for which politicians you think we should be supporting.  Surely, there's somebody out there you think worthy of support.

Since you like compromise so much, McCain, Boehner, McConnell,etc. should be right up your alley.

Your types are currently in charge of the Republican Party.  You should be happy.

 

And Obama, Reid and the Dems refuse to compromise on anything, and they're setting the agenda.  But you're upset with the Tea Party instead.

 

 

We should be troubled by the massive debt.  We should try to fix it.  Although this is where comprimise comes in.  Numerous independent sources have said reduction in spending alone will not fix the debt.  It needs to be a combination of increases in taxes and cuts in spending.  Although republicans refuse this option and only will go along with spending cuts even though spending cuts alone will not fix the debt.  So until they are willing to comprimise, they really aren't serious about fixing the debt.  

 . . . . 

 

Again, the Republicans have already compromised to the point of capitulation.  They agreed to raise the debt ceiling (which means agreeing to increase the rate of spending and not cut anything).  Nothing's getting cut.

 

Raising taxes is not without problems, as it weakens the economy, and will lead to more unemployment and poverty.  However, our debt is so massive that even if we taxed all the super-rich at 100% rates, it would barely make a dent in the debt at our rate of spending.

Those politicians in both parties who can find nothing to cut, and who want to keep growing government, are not serious.

 

When the Republicans want to spend like drunken sailors, and the Democrats want to spend even more, crying about how we need more "compromise" is senseless.

 

 

Ok, just answer my question now please.  How long would you have Cruz and the republicans kept the government shut down and do you honestly believe a large majority of democrats would have flipped and voted to overturn a presidential veto to get rid of obamacare? 

 

 

Frankly, if it were up to me, I'd keep non-essential government services shut down permanently.  If they're not essential, they're not needed, and are wasting money.

 

While the Democrats may not flip, the Republicans need to send a strong clear message, draw a line in the sand, and make it know to voters exactly where they stand on Obamacare, and why.  It's a long fight, which won't be won overnight.  The leadership has not made any serious moves to oppose Obamacare, and many - who ran on the promise to fight to repeal Obamacare - are now backing out, and talking of "fixing it"  - i.e. keeping and tinkering with it.  This begs the question of whether many Republicans will vote to repeal Obamacare if they do get the majority.  

I'm not holding my breath - like you, they prefer "compromise" and big government.

 

Unless you can come up with something positive to contribute (as opposed to just more ranting about how much you hate Tea Partiers), I'm done wasting time with you.

Edited April 11, 2014 by Socrates

[CrossCuT]

[Anastasia13]

Yeah then how do you explain Muslims being exempted? 

I thought that turn out to be false, that they were not exempted.

[Anastasia13]

just because someone unjustly keeps people from using it does not change ownership rules.  its no different if i sat on your lawn with gun in hand keeping you from your house.  just cause i do that does not mean your property rights have changed.

Nevada, anyone?