If the blame belongs on the people and it is their responsibility to limit the government, then the only function of a written constitution is to codify the government's power and serve as an excuse/justification for each power grab.

No, not true. The constitution can only be used to keep government in check if there is a vocal and active opposition force within that government body to regulate itself according to the constitution, therefore, like I said earlier, if there is no "good" to fight "evil", then evil takes over and breaks it's own laws, etc. Every constitution needs good people in order to work. That would be like saying we don't need firemen to save people from burning buildings because we have fire trucks.

And if the people don't want a limited government the constitution serves no end whatsoever because it can simply be ignored.

Yes, but that is the case with every constitution. If a government as a whole becomes corrupt and has a common agenda, then there is no oppositional force to regulate or hold that government accountable. The constitution is a guideline that decent people use to hold government accountable and regulate it. The only problem is, we don't have enough decent people in government anymore, therefore it is not working. No constitution can physically keep government in check because decent people are needed to use it, just like no house blueprint can physically build a house because it needs carpenters in order to do so. This doesn't mean the bluprint is useless though. Why? Because that blueprint can guide those carpenters in the right direction and show them what kind of house to build and how to build that house the way it says it needs to be built. Your notion that the failure of a constitution is due to it's own construction or it's own existence, rather than the failure of the people, is absurd.

By laying out the supposed limits of government it presupposes a governmental form and scope that will always please the people, frozen in time. But people change. Should they want more government, nothing need be done, because without their will the constitution doesn't limit the government on its own. However should they want less, the government can always use the constitution to justify its current powers and any others it wants to grab via construction. So in that respect it protects the states existence, not the people or their rights.

No, because something that limits government to a certain level cannot legally allow government to grow beyond that level. The constitution does that, but, like I said earlier, the constitution, as with any constitution, needs an aware and educated public in order to work. Yes, people change, and if people want to add amendments to the constitution to make it better and more effective when it comes to safeguarding liberty, then they can do that. But people also become dumber and apathetic. Does this mean our laws should become tyrannical and apathetic to the wishes of those people? No. But those kind of laws are byproducts of apathetic, uncaring, greedy, corrupt politicians rather than a constitution.

With all your equivocation these facts remain:

Please do not call them facts. These are the opinions of some guy who read theoretical, conspiracy jibberish rather than actual history. No, let me revise that statement to my liking, since I have based my conclusions on facts, not nonsensical, opinionated jibberish:

With all your equivocation, these facts remain:

1) The constitution provided for the creation of a central government which previously didn't exist, which had explicit powers which previously hadn't even been implicit or assumed except by the King.

Wrong. The constitution enumerated these powers to a central government that was split into three branches, not one governmental body with a "their say only" policy.

2) The constitution did not limit the expansion of government. Neither did the people. And the constitution has served via construction as the justification for many expansions of the government's powers. Interstate commerce has been used to justify controls on agriculture, drugs, education, etc.

Wrong. The constitution itself legally restrains the expansion of government. The fact is, the constitution does not allow government to grow to todays level nor does it allow it to use paper money, which allows for this expansion, therefore you cannot say the constitution allows for the expansion of government beyond it's own natural constitutional limit when the two most used mechanisms for todays government expansion are unconstitutional: paper money/printing money and deficit spending.

3) The intent of the framers of the constitution was a more powerful central government. That they may not have wanted one as powerful as our current central government is unprovable and irrelevant anyway. Some likely didn't, some did.

Funny how you go from saying that the intent of the framers of the constitution was nothing more than a "power grab" to saying that it was a "more powerful central government." You are, once again, changing what you said. No one NEVER said that the intent of the framers of the constitution was to make a stronger central government. I said that in one of my earlier posts. This is a sure sign of someone who is obviously wrong on their "facts".

The relevant point is that the constitution was an attempt to assert legal power, not to limit it. If they had truly wanted to limit the central government the obvious choice is to not establish one.

Opinion, not fact. The historical fact is that the constitution was meant to limit government while providing for a stronger central government that can do it's job, but have checks and balances and not grow beyond it's natural constitutional limitations. That is the fact and your opinion - or maybe I should say conspiracy jibberish - that it was an attemt to assert legal power or was a "power grab" is just that: an opinon.

4) If your argument that the constitution didn't provide for the expansion of the central government is correct, then it also did not and could not limit the government except to the extent that popular will backed those limitations.

No constitution itself can obviously limit government if no one puts it to use. I already talked about this above using the analogy about carpenters, not house bluprints, building homes. That's like saying some document could have stopped Hitler from doing what he did. No, the people could have by maybe using that document, but ultimately it is up to the people to stop him.

5) If the popular will is in fact what limits the government, which isn't something I disagree with, then there should be no need for a constitution.

No, because 1. the constitution is a guideline and 2. even popular will needs a guideline to start from. Once again, you can't build a house without a house bluprint, even though you'd love to build one

To expand its powers the goverment need merely ignore it or construct upon it in response to the people.

The government, to a very large degree, already HAS already been ignoring what people want. Doesn't work, obviously.

To limit the government's powers the people need not appeal to any document but merely assert themselves via popular demonstrations.

"Popular demonstrations" are not as organized as written law. In order to limit governments power, popular demonstration/being politically active AND using a document to hold them accountable to, as a guideline, is needed. This is what the constitution requires.

In fact a document laying out the scope of government would become a hinderance because it would freeze forever in time the popular will of one group of people, nothing more, and provide some measure of official justification for governmental powers even if the people were against such powers.

No, because many of the basic principles and rights that are outlined in the constitution are principles/rights that never grow old, no matter how much society changes. What, you think that society will evolve to a point where they will never want or need freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or to shoot a gun? Of course not.

So that leaves us still where my claims end; the constitution, any constitution, is a power grab.

And that's just that: a claim.

Limitations on government codified in the constitution are nothing but the momentary whims of the public and don't actually serve to limit the overall growth of the government so long as the people are willing to ignore them en masse.

I don't entirely disagree with the latter part of this statement, but, as I have already showed above, the constitution was written to limit government, to a large degree, but, in practice or reality, does not limit government completely or indefinitely because 1. the failure of the public and 2. the government as a whole, with a common agenda, becoming tyrannical. An alert, watchful and educated public is essential for freedom and our framers of the constitution said this when they talked about the constitution in relation to it working or not politically.

But, the document itself does serve as an official codification of power which both legitimizes the existence and ever increasing scope of the central government's powers.

I have already debunked this nonsense and all you have done thus far is stick to your unfounded claims. The fact is, once again, the constittuion was written to and does limit government to a large degree, but, in reality, it has not been restraining the growth of government indefinitely because when a government, with a common agenda, becomes tyrannical, then there is no oppositional force to hold them accountable to the constitution. After all, Hitler broke many laws because the public would not hold him accountable. Laws don't enforce themselves, men do - otherwise we would not need the Police.

Originally Posted by Bass Master

No, not true. The constitution can only be used to keep government in check if there is a vocal and active opposition force within that government body to regulate itself according to the constitution, therefore, like I said earlier, if there is no "good" to fight "evil", then evil takes over and breaks it's own laws, etc. Every constitution needs good people in order to work. That would be like saying we don't need firemen to save people from burning buildings because we have fire trucks.

And, please do tell, what kind of dip**** expects the government to ever truly regulate itself? If the constitution needs good people to work, then a constitutional republic is just as utopian an idea as all out socialism or free market anarchism. The government will not by nature fight to limit itself, it will, as I've said, only not go after those powers it deems irrelevant at any given time, and use those as bone sto throw to the population under the guise of 'limits'. If the government is the judge and jury in its own case on every issue, you don't have to be Einstein to realize it's going progressively vote itself more power even if it's staffed with nothing but good people.

Those people will always want to Do Something! about this or that issue, but are by nature cut off from the normal channels of information most of the rest of the planet takes for granted. If they screw up, they get more money and power. If a problem gets worse under them, they get more people and resources to use to fight it. If people disgree, they don't have to convince, they just fine, jail, and ultimately shoot them.

It is a matter of prediction that when the government transitions from privately (monarchy) to publically (social democracy) owned, the same issues of public ownership that make parks and other such resources go to **** will affect the government. People will overuse it and not maintain it. It will be seen as an opportunity to take but not to give. And while some few may put forward an effort to keep things straight, the bottom line reality is most people will simply respond to the incentive structure that's in place, which is to use the government to loot as much as possible for as long as possible, period.

Which is exactly what we've got and exactly what's happened over the course of the last two centuries. And the constitution nor the people by and large haven't done jack **** to stop it. In many ways they both have enabled it, as previously mentioned, the constitution through construction and the people through neglect.

You seem to want to approach this issue based on what you hope for rather than reality. Well theory has to prove its merit in practical application. There isn't a single written constitution in the history of the planet that has actually limited a government. Every single such constitution has been an assertion or a reassertion of desired or previosly removed central power respectively. The supposed 'limitations' built into these documents are nothing of the sort because they never serve to actually do that: limit the government. They are only effective in so far as those who want to govern can't push their powers beyond those who they aim to govern. If those they aim to govern have no objection, the constitution, any constitution, is a dead letter despite what it says and what the intent of some who voted for it may have been.

As such the only thing that limits the government is the popular will and what the productive class of workers will tolerate from the parasitic class of net tax consumers. And that changes from moment to moment, year to year, and no constitution ever stood in its way.

And, please do tell, what kind of dip**** expects the government to ever truly regulate itself? If the constitution needs good people to work, then a constitutional republic is just as utopian an idea as all out socialism or free market anarchism. The government will not by nature fight to limit itself, it will, as I've said, only not go after those powers it deems irrelevant at any given time, and use those as bone sto throw to the population under the guise of 'limits'. If the government is the judge and jury in its own case on every issue, you don't have to be Einstein to realize it's going progressively vote itself more power even if it's staffed with nothing but good people.

Every country, whether they have a great constitution or a poorly written, badly constructed constitution depends on it's people when it comes to holding government accountable and protecting liberty. You're right about there being no utopia, even a perfect "constitutional republic" because of mans nature to always abuse power and become corrupt. But that is not what I am saying. If the people today at least cared about true liberty and held the government accountable, we would at least hold back fascism and have more freedom today. In my opinion, there is no such thing as a utopia in this greedy world. I do not believe our constitution is going to make every single thing in America perfect, etc. People will always have to safeguard their freedoms. In general, freedom has always been paid for by the blood of patriots and tyrants and perhaps it will take more blood in the near future with the way things are going.

Those people will always want to Do Something! about this or that issue, but are by nature cut off from the normal channels of information most of the rest of the planet takes for granted. If they screw up, they get more money and power. If a problem gets worse under them, they get more people and resources to use to fight it. If people disgree, they don't have to convince, they just fine, jail, and ultimately shoot them.

I agree. But do you remember when, for example, parents were able to educate their children and the state didn't come in and make the parents answer to them? While things weren't perfect, at least kids back then at least had some backbone; they had a greater sense of responsibility. They seemed more aware about the things affecting their lives, their freedom, and their country. They seemed smarter. They weren't brainwashed like most kids are today. This is one of the main problems today. One of the most basic rights have been stripped from parents: teaching. Now kids have to answer to the state and are, to a large degree, compartmentalized (I'd also use the word "brainwashed") by todays government controlled, dogmatic educational system. This is why, when these kids grow up and are able to vote, etc., they don't make the right choices because they've been fed propaganda their whole lives, whether it be government text books or the tv. People, especially kids, grow up being taught to depend on government. Back then, people assumed a greater level of responsibility for their actions and weren't as dependent on government like many people are today. This leads to those kids making bad decisions when they become adults and that is why most kids and adults today do not care about true liberty, because 1. they are taught to depend on government indirectly, through various mechanisms, or 2. are brainwashed to depend on government or 3. are not educated about how politics really work (what kid today is educated about the Federal Reserve system in public school?) and how our monetary system works and the fraud it is or 4. are so sickened by the level of corruption and greed in todays politics, they just give up caring. I mean, most kids today aren't even taught how to balance a checkbook in high school or how to spend money. It's sad, really. After all, if any government or leader wants more power, they have to control the educational and voting system, to some degree.

It is a matter of prediction that when the government transitions from privately (monarchy) to publically (social democracy) owned, the same issues of public ownership that make parks and other such resources go to **** will affect the government. People will overuse it and not maintain it. It will be seen as an opportunity to take but not to give.

Our country was founded as a republic, not even a democracy, but now we aren't even a republic anymore because of people not holding government accountable. Yes, people will overuse the system or 'abuse' it because they are taught to literally depend on the system the moment they are born. If kids today were taught self-reliance, then future generations wouldn't be as dependent on government.

And while some few may put forward an effort to keep things straight, the bottom line reality is most people will simply respond to the incentive structure that's in place, which is to use the government to loot as much as possible for as long as possible, period.

Other than what I have already stated above being a good answer to this statement, I agree. People, other than the fact that they're taught to depend on government today, will always want a 'freebie' from government if given the chance. This is why I have said that I don't have much faith in todays political system or the people for that matter. The majority of Americans will wait until something major happens, like a complete economic collapse, then they will be so mad, it will possibly lead to the rise of a fascist leader or government (not that todays government isn't fascist or that it has happened already, but something more profound). This is why I do not rely on our cosntitution and I have repeatedly stated that it is ultimately up to the people. The Bill of Rights, for example, is just a guideline, but it alone, especially with an apathetic public, will not create the ideal utopia. No document will because there is no such thing as pefect in politics.

Which is exactly what we've got and exactly what's happened over the course of the last two centuries.

I agree. Government has been trying to grab more power and destroy parts of the constitution ever since it was established, because that is their nature. But things really started going downhill after the establishment of the Federal Reserve system in 1913.

And the constitution nor the people by and large haven't done jack **** to stop it. In many ways they both have enabled it, as previously mentioned, the constitution through construction and the people through neglect.

That is your opinion. As far as the constitution not fully working goes: that's because the public as a whole never really put the important parts of the constitution to use and actually tried to hold government accountable. You'll have decent politicians every now and then who try to hold government accountable, but thats fighting a battle they cannot win because for every honest poltician, there are 150 dirty polticians and the people simply do not care.....but they will when the black stuff hits the fan.

You seem to want to approach this issue based on what you hope for rather than reality.

There is nothing wrong with hope, only hope that is wasted and not put to good use via inspiration. I hope for a lot, and it inspires me and thats why I care and, for example, if someone wants to know about the Federal Reserve being a fraud, I will tell them. After all, it is better to die fighting then on your knees. If it ever got to the point where the government is kicking down the door and arresting you for telling others about the Fed or something else and what not, then I can at least say to myself with a clear conscience that I tried and didn't sit by and do nothing. But no, I understand reality. This is why I often say that I know the outcome will be an apathetic public who wants freebies from the government and do not care about liberty until it directly affects them.

Well theory has to prove its merit in practical application. There isn't a single written constitution in the history of the planet that has actually limited a government.

Yes, that is true. Even the documents in the world that were written to limit government to a certain degree have not been successful because of governments nature and an apathetic public who is dependent on the nanny state system. They still want 'momma's milk.'

Every single such constitution has been an assertion or a reassertion of desired or previosly removed central power respectively. The supposed 'limitations' built into these documents are nothing of the sort because they never serve to actually do that: limit the government. They are only effective in so far as those who want to govern can't push their powers beyond those who they aim to govern. If those they aim to govern have no objection, the constitution, any constitution, is a dead letter despite what it says and what the intent of some who voted for it may have been.

I agree, to a very large degree. As you know, I have talked about constitutional amendments to better protect the people and truly limit government, but, as you say, I don't have faith in that because, in reality, people today are just too damn dependent on government and are too damn lazy to care or get active, not to mention the massive polticial behemoth that is dependent on special interests that would block this. This is why the only answer would be a mass awakening where everyone throws out the dirty potlicians and runs for office themselves and get rid of the political barriers. But that, once again, falls in the realms of hope rather than reality.

As such the only thing that limits the government is the popular will and what the productive class of workers will tolerate from the parasitic class of net tax consumers. And that changes from moment to moment, year to year, and no constitution ever stood in its way.

I still think every country needs written law, as in some guideline, some constitution. But yes, it is always up to the popular will and that is why any constittuion will not work unless the people wake up and start caring.

Originally Posted by Bass Master

I agree. Government has been trying to grab more power and destroy parts of the constitution ever since it was established, because that is their nature. But things really started going downhill after the establishment of the Federal Reserve system in 1913.

And that's where we disagree and a perfect example of what I'm talking about: I think we went downhill with the constitution. I have no idea how you differentiate every subsequent power grab as bad, but the initial one in the form of the constitution as good, other than through a normative judgement that at the time it was just the right amount of government in your view. I would generally agree with that level of government myself if it could be maintained, but it is not the nature of government to maintain itself but to expand. To my vew saying "If the people would just force the government to adhere to the constitution..." is almost, but not quite exactly, like saying all people have to do to defy gravity is write a constitution saying they can and just 'enforcing' it.

Some things are not simply matters of obedience, and saying that the constitution had built in limits is ignoring the fact that it was a power grab, the people got the power, and it has been subsequently used as the justification for massive expansions of state power through construction and neglect. What does the drug war rely on? Interstate commerce. What do agriultural controls and policy rely on? Interstate commerce. What does our welfare state rely on? General welfare and a couple of ammendments I believe. Jefferson warned the constitution could be made "a blank paper by construction." But that's only possible if it's there to begin with.

You brought up the Federal Reserve, one of its most pernicious effects is that the paper money it issues engenders a change in the relationship between government and the people. On a commodity standard it is clear to everyone that the government is dependent on the people, that it gets its revenue from the people, and that every increase in its power is also a threat for an increase in taxation. On a paper money standard the government has a surrepticious way of stealing, and can thus position itself as a source of wealth, not a consumer of it, and fools enough people that their fundamental attitude toward government changes from enemy to collaborator. The constituion engenders the same kind of change on a legal basis, and it does this through its facade of 'limitations'.

The government is power and coersion institutionalized, and no one wants power exercised over them despite what they wish for others. People usually oppose random grabs of power and find them threatening. But if the power hunger spell out what they want in terms of 'limits' or 'enumerated powers', even if it's as much a lie as the "government as fount of wealth" is, it still likewise fools enough people so the power hungry get their foot in the door, and following them over time is everyone else who just wants this or that specific power, but nothing too burdensome of course, not at all.

That process continues until, as with monetary inflation, we have legal inflation. The issuance and enactment of a ridiculous amount of laws and regulations, burdensome taxes and agencies, and an alphabet soup of acronyms, each with a specific and limited power over our lives, all with their hands in our pocket. That is what the constitution inevitably gets you because it is at base a power grab, despite what the people of the time accept in terms of power they're will to cede, and despite even what the framers of the document want. It is an assertion of authority, and it doesn't matter how specifically limited it is initially, because all government powers trend from the special and specific to the conspicuous and the general. They do not trend in reverse except through revolution of one kind or another.

Originally Posted by CDB

Good points. However, how many presidents do you know of that also:

1) Surrounded themselves with far left wing, outright devout communist freaks who had as their ultimate goal the reshaping of the United States into what the USSR supposedly might have been?

2) Had an FCC 'diversity czar' who has suggested white people step down so blacks can have more power, and that "hard structural rules" be put in place regarding broadcasting because the fairness doctrine "(wasn't) enough," and who thinks Hugo Chavez, a ****ing dictator, is just swell?

3) Had a 'science czar' who put his name on papers advocating forced sterilization, shot gun marriages and forced abortions for single mothers, while claiming all could be within the bounds of the constitution based on a population crisis which echos Paul Ehrlich's ravings in the Population Bomb, a guy whose claims have been nothing if terminally wrong? Forced sterilization and abortion constitutional? This guy needs to be shot.

Seriously, if you pick almost any Obama appointee besides Hillary and run their name for quotes you get a book of far left insanity back, people advocating positions so far to the left that it gives the frigging Swedes pause to wonder about their mental stability.

Know any of those presidents? This guy and his cohorts seem to have been locked in the very center and most isolated of the proverbial liberal echo chambers for the last 40-50 years, and they came out not realizing socialism is failing almost everywhere and fully determined to impose it here. At least the neocons limit most of their nutball fantasies to foreign policy. These guys are trying to implement it here. As a response to George W. Bush our country handed its government to a stoned college dorm room bull session and a bunch of people who, so far as I can tell, have almost never had to earn a living at a real job but who basically went from the mother's tit straight to the government's tit.

Know any of those presidents?

I was willing to give Obama chance in the hope he wouldn't **** things up too badly here and that we'd get a positive change in foreign policy. So far his change in foreign policy seems to be to wink at anyone who walks by and hand them a dildo and tube of astro glide, and he seems more determined than anything else to make damn well sure the government sucks up my paycheck and then some by the end of the day. I could have taken a liberal, I'd kill to have Bill Clinton back. The more I'm exposed to this guy and his administration, the more convinced I am that this team is totally off the ****ing rails. They said "Bye bye!" to reality a loooooong time ago.

It's not effing socialism to promote accountability in business. You yourself have plastered these boards with innumerable examples of how large companies have more power than they ought, and history has shown us that that kind of power has to be balanced.

Say what you want about Obama, I don't agree with everything he's doing either, but at least his power has inherent checks and balances. Can the same be said of the pharmaceutical companies?

Nah, they have enough money to CHANGE THE LAW OF THE LAND.

That is not okay.

Granted, this shift in medical policy is fairly drastic, but look at it this way: This is something that's been talked about for decades. It's something the medical community is ready for; something we can easily adapt to. And Obama is, perhaps naively, trying to do all the work that SHOULD have been done on this project over the past 50-60 years.

Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug, and while Obama may not have all the answers, I respect the heck out of a guy willing to stick his neck out politically and deal with a tough issue; attempt to institute a real change.

Even if he fails, or even if his plan flops, he's done more than the past few presidents combined just by getting the ball rolling on this stuff.

Originally Posted by lutherblsstt

It's not effing socialism to promote accountability in business. You yourself have plastered these boards with innumerable examples of how large companies have more power than they ought, and history has shown us that that kind of power has to be balanced.

They get that power through the government. Bitching about banks and controlling pay rates is not 'accountability,' it's socialism and assinine economic analysis. If the government was so hell bent on accountability in business they wouldn't be socializing the losses of millionaire bankers on the tax payer's backs while leaving the incentive structure that they set up and which inevitably lead to the problem in place. They further wouldn't be engaging in the same exact policies which brought on the recession just to increase spending and jack up meaningless GDP figures to fool people into thinking there is 'growth' when rampant spending is really all that is there, and certainly no jobs worth a fart in a hurricane.

Say what you want about Obama, I don't agree with everything he's doing either, but at least his power has inherent checks and balances. Can the same be said of the pharmaceutical companies?

Yes it can, when the government doesn't hand them a guaranteed revenue stream. The government has no checks and balances, it never did. It is judge and jury in its own case in every situation.

Granted, this shift in medical policy is fairly drastic, but look at it this way: This is something that's been talked about for decades. It's something the medical community is ready for; something we can easily adapt to. And Obama is, perhaps naively, trying to do all the work that SHOULD have been done on this project over the past 50-60 years

.

No, it's something that's eventually going to lead to mass shortages, waiting lists, lower survivability rates, lack of innovation, and eventualy impoverishment of this country beyond what its already massive debt load guarantees. America does everything bigger, faster, better, and to more of an extreme than any other country, and we're demonstrating that by doing so with our **** ups as well as our successes.

Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug, and while Obama may not have all the answers, I respect the heck out of a guy willing to stick his neck out politically and deal with a tough issue; attempt to institute a real change.

Death is a real change, I'd rather avoid it. And if you truly think "Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug" then you're a fruitcake. The Federal Code is 35 feet of shelf space of books in small print and a ****load of those codes apply to the health care industry. I guess Medicare/caid don't exist? I guess the HMO act was never passed? I guess the government never gave the AMA control of the medical schools? I guess wages were never frozen during WWII and the subsequent offerring of benefits was never made tax free?

Previous administrations haven't ignored health care, they've paid so much loving attention to it that it has become the monstrosity it is today. They have spread their metaphorical spooge all over the ****ing thing. And with the government footing just under half the bills annually, the majority of the rest being covered by a government mandated third party corporate sponsored payment system that has tried by mandate to 'insure' everything from catastrophic diseases to drug addiction to in-grown toe nails, you want to blame the market and propose more government 'help' as the solution? The government doesn't just have its finger prints all over the health care industry, the government has its **** all the way up the health care industry's ass, a gun to its head, and no lube, and you want to blame the problems on... Big Pharma? Reality is knocking, Luther. It's inviting you back in free of charge for the last time before anti psychotics and big butterfly nets are in order.

Even if he fails, or even if his plan flops, he's done more than the past few presidents combined just by getting the ball rolling on this stuff.

He's gotten the ball rolling, sure. And it's going to crush everything in it's path and leave a ****ing wasteland of **** in its wake. And please, do not pull that ridiculous WHO report out as 'proof' socialized care works. It's been torn to **** and back for all the worthless crap and logical fallacies and **** methods in it, so it's worthless and I really don't care to detail all the problems with it again for trillionth time.

Originally Posted by CDB

They get that power through the government. Bitching about banks and controlling pay rates is not 'accountability,' it's socialism and assinine economic analysis. If the government was so hell bent on accountability in business they wouldn't be socializing the losses of millionaire bankers on the tax payer's backs while leaving the incentive structure that they set up and which inevitably lead to the problem in place. They further wouldn't be engaging in the same exact policies which brought on the recession just to increase spending and jack up meaningless GDP figures to fool people into thinking there is 'growth' when rampant spending is really all that is there, and certainly no jobs worth a fart in a hurricane.



Yes it can, when the government doesn't hand them a guaranteed revenue stream. The government has no checks and balances, it never did. It is judge and jury in its own case in every situation.

.

No, it's something that's eventually going to lead to mass shortages, waiting lists, lower survivability rates, lack of innovation, and eventualy impoverishment of this country beyond what its already massive debt load guarantees. America does everything bigger, faster, better, and to more of an extreme than any other country, and we're demonstrating that by doing so with our **** ups as well as our successes.



Death is a real change, I'd rather avoid it. And if you truly think "Administration after administration has swept the problems of health care (among other things) under the rug" then you're a fruitcake. The Federal Code is 35 feet of shelf space of books in small print and a ****load of those codes apply to the health care industry. I guess Medicare/caid don't exist? I guess the HMO act was never passed? I guess the government never gave the AMA control of the medical schools? I guess wages were never frozen during WWII and the subsequent offerring of benefits was never made tax free?

Previous administrations haven't ignored health care, they've paid so much loving attention to it that it has become the monstrosity it is today. They have spread their metaphorical spooge all over the ****ing thing. And with the government footing just under half the bills annually, the majority of the rest being covered by a government mandated third party corporate sponsored payment system that has tried by mandate to 'insure' everything from catastrophic diseases to drug addiction to in-grown toe nails, you want to blame the market and propose more government 'help' as the solution? The government doesn't just have its finger prints all over the health care industry, the government has its **** all the way up the health care industry's ass, a gun to its head, and no lube, and you want to blame the problems on... Big Pharma? Reality is knocking, Luther. It's inviting you back in free of charge for the last time before anti psychotics and big butterfly nets are in order.



He's gotten the ball rolling, sure. And it's going to crush everything in it's path and leave a ****ing wasteland of **** in its wake. And please, do not pull that ridiculous WHO report out as 'proof' socialized care works. It's been torn to **** and back for all the worthless crap and logical fallacies and **** methods in it, so it's worthless and I really don't care to detail all the problems with it again for trillionth time.

And if it was McCain, you'd daffodil too. You're a born pessimist.

I own this video and love it.

Originally Posted by lutherblsstt

And if it was McCain, you'd daffodil too. You're a born pessimist.

No, I'm a born realist. McCain would have done something to make slightly different special interests happy.

Originally Posted by CDB

No, I'm a born realist. McCain would have done something to make slightly different special interests happy.

Everybody always says they're a realist, but you never say a positive word about anything or anyone. You post half conjecture, half biased tripe.

Originally Posted by lutherblsstt

Everybody always says they're a realist, but you never say a positive word about anything or anyone. You post half conjecture, half biased tripe.

No, sorry to say, that's you Luther. There's nothing I've typed that can't be verified. It's people like you who regard any and all government interventions short of out and out nationalization of entire industries as 'the free market' or negligible in some way that are out to lunch. It's a trait you share with Neo Conservatives, though I don't doubt you would be hard pressed to admit it. They just apply their convenient five minute memory spans to foreeign policy so they forget anything and everything we did prior to the current situation, so as to view it isolation and not the result of some prior policy decision, so engage in what they see as inevitable and necessary action to correct a problem which, to them, simply popped up instead of being of their own making. All I'm doing to you is exactly what you try to do to them when you point out for example that Iranians are not war mongering nonhumans and suggest that perhaps what happened before in the middle east and our part in it has something to do with the current situation we're in. Your claim that previous administrations had ignored health care is just as untrue as Neo Con's claims that the middle east is some **** pile in which we've only done good or stayed out of, and all the current problems that exist there just keep popping up out of no where and have nothing at all to do with our prior policies regarding the region. Just as untrue, and just as destructive if believed and acted on.

Whether regarding foreign policy or domestic policy, it is equally incorrect to portray current problems as spun out of whole cloth by someone else, and it is completely incorrect to try and portray the US government, one of the most activist and interventionist leaning governments in the history of the planet both with regard to domestic and foreign affairs, as some bystander which had nothing to do with the making of the current situation in question, be it the cluster **** that is health care in the US, or the cluster **** that is the middle east. As with the Neo Cons, you don't get to just ignore or claim as negligible all theprevious interventions that have occurred because you agree with them or because you don't know about them. Regardless of either justification, they do have consequences.

The new V miniseries is coming on soon.
Where the reptilian aliens promise humans miracles and a better life.
However the truth is that we are breeders, food, and toys to them.

Lolz

Originally Posted by GuyverX

The new V miniseries is coming on soon.
Where the reptilian aliens promise humans miracles and a better life.
However the truth is that we are breeders, food, and toys to them.

Lolz

I don't see they could bring anything new to this premise except better special effects.

Originally Posted by CDB

I don't see they could bring anything new to this premise except better special effects.

Very likely scenario.
They showed the old series on one of the cable channels last week.
I mentioned it because of the earlier comment about reploids and reptilians masquerading as humans.

It just gets me how some I know personally seem to perceive Obama as some kind of savior and more than a man, especially among my own general ethnic background.
Eh he's a politician, and if he made it to the office of the Pres, he's playing their game so to me he's just another schmuck in a suit.....

Whether or not he actually is trying to improve things or not, unless people and the system in general changes I can see it as nothing more than trying/claiming to put a band aid on a gaping head wound.

Interesting thread in general though.
All parties seemed to have some good points, even in the case of simple humor.

As far as history goes unless one was there, its all conjecture based on one's general perception and life experience at the time.
Just like any other books, the historical ones are written with the bias of the authors.
And modern citizens can glean some of the truth based on the conditions to day but nowhere near all of it.

Some of us disagree with some of the ways in which our country has been run in our lifetimes.
I for one know there is no government I will be comfortable under because there is no human or other that I can truly trust to have my best interest totally at heart except for me(and that isnt guaranteed either).

Give a human power over others and all you do is magnify the effect of any good or bad decision that person makes. And that is one of the primary issues.
We pay our taxes and the politicians decide based on their own mindset bnecause, thats all a human can do.

How do we solve it, who knows. There are a lot of proposals but what works for some may not work for all.
Maybe those with like minds need to find some land somewhere and found their own nation as they see fit.
I could go into the history/textbook/current events/ factual based line that some of you have delved into. But this particular discussion is one I participate in quite a bit online and off regularly.
Just easier to stick to a limited personal opinion.

One suggestion I make for us all, lets just try our individual best to treat others with respect and to not harm them. And to stand up for fair treatment of people in general.
And then whatever comes we can be sure we did our part.

Life is a mean B, and then you die.