Post Reply
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Threats, jail for health blogger?
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 9:38PM #21
Hatman
Posts: 9,634

May 4, 2012 -- 7:13PM, mountain_man wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Hatman wrote:

....The Constitution is clear: few and defined powers. ...


That is according to your interpretation.


Hardly mine alone, by any stretch of the most febrile/moronic of imaginations.
Any honest perusal of the writings of those who wrote it and those who ratified it(see Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for starters)---and the REASONS why things like "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added" as well as "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "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"--- are included in the ratified version of Constitution are quite clear even to the dullest of intellects...especially when not under the influence of thrice-damned "precedent."

With goodwill to all the People(except vile and despicable Oathbreakers)-

Hatman

"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:03PM #22
mountain_man
Posts: 39,658

May 4, 2012 -- 9:38PM, Hatman wrote:

Hardly mine alone....


Anyone that was capable of understanding the English language could see that I did not say it was yours alone. Obviously you just repeated it since it is a belief about the Constitution that you choose to believe in.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:20PM #23
Hatman
Posts: 9,634
Nonsensical non-sequiturs get ignored...especially ones that fail to address the core/relevant points, and attempt to wrest the conversation into ridiculous ad homs by carefully excising all that IS relevant to the People as a whole.
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:29PM #24
Ironhold
Posts: 11,548

May 4, 2012 -- 9:38PM, Hatman wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 7:13PM, mountain_man wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 3:05PM, Hatman wrote:

....The Constitution is clear: few and defined powers. ...


That is according to your interpretation.



Hardly mine alone, by any stretch of the most febrile/moronic of imaginations. Any honest perusal of the writings of those who wrote it and those who ratified it(see Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, for starters)---and the REASONS why things like "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added" as well as "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and "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"--- are included in the ratified version of Constitution are quite clear even to the dullest of intellects...especially when not under the influence of thrice-damned "precedent." With goodwill to all the People(except vile and despicable Oathbreakers)- Hatman



I second the notion of people reading The Federalist Papers in order to better understand the Constitution.


(I do have a copy of The Anti-Federalist Papers, but I've been busy and so haven't had a chance to read it yet.)

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:33PM #25
mountain_man
Posts: 39,658

May 4, 2012 -- 10:20PM, Hatman wrote:

Nonsensical non-sequiturs get ignored....


Then I'll ignore your non sequiturs and personal attacks.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 4:44PM #26
TPaine
Posts: 9,380

As has been stated earlier, the concept of the individual mandate originated at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989. It was introduced as part of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) on November 23, 1993 by Senator John H. Chafee (R RI). Link


I find it somewhat hypocritical that conservatives suddenly find a concept they invented to suddenly become an anathema when adopted by the Democrats.

"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University (October 12, 1985)
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 5:03PM #27
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

May 5, 2012 -- 4:44PM, TPaine wrote:


As has been stated earlier, the concept of the individual mandate originated at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989. It was introduced as part of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) on November 23, 1993 by Senator John H. Chafee (R RI). Link


I find it somewhat hypocritical that conservatives suddenly find a concept they invented to suddenly become an anathema when adopted by the Democrats.




Irrational hatred of democrats. For the most part Conservatives, republicans, right wingers don't want what is best for the country or its people. But what is best for their desire to gain total control. And conservatism  is about control. Not about the country, or democracy of any kind.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:00PM #28
farragut
Posts: 4,041

" Senator John H. Chafee (R RI). Link


I find it somewhat hypocritical that conservatives"


 


Please do not confuse Chafee with conservative; he was probably the most liberal Republican in the party's history. A RINO in today's terminolgy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 12:27AM #29
mountain_man
Posts: 39,658

May 5, 2012 -- 4:44PM, TPaine wrote:

I find it somewhat hypocritical that conservatives suddenly find a concept they invented to suddenly become an anathema when adopted by the Democrats.


Hypocritical, but not unexpected. It's called Obama Derangement Syndrome:


From that link:

A new [March 24, 2010] Harris poll that reveals some shocking things about how Republican voters view President Obama.

Key findings:67% believe Obama is a socialist. 57% believe Obama is a Muslim. 38% believe Obama is "doing many of the things that Hitler did." 24% believe Obama "may be the Antichrist."



They need to demonize anything and everything Obama does. Whatever he says or does is automatically wrong, but not just wrong; evil. If he helped a little old lady across the street the Regressives would whine that he's making her dependent. And with the AFFORDABLE Care Act; I think they demanded that the "mandate" part was put in just so they could whine about it later.


These people care little about health care or the country. They only want Obama out of the WHITE House and replaced with someone that will protect Big Business.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 11:01AM #30
TPaine
Posts: 9,380

May 5, 2012 -- 8:00PM, farragut wrote:


" Senator John H. Chafee (R RI). Link


I find it somewhat hypocritical that conservatives"


Please do not confuse Chafee with conservative; he was probably the most liberal Republican in the party's history. A RINO in today's terminolgy.



Should I also consider Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Robert Bennett (R-UT), and Christopher Bond (R-MO) RINOS? They all supported individual health insurance mandates in the 1980's & 90's.

"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." -- Justice William Brennan: Speech to the Text and Teaching Symposium at Georgetown University (October 12, 1985)
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook