Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[Sgt PSN]

short clip from the frost/nixon interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/tYdJqSG3K6c&feature

[Butchers Bill]

Jon Stewart did a commendable job tearing apart the CPAC and Glenn Beck's idiotic speech during it.

Glenn Beck, after whining about those evil progressives taxing people for health care and public services and such:
"How did I learn all these things? I taught myself. I read. I went down to the library, it's free!"

I love it when liberals think they have a "gotcha" moment but it only proves their idiocy (that goes for conservatives as well).

First of all, library's are funded by local governments, not the federal government.  Despite the liberal talking point of "conservatives must also hate roads, police, and fire protection", these are all provisions granted the Federal government by the constitution.  The States can pretty much do whatever they want and the founders specifically set up the Republic this way.  So, if you don't like the way your state is taxing you, or how it provides its services you can simply move to another state. 

Today, that option is quickly dwindling due to the Federal governments influence of our day to day lives.

[Sgt PSN]

one should never purposefully engage in conversation with munson.  especially when it's about politics.  even more so when posting a serious response to his daily show quote of the day. 

[Munson]

Jon Stewart did a commendable job tearing apart the CPAC and Glenn Beck's idiotic speech during it.

Glenn Beck, after whining about those evil progressives taxing people for health care and public services and such:
"How did I learn all these things? I taught myself. I read. I went down to the library, it's free!"

I love it when liberals think they have a "gotcha" moment but it only proves their idiocy (that goes for conservatives as well).

First of all, library's are funded by local governments, not the federal government.  Despite the liberal talking point of "conservatives must also hate roads, police, and fire protection", these are all provisions granted the Federal government by the constitution.  The States can pretty much do whatever they want and the founders specifically set up the Republic this way.  So, if you don't like the way your state is taxing you, or how it provides its services you can simply move to another state. 

Today, that option is quickly dwindling due to the Federal governments influence of our day to day lives.

It's an idiotic statement to make when you whine about taxes and then claim that the library is free.

The founders set it up that way because it was 250 years ago and there were 13 states. Obviously, as the country has grown, the government has had to grow with it. If we had 50 states with the same freedoms of self-governing like they did back then, it wouldn't be worth calling it the United States because there wouldn't be one thing united about Alabama and New York.

Yes, states-rights should still be invoked on certain issues. But not the huge issues...like health care.

[rjs246]

Can Dick Cheney farging die from one of these heart attacks already? Or possibly have a stroke that debilitates one side of his face so he can't speak? That would also be acceptable.

[Diomedes]

Today, that option is quickly dwindling due to the Federal governments influence of our day to day lives.

Wha?  How is are the feds influencing your day to day life?  You feel this? 

I certainly don't.

[Butchers Bill]

Its really a variety of things Dio, and its not even a Dem/Rep issue anymore.

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Gun Control
Unfunded Federal Mandates
Some States getting more tax dollars back than then send in (stealing from NJ to give to NM for example)
Healthcare "reform" (again, Federal mandates stepping in where States are supposed to have the power)
Highway funds threatened to be withheld unless you do as the Feds say
Earmarks
etc, etc, etc.

I am not saying any of these things are "bad" per se, just that the Federal government has WAY more power over the States that the Constitution allows for.  If a state wants all its citizens to have healthcare (like Oregon) fine, but allow people to opt out or leave the State.  Under Federal programs there is no where to run.

[Munson]

The founding fathers also considered black people 3/5ths of a person.


250 years later, things have to be done differently. Imagine that.


And I dont' see why people are so convinced you wouldn't be able to opt out of universal health care (which was taken out of the bill long ago)...it's not mandatory that you have government health care. You can have whatever health care you could afford. The difference being that with the public option being there, insurance companies would be forced to stop charging out the ass.

[Susquehanna Birder]

The founding fathers also considered black people 3/5ths of a person.

Do you know why this was? It had nothing to do with how the founding fathers valued blacks as humans.

[Butchers Bill]

And I dont' see why people are so convinced you wouldn't be able to opt out of universal health care (which was taken out of the bill long ago)...it's not mandatory that you have government health care. You can have whatever health care you could afford. The difference being that with the public option being there, insurance companies would be forced to stop charging out the ass.

I know Obama and his marketing machine puts it all in a nice little digestible package for the mouth breathers like you, but try and follow the logic here.

The current bill punishes people for not having insurance...heavily.  How is this legal or constitutional?

While a public option is probably off the table, lets say for a moment that one does sneak through.  Why would it have advantages that private insurers don't, especially the ability to compete across state lines?  Do you really think the public option wouldn't bankrupt private insurers (since the public option would have an unlimited budget), and eliminate the private insurers all together?  Search YouTube...Obama said before that it might take 10-15 years, but he would put the private insurers out of business.

Oh, and in regards to your 3/5ths comment regarding the constitution and the inference that its outdated.  There are these things called amendments that allow it to be changed.

Ughhh...I should know better than to feed the hungry hungry hippos.

[General_Failure]

Of all the filters this board has, that one has to be my favorite.

[Munson]

Sus, I know exactly why that was. You're taking it way too literal.

The point is that 250 years, 300 million more people, and 37 states later, you have to grow and adapt and change the way you govern. That includes the power of the federal government over state governments. States rights work when you're a small country with 5-15 states. Not when you have 50 states and differences as radical as can be today. When you get as big as the US has become, you need a larger central power. The problem recently hasn't been that power itself, but rather the people who have been controlling it. It has been said many times over by many people in this thread that politicians today need to be chained together at the bottom of the Atlantic.


BB....It would get those privileges because there are 30 million people with no insurance, and millions more paying way more than they should be. Some of the numbers people here have posted that they pay out of their pockets is ridiculous. A cheap alternative for people who can't afford the good stuff isn't some horrible unstoppable force that will run everyone out of business. There will still be plenty of people who have the money to pay more for the private coverage. The upside being that they'll just have to pay less since insurers will be forced to lower prices to compete. (There are still private insurers in countries such as Canada and Australia that have had government run health care for a while now) But I do agree that private insurance companies should be able to compete across state lines, as that's yet another way to lower costs. But doing that and that alone like a lot of the Senate Republicans want wouldn't be nearly enough.

[mpmcgraw]

And I dont' see why people are so convinced you wouldn't be able to opt out of universal health care (which was taken out of the bill long ago)...it's not mandatory that you have government health care. You can have whatever health care you could afford. The difference being that with the public option being there, insurance companies would be forced to stop charging out the ass.

I know Obama and his marketing machine puts it all in a nice little digestible package for the mouth breathers like you, but try and follow the logic here.

The current bill punishes people for not having insurance...heavily.  How is this legal or constitutional?While a public option is probably off the table, lets say for a moment that one does sneak through.  Why would it have advantages that private insurers don't, especially the ability to compete across state lines?  Do you really think the public option wouldn't bankrupt private insurers (since the public option would have an unlimited budget), and eliminate the private insurers all together?  Search YouTube...Obama said before that it might take 10-15 years, but he would put the private insurers out of business.

Oh, and in regards to your 3/5ths comment regarding the constitution and the inference that its outdated.  There are these things called amendments that allow it to be changed.

Ughhh...I should know better than to feed the hungry hungry hippos.

Show me how its unconstitutional.  The constitution was purposefully made vague with lots of room for interpretations and this law would fall well within its boundaries. 

[ice grillin you]

The founding fathers also considered black people 3/5ths of a person.

Do you know why this was? It had nothing to do with how the founding fathers valued blacks as humans.

bwahahahaha

[Susquehanna Birder]

The founding fathers also considered black people 3/5ths of a person.

Do you know why this was? It had nothing to do with how the founding fathers valued blacks as humans.

bwahahahaha

Look it up, weatherboy. It had to do with how southern states were claiming slaves as part of the "normal" population without giving the right to vote. There was a huge disagreement because it would have given the southern states an unfair amount of political and economic power. The 3/5 number was an arbitrary compromise to resolve the disagreement. It had to do with power and money, not with how blacks were viewed as humans.

And BB is correct that the system corrected for this, as it was designed to do.