Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile



Posted by mike10k 
April 03, 2012 02:03PM

[quote]The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.[/quote]


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 04:59PM by mike10k.
the constitution is a funny thing sometimes.
how does this shit get through the supreme court?
the same way shit gets through the large intestine.

the supreme court can't make me eat broccoli, but they may one day be able to tell me i have to get health insurance.

i'm ok with that.

of course, if i didn't currently have health insurance, i'd have some questions.

like, i'm a bum, i don't have a job, i don't have any money....what about me?

or, i'm out of work, i don't have any money....what about me?

what's the penalty and what happens if i don't pay it!!?? do i go to jail where i get health care provided to me by the state?

any other questions, besides the old standby, if the supreme court can make me buy health insurance, won't they be able to make me buy....??

actually, i'd like to hear those questions too. c'mon wc, shoot'em at me. i feel like thinking.

it's a red letter day!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 01:52PM by mike10k.
this all depends on who "they" are. there really isn't 1 government in this country, but rather 51 governments (not including territories and DC). 1 for the feds and 1 for each of the 50 states. the US constitution only permits the federal government to regulate a narrow range of areas that are expressly delineated in the constitution itself, and expressly reserves all other regulatory power to the states.

The Obama administration is arguing that the federal government is free to regulate health care insurance (not health care), because it is constitutionally permitted to regulate any product or service that is sold through interstate commerce (i.e., sales from state to state, and not simply within a particular single state) pursuant to the commerce clause of the US constitution.

Several states (I forget how many) are contesting that position and arguing, in essence, that the Obama Administration is creating commerce by requiring that it be purchased in order to regulate it, as opposed to simply regulating pre-existing interstate commerce, to wit, things that would be purchased anyways.

Said another way, the states are arguing that the federal government should not be permitted to require someone to buy something so that the federal government can regulate it. the states argue that this is a power grab by the fed from the states, and that if such a precedent is established, there would be no limit to the power of the federal government, thereby stripping the states of the regulatory powers reserved to them by the US constitution. If the Supreme Court accepts this argument, it is likely to find the legislation (or, at least, the requirement that an individual purchase health care) unconstitutional.

As for the question what does someone who has no money or no job do for health care or health care insurance, a strict constitutionalist would argue that this person should seek assistance from his state government (which does not have the same constitutional restrictions as the federal government) and not the federal government. Indeed, that is what Mitt Romney would, and has, said. He also would, and has, said, that this is the key distinction between federal Obamacare and state Romneycare: the states have the right to regulate health care insurance for its citizens, and the federal government does not.

hmm, i thought that would be shorter than it turned out to be. but i'm bored at work and this is interesting, so tag, you're it. let's talk.
[quote="Wild Creature"]
hmm, i thought that would be shorter than it turned out to be.[/quote]

that's what she said.

and thanks for that post, i think i can see the opposite argument clearer now.

what if the bill said at the very end, "the federal government power grab ends with this bill, times a dillion" ?

or, what if the bill said that the very end, "this experiment will last 10 years and then phase out." i think 10 years is an ok time for a country to experiment with a new health care insurance deal, how do we know if it will benefit the masses in our country unless we try it? we experiement with long periods of republican rule all the time!
also, i'm not christian, but i know about christ from reading the bible.

and seriously, socialism seems more christian than capitalism.

and yeah, we're not a christian country. but why would the christian right not see socialism as more christian than capitalism?

just a thought.
i hear "but then there would be no incentive to be successful."

but if you're that attached to the fruits of your labor, then doesn't that make you the average american joe that you didn't want to be?
i'm not christian so i can't really say how the christians feel about capitalism, other than that i've met a whole lot of christian capitalists.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 03:49PM by Wild Creature.
have you read about jesus though, and all that "a rich person will get into heaven like a camel gets through the eye of a needle" or the "golden rule?"

i'm not christian but i have an inkling that if "christian capitalists" took a little blind taste test, they'd find out they're actually mormons.

(now it's time to be funny, since my brain hurts from thinking)
i've never met a mormon i didn't like, just fyi. two of my close friends are mormon and my neighbors are mormon, and they are way nicer people than me, and seem genuinely better adjusted than i am. we have lots of enlightening talks. i ask them about golden plates and all that business. they ask me about coffee and bikini briefs.
have you read about jesus though, and all that "a rich person will get into heaven like a camel gets through the eye of a needle" or the "golden rule?"

yeah, i've heard that line. doesn't mean much to me. but, i have met a lot of mormons, and yeah, everyone of them was cool and laid back and hard-working, etc.

also, i thought the golden rule was murphy's.
[quote="Wild Creature"]
have you read about jesus though, and all that "a rich person will get into heaven like a camel gets through the eye of a needle" or the "golden rule?"

yeah, i've heard that line. doesn't mean much to me. but, i have met a lot of mormons, and yeah, everyone of them was cool and laid back and hard-working, etc.

also, i thought the golden rule was murphy's.[/quote]

i think this is why 9 out of 10 buddhists (obvious thug bait, c'mon back thuggy!) believe in the "platinum" rule...

[b]don't treat others the way you would not want to be treated.[/b]

any christians out there think that capitalism is more christian than socialism?

i'm going to go hold my breath while i take a dump.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 05:06PM by mike10k.
we're all already paying for things that we don't want to pay for, right? i say, either this stops altogether, or why not more.

i'm that way about christians too, which is probably a failing of mine. be like christ or you're just talk, right vivekananda?

i'm that way about all religions though. if you're not all in, then you're BS. obviously there's gotta be a lot of cafeteria picking and choosing going on though. nobody can be religious and also uncomfortable with hypocrisy.


Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 05:22PM by mike10k.
nobody can be religious and also uncomfortable with hypocrisy.[/quote]

i'll be honest i guess.

nobody can be human and also uncomfortable with hypocrisy.

i was going to say republican, but then i remembered i'm not a republican.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 07:25PM by mike10k.
If you look at the teachings of Jesus and the actions and organization of the (very, like Peter and Paul) early church it is pretty undeniable that Jesus was a lifestylist-anarcho-communist. Neither he nor his direct followers, acording to the textual information we have anyhow (the stuff Fundementalist Chirstians say is the absolutely true Word of God) advoctaed any kind of violent revolution, but they were clearly anti-statist, anti-capitalist and pro community and communal sharing. The (very) early chruch acted kind of like a network of communes.

I grew up in a Fundemnetalist Christian household... my mom would probably argue that while some of my reasoning was correct, Jesus was actually a theocrat and advocated theocracy. I would then say "Yes, probably, but not one in which humans governed in the name of God. Jesus, if we believe what the Bible says, would advocate a world actually ruled directly by God." In this conversation I must assume the Fundie [i]interpretation[/i] of the Bible because there is no speaking to my mom about these matters unless you do so.

But I don't care anyhow, Jesus was a dick. He killed a fig tree for nothing more than an object lesson. So come to think of it, maybe he WAS a capitalist. ;) B)

This Singnature is Final:
At the end of this sentence, before the period, will come the word rutabaga.
now that's what i wanna read.

a man having an imaginary argument with his mother about religion!

so if jesus wasn't a christian, what are all these "christians" doing?

it's like americans worshipping amerigo vespucci.
Actually, though I framed it as an imaginary argument, it was an actually conversation we had once.

People often decry the factionalization of Christianity, but I think it would be better to factionalize more so that people who aren't Christians know who they are dealing with right off the bat.

For instance you could have Baldwinites or Falwellians. You could have Paulians, Swagerterians, Bushers... all of this just based on who tells them what a Christian is supposed to think feel and believe.

Of course, if there is someone who doesn't follow a specific Guru but interprets the Bible or some spiritual experience they have had, well they can call themselves whatever they want.

*Edit*: Oh, and on topic, why on earth did Obama go with this rediculous "compromise" bill in the first place. Folks who disagree with anything that smacks of universal healthcare would have worked just as hard to shoot it down either way, so why on earth, back when he had a congress that he could have possibly gotten that type of thing through, did he play the politics game and create a system that even some proponents of universal health care are quick to call unconstitutional. Maybe someone with a little more knowledge could shed some light on this for me, but to me it seems like he really fucked up here. He probably had the chance to make sweeping healthcare reform and now I would be willing to bet the changes he made will be mostly reversed by the time a new president takes office. Not only that, but I'm not sure I dissagree (hard as it is for me to say) that the system this bill created is pretty bogus. I've made no secret in the past of my distrust of governmental health care plans, particularly in this country, where the government has a longstanding record of fucking things up even when they [i]do[/i] mean well. But it would have been nice to at least [i]try[/i] a healthcare system not entirely bassed on comerce. I would have been a lot happier to have an embattled universal helthcare system right now than an embattled give-more-money-to-the-insurance-assholes system. It feels like a lose/lose situation to me to some degree.

Disclaimer: Since some people on here have made it a point in the past to tell me I should keep my mouth shut because I spend a hell of a lot more time listening to music and daydreaming than reading about assholes being assholes (politics, in other words), I will point out myself that I probably don't know what the hell I am talking about. But I can't be the only one who feels these things, so I'd apreciate it if those who do know a fair bit would educate instead of arguing. Thanks.

This Singnature is Final:
At the end of this sentence, before the period, will come the word rutabaga.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 10:07PM by simonfox.
never keep your mouth shut ever, simonfox. good stuff.
Mike does that law allow me to strip-search people I put under citizens arrest?


i'm stayin' away from you.
good stuff[/quote]

Other than my complete lack of appropriate question marks, maybe.

This Singnature is Final:
At the end of this sentence, before the period, will come the word rutabaga.
appropriateness is for the birds.
I'm not a Christian nor would I consider myself anything right of center politically, but I'd like to defend capitalist Christians if anyone is still interested.

When Christianity became popular in the Gentile community there already existed a certain level of ethical and political thought uncommon for that period, so many of Jesus' teachings were sort of blended in with the existing ethical framework. Despite the fact that Aristotle, who had tremendous influence on western political thought, never actually experienced capitalism, the argument most often cited by Christians can be trace back to one of his critiques on Plato, who advocated commonly owned property among certain groups of people in his imaginary city outlined in The Republic. He writes:

"We may add that a very great pleasure is to be found in doing kindness and giving some help to friends, guests or comrades; and such kindness and help become possible only when property is privately owned... In a city which is excessively unified no man can show himself generous, or indeed do a generous act; for the functions of generosity consists in the proper use which is made of property."

Aristotle wasn't talking about charity exactly, since charity for itself is an almost entirely christian idea. However, this makes sense from the Christian standpoint. When the government forceably strips wealth from some citizens in order to provide for other citizens, the moral value of the transaction is lost, since the former didn't choose to be kind to others. Charity is only possible if there is such a thing as private property, which essentially Aristotle's argument.

So if Christians want to act morally according to the teachings of Jesus, they need access to wealth and inequality, both of which are bountiful in a capitalist economy. This seems odd to secularists who look at the suffering caused by capitalism and remember how much that Jesus guy babbled about helping poor people, but for Christians, this is their mandate, not the government's.

That's my two cents anyhow.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login