Obamacare

[[m'kay]]

Sure. As soon as you read the Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then we can discuss the difference between man made rights and God given Rights.

Woah, check it out guys, it's the kind of bull [poo] strawman liberals use to paint conservatives as idiots!

[Duel of Fates]

Sure. As soon as you read the Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then we can discuss the difference between man made rights and God given Rights.

Woah, check it out guys, it's the kind of bull [poo] strawman liberals use to paint conservatives as idiots!

Time to clean out that bong resin Narg.

[[m'kay]]

If you can't understand a simple insult and think that i'm just high, maybe you should stop obsessively reading the Constitution and Bible and read an English for Dummies book. I'm saying that when you try and act all cute and make a [poo] point like that, you're your own worst enemy. I've seen plenty of liberals joke about conservatives being as stupid as you were.

[[NH]Shadow]

What you talkin' bout Narg....What Duel said is true: more people in our modern culture need to read the Bible and the Constitution, and focus on the principles therein.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

Sure. As soon as you read the Bible and the Constitution of the United States of America.

Then we can discuss the difference between man made rights and God given Rights.

In addition, the Constitution allows the government to regulate inter-state commerce. Health Insurance companies operate nationwide...subsequently, government has the ability to place checks on the industry.

Please don't say anything about original intent, as I suspect you will. Interpretation of the Constitution is fluid and has shifted throughout the ages. That, in culmination with the inclusion of an Amendment process, is indicative of the term "Living Document."

Health Insurance doesn't operate across state lines, thus is NOT subject to inter-state commerce. Obamacare is being primarily operated through the taxing clause.

Under what right can you ban original intent? It has very much to do with what our founders valued and thought would work. It also gives us an idea of how things have changed and what effect it has. It can help us think more about why they were written in the first place. The Amendment process is also there for a reason and not to be just indicative of something, which suggest that currently written language should actually be more rigid because there is process for change.

The government will always seek to take power from where it has none/little. This is an intrinsic characteristic of any government. States are suppose to have the majority of power in the US (see 10th amendment and articles of confederation), yet it is always neglected. Thus all healthcare related things should naturally be under state jurisdiction. Obamacare is primarily used to spread the influence of government, create dependency and centralize power. That's why they don't even care what's in it, because it's not the content but breadth of power that they care about - constantly disguised with colorful words.

What happened to personal responsibility and only helping those that are truly in need?

+1K

[[m'kay]]

What you talkin' bout Narg....What Duel said is true: more people in our modern culture need to read the Bible and the Constitution, and focus on the principles therein.

No, they don't. The Bible is part of Christianity's religious trappings, and if you're not a Christian, it doesn't mean anything to you. I'm not Christian, and if I had some need, i'd use the Bible as toilet paper. And the Constitution was written by people who would be hard pressed to even conceive of the world we live in today. Regardless, I couldn't care less about your opinion because you just parrot people older than you anyway.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

What you talkin' bout Narg....What Duel said is true: more people in our modern culture need to read the Bible and the Constitution, and focus on the principles therein.

Shadow, you can't be serious!

The Bible, though valuable as a spiritual guide to adherents of Christianity and, to an extent, as an object to provide insight into the world 2K years ago, has little place in government today. This isn't a Theocracy, and no er how you cut it, principles espoused in the Bible cannot be used to justify political viewpoints nor should they be considered when legislating.

The Constitution was designed to shift with the times - what the Founding Fathers "envisioned" or "wouldn't approve of" holds no bloody sway today! They /knew/ their views would become outdated at some point, they /knew/ that the context of the times might necessitate a shift in American ideology - that's /why/ the Constitution is malleable!

As to State's Rights: States were originally granted an equal share of power in the Federalist structure because otherwise, getting all 13, independent colonies to sign would be impossible. Know also that communication during the 18th Century was severely limited. States were entrusted with the majority of power b/c people believed that a Federal Government couldn't effectively administer localities and the like. As times changed, however, the Union melded together, and, after the Civil War, state's lost much of their power. Whether or not you agree with this gradual shift, you must recognize that decentralized rule is no longer plausible in a world like ours. I strongly support limits on the National Gov'ts power, just so you know, but it diminishes cohesiveness to have each state constantly at odds with each other, and in a globalized society, where travel is more common, business is conducted across states - and countries too, each state having its own currency, its own laws which may contradict laws in other states (or federal laws) makes it inordinately difficult to govern.

[[NH]Shadow]

What you talkin' bout Narg....What Duel said is true: more people in our modern culture need to read the Bible and the Constitution, and focus on the principles therein.

Shadow, you can't be serious!

The Bible, though valuable as a spiritual guide to adherents of Christianity and, to an extent, as an object to provide insight into the world 2K years ago, has little place in government today. This isn't a Theocracy, and no er how you cut it, principles espoused in the Bible cannot be used to justify political viewpoints nor should they be considered when legislating.

The Constitution was designed to shift with the times - what the Founding Fathers "envisioned" or "wouldn't approve of" holds no bloody sway today! They /knew/ their views would become outdated at some point, they /knew/ that the context of the times might necessitate a shift in American ideology - that's /why/ the Constitution is malleable!

On the contrary, the Bible holds many values that are still prevalent in society today. The Bible, especially Mosaic Law, established a basic code of law that is still used today. Although the Biblical rules align more with the Conservative's view than with that of the Liberals, it gives what most Conservatives consider to be the right solution for many modern-day problems, including, but not limited to: theft, murder, adultury, homosexuality, etc. (sorry, don't want to, or mean to, bring up the whole homosexuality issue; that's another debate that Pepsi and Duel + I can have later :P). Although, Pepsi, I will give you this: some of the Biblical and Mosaic laws are not prevalent today. However, those are the Laws regarding the Temple.

[Bryant]

States were entrusted with the majority of power b/c people believed that a Federal Government couldn't effectively administer localities and the like. As times changed, however, the Union melded together, and, after the Civil War, state's lost much of their power. Whether or not you agree with this gradual shift, you must recognize that decentralized rule is no longer plausible in a world like ours. I strongly support limits on the National Gov'ts power, just so you know, but it diminishes cohesiveness to have each state constantly at odds with each other, and in a globalized society, where travel is more common, business is conducted across states - and countries too, each state having its own currency, its own laws which may contradict laws in other states (or federal laws) makes it inordinately difficult to govern.

So wrong. It had nothing to do with effectiveness, but fear of centralized power. Centralized power = tyranny. It has been commonly recognized for hundreds of years that central power is by far more effective, but also by far the most tyrannical. Checks in balance system is also a part of this decentralization - is it no longer plausible? A centralized power is the fastest way to lose freedom.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Only those powers deemed absolutely necessary were purposely given to the government (thus the shift from the Article of Confederation to our current government - currency for trade, tax for military, judges for order). I believe there are 2 overarching principles to our government: 1) The people should by default have all power and rights, giving up only what is necessary. 2) Change should be as slow as possible with as much (political) conflict as possible. I think the reason for these principles was to keep us a republic. One is to protect us from tyranny and the other is to stop us from becoming too democratic.

Why must I recognize that decentralization is no longer plausible? Keep in mind that I'm not asking for per-constitution government.

Ultimately the worst part about our society is not the government, but the people themselves. The majority of people are so detached from the political process, they either pretend to know what's going on or just blatantly don't care. They are quickly and easily swayed merely by the title of a bill or headline. They trust and become polarized to sources that say what they want to hear. It's the perfect breeding ground for corruption and deception.

[(SWGO)Kren]

States were entrusted with the majority of power b/c people believed that a Federal Government couldn't effectively administer localities and the like. As times changed, however, the Union melded together, and, after the Civil War, state's lost much of their power. Whether or not you agree with this gradual shift, you must recognize that decentralized rule is no longer plausible in a world like ours. I strongly support limits on the National Gov'ts power, just so you know, but it diminishes cohesiveness to have each state constantly at odds with each other, and in a globalized society, where travel is more common, business is conducted across states - and countries too, each state having its own currency, its own laws which may contradict laws in other states (or federal laws) makes it inordinately difficult to govern.

So wrong. It had nothing to do with effectiveness, but fear of centralized power. Centralized power = tyranny. It has been commonly recognized for hundreds of years that central power is by far more effective, but also by far the most tyrannical. Checks in balance system is also a part of this decentralization - is it no longer plausible? A centralized power is the fastest way to lose freedom.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Only those powers deemed absolutely necessary were purposely given to the government (thus the shift from the Article of Confederation to our current government - currency for trade, tax for military, judges for order). I believe there are 2 overarching principles to our government: 1) The people should by default have all power and rights, giving up only what is necessary. 2) Change should be as slow as possible with as much (political) conflict as possible. I think the reason for these principles was to keep us a republic. One is to protect us from tyranny and the other is to stop us from becoming too democratic.

Why must I recognize that decentralization is no longer plausible? Keep in mind that I'm not asking for per-constitution government.

Ultimately the worst part about our society is not the government, but the people themselves. The majority of people are so detached from the political process, they either pretend to know what's going on or just blatantly don't care. They are quickly and easily swayed merely by the title of a bill or headline. They trust and become polarized to sources that say what they want to hear. It's the perfect breeding ground for corruption and deception.

The US is a republic which means it will never truly be a democracy in the literal sense. In the US voters go to the polls to elect politicians who then create the laws whereas a true democracy is where (for example) a bill is written and then the people vote on this and if the majority vote in favour of this bill it then becomes law.

The founders created the constitution and bill or rights as they thought a democratic society was not a good form of government as it meant mob rule in their opinion. From being under the rule of the King of England this was equated to being tyrannical and at that time there was quite a lot of this going around.

So in a nutshell democracy is the rule of man whereas your republic is the rule of law. The people or elected officials can never supersede a bill of rights or your constitution.

As your founding fathers devolved power they made it an inefficient system by design (Executive, Judicial and legislative) and whenever something needs to be discussed it means the law makers etc. are forced through deliberation and compromises to reach a point until the er resolved to both sides satisfaction. Ultimately one side has to give-up something in order for a certain law to be passed. The prime example was the stand-off recently relating to US debt.

The president is by design not all powerful but has to mediate to get things done and that is no easy task due to the above, congress etc.

As Bryant indicated the people are detached and easily swayed but they are not at fault in many ways because the founding fathers created the US, the bill of rights, the constitution and the republic to detach the people from a democratic society purposely due to the age that they lived in. The system is designed to detach people and allow law makers to make the decisions on their behalf and as such people can lose touch things quite easily especially in modern times.

The democracy you so strive for and the freedom to make changes by the people directly is not going to happen so the issues you face will always be there unless the system is changed and as you know proposing changes to the constitution etc. is not widely accepted and liked for example how many of you would want a revision to the 'right to bear arms', not many I suspect.

As the US grows there are going to be fundemental changes to your way of life and 'Obamacare' is just one of these. The impact of making such changes upon America society can be quite a radical be that for 'better' or 'worse', only time will tell.

Giving one element, be that people or the president/government more power could be perceived as tyrannical and/or democratic but it depends upon which side of the fence you are viewing this from. The way to do this would be to alter the foundations laid down by the founding fathers, is anyone going to do this, I suspect not.

As you know I am from the UK. I'm not disrespecting the America constitution etc. in any way but simply indicating why you guys face the issues you do today and altering the system is not going change anytime soon I’m afraid. I am also not stating ‘ours’ is better than ‘yours’ before anyone takes that stance as the UK system is far from perfect IMA. Utopian society, if only.

Kren