Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 07:26am PT
|
the game works only if players respect the decisions of the referee.
The game also only works if the referees are playing the same game as the players! When the refs have thrown out the rule-book and are playing a different game, you have the same result as if football refs were called in to oversee a baseball game.
The line of "good behavior" was fully and obviously crossed the day that Roberts asked and answered his own fateful question: "If government can do THIS, then what can government NOT do?" His answer? "Government can do whatever it wants under the guise of a 'tax.'"
NOBODY who knows our history and the CLEAR intention of the founders can imagine that this constitution could be interpreted to mean that the feds can do ANYTHING. That is the very definition of tyranny, whether you have a "republic" or not. And the ONLY "backstop" against that form of tyranny is to start invoking the "good behavior" clause to thrown even THOSE bums out!
The refs HAVE to play by the rule-book of THE GAME. When they have so clearly started reffing a totally different game, the ONLY way to preserve the integrity of the game itself is to throw them out and get in some refs that at least know what game they are supposed to be reffing!
THEN your point would be legitimate, and I would wholeheartedly agree with it. I don't have to agree with every particular decision, just as I don't agree with much of, say, football reffing I see. But at least it's clear that football refs are reffing the same game I'm watching!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 07:49am PT
|
"Originalism" is a load of crap. It's like "states rights": it's a self serving principle that has some grounding but it is often invoked when Feds use their legitimate powers to call out states on their sh#t.
Reagan played that card masterfully to dog-whistle southern conservatives.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:00am PT
|
"...let's tell Congress to FIX the problem in a way it actually has the legitimate power to do: REDUCE the costs of health care, which means to take seriously the obscene profits made by every segment of the total health care INDUSTRY."
Ummm, that's the textbook definition of governmental price regulation....Repubs hate that sh#t (right, JE?)...you really think they are going to get behind that?
And anyway....you seem to want it both ways....no gov't influence in the healthcare system (i.e. public option), but the gov't should regulate the costs of healthcare and have it offered on the open market.
That's still gov't involvement. Why is the latter option ok to you, but not the former? Do you see the conflict in what you are espousing?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:09am PT
|
Originalism" is a load of crap.
So, we have this document, the constitution. It's THE "law of the land" and is supposed to trump all others. But we don't get to appeal back to the people that actually debated the principles and wrote the thing.
By your lights, then:
1) It appears that the constitution really is NOT the law of the land. It can be "interpreted" ANY way the SCOTUS states, and I mean ANY way, no matter HOW whacko. So, it seems that the SCOTUS is really the supreme law of the land rather than the constitution.
2) The whole notion of "good behavior" goes out the window. As above, there is NO decision a justice can issue that can be in principle "off the rails." WHATEVER the SCOTUS says is good, all good. Thus, there is no accountability in principle for the SCOTUS.
3) The very reason the SCOTUS was put into place is undone. The primary reason for the SCOTUS was to rise above finger-to-the-wind politically-motivated interpretations of the constitution. But with no grounding in "originalism," the SCOTUS necessarily MUST (and demonstrably does) adopt the same finger-to-the-wind, unprincipled "interpretation" of the constitution that it was supposed to rise above.
In case I have not made it clear, I am not talking about particular decisions I "don't like". I am talking about decisions that necessarily fly in the face of ANY consistent interpretation of the constitution. The Roberts question, asked and answered, was THE SCOTUS decision of our lifetimes, as it threw under the bus ANY last vestige of hope that the SCOTUS could continue to act as a legitimate check-and-balance on the other two branches.
You get all that and more when you utterly abandon "originalism".
|
|
johnboy
Trad climber
Can't get here from there
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:17am PT
|
It's a PUBLIC school and.......
It's public socialized education.
You are good with social programs right?
|
|
Gary
Social climber
From A Buick 6
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:20am PT
|
Degaine, "Facts are stupid things."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:25am PT
|
you seem to want it both ways....no gov't influence in the healthcare system
Wow... really? Do you actually read what I take the effort to write?
When I have I even SUGGESTED anything like "no government influence in the healthcare system"? You guys LIVE on the straw-man arguments!
I have said that the government has NO business in ANY form of wealth-redistribution (regardless of what "ism" you want to call it), and if Obamacare is anything, it IS that.
I have said that making health care affordable CAN and should be accomplished via market reforms, and that is a legitimate power the government can and should exercise, thereby rendering the (ostensive) purpose of Obamacare satisfied without any wealth-redistribution.
And whether Rebumblecons would "like it" or not is irrelevant to me! I hate 'em as much as I do the Demoncrats.
There's a vast irony in the present liberal position on Obumblecare. It is this.
Liberals decry how the Rebumblecons are in bed with corporations, and liberals are perpetually complaining about how the big money and corporate corruption is the enemy of the people.
Yet with Obumblecare, liberals found THEMSELVES in bed with the VERY corporations that they (supposedly) love to hate: Massive insurance companies. Liberals were so greedy for yet another wealth-redistributing entitlement that they couldn't see past their noses to comprehend HOW thoroughly they were PLAYED by the insurance companies who were bent on getting a nationwide, guaranteed market with ZERO downside risk (the government would cover any possible losses, as if there could be such) and with no profit caps.
NOBODY thought this mess through, and the Pelosi rush to judgment was one of the most EPIC bad judgment calls in history. You liberals found yourselves LITERALLY in bed with the Devil, and your ONLY song and dance now is: "Well, the Repubs had no better to plan to offer, so we took what we could get."
And the TAKE what you can EXTRACT principle just is the ONLY liberal principle, which is why "originialism" just has to be thrown out as a "load of crap."
So, you didn't really help the poor, who are now forced to pay premiums that it turns out they really can't afford while being saddled with absurd deductibles. You didn't TOUCH the upper class. And you only succeeded in GUTTING small business and the middle class. And for ALL that, you handed the insurance companies on a silver platter what they most lusted for.
And you then have the audacity to bag on the Rebumblecons for being in bed with big corporations? YOU are in the same bed. Throw principle to the wind as being "a mere academic exercise," and ALL you get is a cluster-fornication.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:29am PT
|
"Do you actually read what I take the effort to write?"
Honestly, no...sometimes I don't.
You write a lot, and I don't follow these threads every single day & moment (though it probably appears differently sometimes). Sometimes information gets missed...don't take it personally.
So untwist your panties, and clarify your meaning.
BTW: 1000+ posts...we're on our way to a new 'Republicans are Wrong' status!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:37am PT
|
So you claim the Supreme Court has been off the rails for how long?
(They ruled in favor of Social Security in 1937 ...)
There is no sudden "train jumped the tracks" moment. This process has been a decades-long, stealthy chain of forays into what "off the rails" would feel like and how FAR "off the rails" Americans would tolerate in one gulp.
Certainly SS was a big step! Obamacare is another huge step.
But Roberts' question was genuinely a turning point of epic proportions! In that question, he asked indeed THE question of our time: Is there ANY in-principle limitation upon the federal government. And his answer crossed the line that had NEVER before been crossed: No; the feds can do ANYTHING they can dream up.
You liberals are so in lust with what you hath wrought with your grand Obumblecare that you debate to uphold IT without even recognizing how TERRIFYING is the crossing of that fateful line! The SCOTUS process, leading to Roberts' question/answer so completely takes the stage that the facts of Obumblecare PALE by comparison to this line we have now crossed! Yet that most significant issue is the one you don't even see.
Perhaps some relevant Jefferson quotes can get you libs grounded again....
*
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
**
Really contemplate that last quotation. There you shall find the answer to your question.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:41am PT
|
So untwist your panties, and clarify your meaning.
Then you have a lot of unfounded audacity to imagine that you are "catching me" in some inconsistency, when you can't be bothered to read.
The whole point to writing "more" IS to clarify. The sorts of things we are discussing are subtle and complex. So clarity is not immediate and trivial to achieve.
Have you managed to read a SINGLE Federalist paper? They are even far denser and "lengthy" than my posts. Yet, ironically, they were written for a comparable audience in the closest thing to a "forum" they had back then.
I guess we don't have the attention span today that we did back then.
No, it's more fun to just "pop off" and be a "winner".
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:42am PT
|
BTW, madbolter...
Communicating your views via a sh#t-ton of verbiage that results in a few of your fellow ideologues patting you on the back isn't really a sign of your political genius. You have an opinion like many others, and happen to express it articulately (if perhaps in more words than necessary)- this shouldn't be confused with some kind of ST political revelation.
This said, please do carry on...I appreciate your perspective...just maybe with a few less words?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:47am PT
|
We want a leader that knows how to negotiate our system as it is
And WHAT system is that? How YOU interpret it? How I interpret it? How the SCOTUS interprets it?
YOU have cut the constitution to the winds, so please do tell me WHICH system it "is" that you are talking about.
and move the ball forward in the right direction, however small. Obamacare did that.
The very fact that you can in sincerity say that getting DEEPLY into fornication with the big insurance companies was "moving the ball in the right direction" is tragically hilarious!
And even better is that while I was writing my post predicting the lame liberal response: "The Republicans had nothing to offer," YOU stepped up in timely fashion to provide the exact exemplar of my prediction.
So, really... on your way of thinking, doing SOMETHING, ANYTHING, do it now, do it NOW, don't READ the damned thing, just pass it now, pass it NOW... that approach to legislation is better than saying: "Well, there just ARE no good alternatives at the moment. So we need to keep thinking. What we DON'T want to do is plunge this country into a distorted and forever relationship with the insurance companies like we earlier did with the bankers! No matter WHAT, we have to be sure to NOT 'move the ball' in THAT direction"? THAT never occurred to you?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:51am PT
|
this shouldn't be confused with some kind of ST political revelation
Oooo... now I've been set back, really put in my place. I'm chastened to be sure.
I don't even dream to have any effect on most of you that post here. It's the lurkers I care to reach, and from emails I get, I do believe that my efforts are changing minds among that group.
So, yeah, your rebuke really put me in my place.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:53am PT
|
"The whole point to writing "more" IS to clarify."
Ya know, I used to think the same thing...I get where you are coming from in this regard, by principle. I've been accused more times than I can count of over-articulating my viewpoints, and justifying it by the subtleties that exist in the issue at hand.
But realistically, there's an awful lot of people out there who just don't have the time to sift through all of those words, and even those who do can commonly misinterpret the central meaning.
There's a skill to be had in being concise & precise at the same time. Wish I was better at it.
Edit:
"....and from emails I get, I do believe that my efforts are changing minds among that group."
Awwferchrissakes. Not the 'you should see the emails I get' position. That's a real sign of someone who thinks their views in a Forum are having broader reach & impact in the world. You're not that deluded, are you?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 09:59am PT
|
And maybe add the political candidate most likely to create this utopia.
See, that's another example of the basic distortion in liberal thinking.
You guys honestly believe that some sort of utopia CAN be created by the stars aligning with the "right candidate" and the "perfect balance" of taxing the "privileged class" to redistribute to the "underprivileged class," and so on. You honestly believe that you can manipulate almost infinitely complex forces and causal chains to produce this "equal" society.
So ALL of the candidates cater to this chimera, and you vote for the "most likely one" that just might "move the ball in the right direction, however small."
I am not looking for "utopia" in anything LIKE the sense you are. My utopia is the one the founders created, and that's what I would like to see again. I want a constitutional government AS it was intended by the founders. Now, ironically, THAT wish is called naive, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, you guys throw ANY grounded interpretation of the constitution to the winds in your voracious quest for a "utopia" that CANNOT exist and never has. Anywhere.
At least MY utopia had its brief period in the sun before the very forces Jefferson feared took it away: "Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence."
Ron Paul was the closest candidate to what I had in mind, but his son is no libertarian!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 10:01am PT
|
More likely that they already agree with you...
You should hope that's not true. You see, if reasoning cannot change minds, then we have lost the most critical yet fragile hope remaining to us: "In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of the first importance."
If that hope is lost, then war is the only remaining recourse to resolve differences.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 10:03am PT
|
You're not that deluded, are you?
LOL... then explain your motivation!
Well, I'm outty for awhile. Gotta do something productive today.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 10:08am PT
|
"Gotta do something productive today."
Great idea. That sure as hell won't happen ranting your political views on a Climber's Forum.
Get at it!
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:18am PT
|
The Christian Right has always had a stranglehold on the Republican party, that's the reality, it doesn't matter what the so-called majority of conservatives believe. Falwell would have been relegated to "never heard of him" status if the Christian Right had only a little influence.
I respectfully disagree. The "Christian Right" has been a constituency that largely votes Republican, but it has no stranglehold. Otherwise, President Reagan was a Democrat. I particularly remember, with relish, the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor to the SCOTUS. When Jerry Falwell said that all good Christians should be concerned with that nomination, Barry Goldwater replied that all good Christians should give Jerry Falwell a kick in the ass (or words to that effect).
I am an Evangelical Christian, and obviously right-of-center, but am in no way part of the "Christian Right." Scripture directed us to fight with spiritual, not worldly, weapons. The idea that we can legislate Christianity, and use the force of government to spread the Gospel, flies in the face of orthodox doctrine, not to mention the Constitution. I rather doubt that I'm alone in this belief.
I suspect that John M and I think somewhat similarly (he'll be surprised to hear this) regarding the church's responsiblity in the world, and in the United States. To me, the Christian Church Universal has one job description: to make disciples. That requires not only sharing the Gospel, but taking care of the needs of people, and particularly those of the disadvantaged.
I believe that the problems many on the right see with the current welfare system - its seeming perpetuation of poverty by providing incentives toward bad behavior, and the destruction of the family unit - form part of a judgment on the church for our failure to take care of business by taking care of others. Now we get to deal with a much bigger problem, because we ignore the more easily soluble one.
I rather doubt that my opinion represents the Christian Right, but it has more adherents among Christians I know than that of those who seem to me to represent the second coming of the Pharisees.
John
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
|
May 12, 2015 - 11:31am PT
|
"The "Christian Right" has been a constituency that largely votes Republican, but it has no stranglehold. "
Do you think that any GOP candidate in the last 30 years could get the nod without appeasing the Christian Right & the Base?
Not a chance. That's as clear a sign of strangulation as one can find.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!