And on that note, did the Beckster really NEVER finish college? Considering that he decided he was qualified enough to start "Beck U," I hope someone breaks his or her foot off in his uneducated ass.
I wonder how many forumites understand the difference between a national government (what they are advocating) and a federal government (what we still have, sort of).
Many of the people I know and correspond with who oppose government programs only oppose them because they are done at the federal level (where the govt. does not have the right to implement them) rather than at the state level (where govt does have the right). There are some wingnuts who are 100% against the feds doing anything but we tend to call those people anarchists or morons.
If New York wants to put together a health care plan for their residents, go for it! I know CT did this years ago and I hear it is pretty good. We have the Husky program (kids under 19) and the Charter Oak plan for adults. I have zero problem with this because it is being implemented at the state level and it is not mandatory.
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Many of the people I know and correspond with who oppose government programs only oppose them because they are done at the federal level (where the govt. does not have the right to implement them) rather than at the state level (where govt does have the right).
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Yes. Why would anyone think that the federal government doesn't have the right to implement government programs? Aside from watching Glenn Beck, that is.
. . . and who are these people you "correspond" with, Steve? Militia? Domestic Terrorists? Some group the Southern Poverty Law Center should know about?
The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
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.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Truly, the Founding Fathers were the most noble and upstanding group of commie pinko scumbags that their country has ever seen.
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.
Sorry, Steve, but even the founders didn't necessarily agree with you. As you'll remember, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed on this very point. You know, guys like John Adams. Or George Washington. Practical governance has historically required strong central government to weather the trials of the 20th and 21st centuries. Then there was that little Civil War thing that kinda decided that, yes, the federal government trumps state government.
And on that note, did the Beckster really NEVER finish college? Considering that he decided he was qualified enough to start "Beck U," I hope someone breaks his or her foot off in his uneducated ass.
No. Beck didn't finish. Can't you tell? Limbaugh flunked out of college, didn't last a full semester, and took bullshit courses like Ballroom Dancing on top of that. That's why he and Beck's arguments are so absurd. All they have going for them intellectually is that they can maybe read at the fourth grade level. Everything else they say is based on their "gut". That's why Steven Colbert is so funny. His character is exactly like those people. In that way, he (dare I say it?) hoists them on their own retard.
Steve's argument here is very Beckian in that he has read a very little bit of the Constitution and doesn't seem to realize that there has been over two hundred years of interpretation on the issue he is trying to write about.
Jason is correct in his refutation of Steve's argument through the invocation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Interpretation of this clause shows how Steve's argument holds very, very little weight. Also, anyone who is interested should read the Commerce Clause cases. Oversimplified Reader's Digest version: The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause allow Congress to regulate just about anything they want, and, in furtherance of that ability to regulate, it has the ability to institute government programs. We've talked about the Commerce Clause before on this forum. Anyone with any retention ability should know that.
People like Beck, Limbaugh, and Steve don't take the time to educate themselves on the even slightly deeper aspects of these types of issues. Their general M.O. is to read one sentence (or maybe a paragraph if they're feeling very industrious), interpret what they've just read based on their "gut", and then start talking about it like they're experts. This might work when you have your own talk show on which you never allow debate and you aim your arguments at a demographic of idiots, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny when the audience has had some education.
I wonder how many forumites understand the difference between a national government (what they are advocating) and a federal government (what we still have, sort of).
I'm sure that many of us do not understand this distinction. Please explain.
If you want to talk about insensitivity, look no further than the forum's embrace of the term "full retard". Surely intelligent people can think of a better way to convey their thoughts.
If you want to talk about insensitivity, look no further than the forum's embrace of the term "full retard". Surely intelligent people can think of a better way to convey their thoughts.
In this thread: Kilarney misses fairly popular cultural reference.
I wonder how many forumites understand the difference between a national government (what they are advocating) and a federal government (what we still have, sort of).
I think part of it is that most of us are over the whole "state's rights" thing. The civil war is over, the north won.
CBS News commissioned a crowd estimate by the company AirPhotosLive.com. The network reported that AirPhotosLive estimated the crowd at 87,000 people. But they noted that with a margin of error of 9,000, "between 78,000 and 96,000 attended the rally."
iReport: Photo gallery of faces in the crowd
NBC Nightly News estimated the number of people in attendance as "tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands."
Fox News, citing organizers, aired a banner characterizing it this way: "CROWD ATTENDING BECK RALLY ESTIMATED AT OVER 500,000."
Some "fairly popular" cultural references are quite insensitive. This would be one of them.
He's right, guys. I use the phrase on occasion myself, but you can't pretend that it wouldn't be legitimately offensive to some people for obvious reasons.
Of course, I will now use the phrase "Full Amish" to describe anyone who catastrophically fails with technology. Maybe "Full Shamalon" for movies. The possibilities are endless.
I'm not an overly sensitive wallflower, but I point out the fact that offensive language was used to criticize a man who is offensive.
Frankly, the very fact you are talking about Beck plays right into his hand. I doubt he cares if he is right or wrong. Rather, he cares that he is popular. His ticket to popularity has always bee to act as a lightning rod. Nothing new here. Time to move on.
According to my immediate family, I am un-American. Apparently being tolerant of Muslims and supporting their right to worship is "fascism" and evidence that I am serving the devil. Now mind you, I can't help but laugh, and they at least care enough to let me stay with them until I graduate and get a job. But sometimes, I just weep myself to sleep in frustration.
Not that I'm reporting anything new, as I've talked about my family several times on this forum. It's just that I'm getting worried. My father is not himself, my mother is now more emotionally volatile (mainly because of my father's new behavior), and my little brother has gone holier than thou and mostly defends my father and belittles my mother (also likely do to the fact she gets angrier faster). And meanwhile, I try my best to be rational, and treat them with respect, but now even when I am trying to be kind to them they often look at me with disgust. It's gotten to the point when I apologize that they tell me to quit telling them "I'm sorry." I'm stuck for the duration, probably for a year or so, but as I can leave, I will. I will leave them all behind, because while I love them dearly (and it's breaking my heart that they have in essence "died") I cannot bear the pain for much longer. I don't even know if I'll come out to them, as it might make things harder. After I leave, if they find out, they find out.
According to my immediate family, I am un-American. Apparently being tolerant of Muslims and supporting their right to worship is "fascism" and evidence that I am serving the devil. Now mind you, I can't help but laugh, and they at least care enough to let me stay with them until I graduate and get a job. But sometimes, I just weep myself to sleep in frustration.
Not that I'm reporting anything new, as I've talked about my family several times on this forum. It's just that I'm getting worried. My father is not himself, my mother is now more emotionally volatile (mainly because of my father's new behavior), and my little brother has gone holier than thou and mostly defends my father and belittles my mother (also likely do to the fact she gets angrier faster). And meanwhile, I try my best to be rational, and treat them with respect, but now even when I am trying to be kind to them they often look at me with disgust. It's gotten to the point when I apologize that they tell me to quit telling them "I'm sorry." I'm stuck for the duration, probably for a year or so, but as I can leave, I will. I will leave them all behind, because while I love them dearly (and it's breaking my heart that they have in essence "died") I cannot bear the pain for much longer. I don't even know if I'll come out to them, as it might make things harder. After I leave, if they find out, they find out.
Ugh. I feel for you bro....
Then again you coming out to them might help them see the errors of their ways, show them that they know people like the ones demonized on Fox News and help them emphasis with other groups that are demonized. (or not....)
Yeah, this is way more likely than the other scenario. That sort of stuff happens in TV shows, not real life. In real life, if you come out to intolerant people, they tie you to a fence and pistol-whip you to death.
Then again you coming out to them might help them see the errors of their ways, show them that they know people like the ones demonized on Fox News and help them empathise with other groups that are demonized. (or not....)
That sounds like a really bad idea. The other direction that that could take is that they retroactively demonize him and raise the tension even more.
I wonder how many forumites understand the difference between a national government (what they are advocating) and a federal government (what we still have, sort of).
I think part of it is that most of us are over the whole "state's rights" thing. The civil war is over, the north won.
Um... the civil war was about the degree of state's rights vs federal rights, not whether the states should have any. The rights held by the states and the federal government are still a very important part of Constitutional law.
Whether or not the federal government has the power to mandate a healthcare plan is a legitimate question. However, it is easily answered, as Joe pointed out above, and no legitimate Constitutional scholar that I have seen has argued that the Feds do not have this power. And yes, my school has looked. We tried to have a debate on this very issue, and we couldn't find anyone who would argue the case against the Feds. We had to have some students do it.
Um... the civil war was about the degree of state's rights vs federal rights, not whether the states should have any. The rights held by the states and the federal government are still a very important part of Constitutional law.
Rym's Ideology: States should have substantial leeway in their internal administration and law, so long as they do not interfere with federal systems (e.g., the Interstate system or standards like telecommunications/transportation infrastrucutre) and do not violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Rym's Observation and Opinion: Many states will do very, very stupid things if left to their own devices, and the negative effects will reach far beyond their own state borders. This harm will usually be far worse than any harm coming from poorly planned federal policies.
Rym's Pragmatic Compromise: States should have limited power to administer or legislate in many arenas, but the Federal government's substantial, broad powers are justified.
This is known as the "Don't let the red states descend into Mad Max" trifecta of assertions.
Yeah, this is way more likely than the other scenario. That sort of stuff happens in TV shows, not real life. In real life, if you come out to intolerant people, they tie you to a fence and pistol-whip you to death.
Ummmm. I think the answer lies in the middle a vast majority are not very happy about it but end up tolerating more then they would normally. I'm not suggesting they would run off and join PFLAG or something.
I think the answer lies in the middle a vast majority are not very happy about it but end up tolerating more then they would normally.
If there's even a grain of truth in any of Diagoras's tales of his family, then his situation is not the vast majority. With no other information, sure, I wouldn't say that most people would react poorly. With the information I've gotten over the years, I'd say that his family taking it well is intensely unlikely here.
Comments
And on that note, did the Beckster really NEVER finish college? Considering that he decided he was qualified enough to start "Beck U," I hope someone breaks his or her foot off in his uneducated ass.
Many of the people I know and correspond with who oppose government programs only oppose them because they are done at the federal level (where the govt. does not have the right to implement them) rather than at the state level (where govt does have the right). There are some wingnuts who are 100% against the feds doing anything but we tend to call those people anarchists or morons.
If New York wants to put together a health care plan for their residents, go for it! I know CT did this years ago and I hear it is pretty good. We have the Husky program (kids under 19) and the Charter Oak plan for adults. I have zero problem with this because it is being implemented at the state level and it is not mandatory.
. . . and who are these people you "correspond" with, Steve? Militia? Domestic Terrorists? Some group the Southern Poverty Law Center should know about?
Steve's argument here is very Beckian in that he has read a very little bit of the Constitution and doesn't seem to realize that there has been over two hundred years of interpretation on the issue he is trying to write about.
Jason is correct in his refutation of Steve's argument through the invocation of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Interpretation of this clause shows how Steve's argument holds very, very little weight. Also, anyone who is interested should read the Commerce Clause cases. Oversimplified Reader's Digest version: The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause allow Congress to regulate just about anything they want, and, in furtherance of that ability to regulate, it has the ability to institute government programs. We've talked about the Commerce Clause before on this forum. Anyone with any retention ability should know that.
People like Beck, Limbaugh, and Steve don't take the time to educate themselves on the even slightly deeper aspects of these types of issues. Their general M.O. is to read one sentence (or maybe a paragraph if they're feeling very industrious), interpret what they've just read based on their "gut", and then start talking about it like they're experts. This might work when you have your own talk show on which you never allow debate and you aim your arguments at a demographic of idiots, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny when the audience has had some education.
More on Commerce Clause limitations on state ability to regulate commerce. States have limits on their ability to regulate? Who knew? Not Steve. I'm sure that many of us do not understand this distinction. Please explain.
Of course, I will now use the phrase "Full Amish" to describe anyone who catastrophically fails with technology. Maybe "Full Shamalon" for movies. The possibilities are endless.
Frankly, the very fact you are talking about Beck plays right into his hand. I doubt he cares if he is right or wrong. Rather, he cares that he is popular. His ticket to popularity has always bee to act as a lightning rod. Nothing new here. Time to move on.
Not that I'm reporting anything new, as I've talked about my family several times on this forum. It's just that I'm getting worried. My father is not himself, my mother is now more emotionally volatile (mainly because of my father's new behavior), and my little brother has gone holier than thou and mostly defends my father and belittles my mother (also likely do to the fact she gets angrier faster). And meanwhile, I try my best to be rational, and treat them with respect, but now even when I am trying to be kind to them they often look at me with disgust. It's gotten to the point when I apologize that they tell me to quit telling them "I'm sorry." I'm stuck for the duration, probably for a year or so, but as I can leave, I will. I will leave them all behind, because while I love them dearly (and it's breaking my heart that they have in essence "died") I cannot bear the pain for much longer. I don't even know if I'll come out to them, as it might make things harder. After I leave, if they find out, they find out.
Then again you coming out to them might help them see the errors of their ways, show them that they know people like the ones demonized on Fox News and help them emphasis with other groups that are demonized. (or not....)
Whether or not the federal government has the power to mandate a healthcare plan is a legitimate question. However, it is easily answered, as Joe pointed out above, and no legitimate Constitutional scholar that I have seen has argued that the Feds do not have this power. And yes, my school has looked. We tried to have a debate on this very issue, and we couldn't find anyone who would argue the case against the Feds. We had to have some students do it.
States should have substantial leeway in their internal administration and law, so long as they do not interfere with federal systems (e.g., the Interstate system or standards like telecommunications/transportation infrastrucutre) and do not violate the Constitution/Bill of Rights.
Rym's Observation and Opinion:
Many states will do very, very stupid things if left to their own devices, and the negative effects will reach far beyond their own state borders. This harm will usually be far worse than any harm coming from poorly planned federal policies.
Rym's Pragmatic Compromise:
States should have limited power to administer or legislate in many arenas, but the Federal government's substantial, broad powers are justified.
This is known as the "Don't let the red states descend into Mad Max" trifecta of assertions.