SCOTUS upholds strip-search on arrest.

[since9]

But of course when you think there is no fundamental things that make us human that would be an easy assumption to make that somehow a all powerful government would be more correct than individual humans.

Yes, SVG, there most certainly exist "fundamental things" which make us a free people.

Try this on for size: "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

The current system spends an ungodly amount of time trying to please and accomplish government requirements.

Recursive profits have been entrenched since WWII.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snip] Another option, and one I've seen a lot of evidence for, though I was initially against, is the public option. This is essentially a taxpayer-funded, nonprofit, government insurance program - everyone is automatically included. It stands as an option for those who don't have or don't want private insurance. Any party that wants private insurance or to pay private hospitals may do so. Provisions dealing with prices, acceptance, etc would all need to be figured out.

I am in-full support of the Public Option, but it was scrapped for the sake of a weak healthcare law.

States should have some degree of independence from the federal government, but the measure and extent of that is debatable.

States ought to have independence in areas that relate to State issues. Healcare is a National issue.

[snip]... then you still have to deal with the "what's the best plan" problem.

Agree. I wonder though, do you think that right-out the gate we can have a plan designed that is infallable?--I don't. You have to start somewhere, then work with what you got, refine the turd.

I'd rather have meaningful solutions than poke people in the eye. Bitterly saying "tax the rich" isn't going to fix the budget issues. Those of us in the middle class are going to need to contribute, too.

The middle class, and the poor ought to be able to contribute something, but nothing like the thousand dollars a month I was havening to pay for myself, and my family, that was 25% of my income at the time. For some, it is a greater portion of their income.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Some ignore the ninth and tenth amendments, and the enumerated powers of the federal government. Or how about this little fact of history, the king of England had to name all 13 colonies in his truce it wasn't a singular agreement with United States.

The Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment is what's being argued concerning the current healthcare law. SCOTUS will sort it out, I am sure; hearing a one of the Justices complain about havening to read the entire law is disconcerting--their a Justice for christ-sake!

But of course when you think there is no fundamental things that make us human that would be an easy assumption to make that somehow a all powerful government would be more correct than individual humans.

Government is meant to be the mediator between competing individuals, and groups.

What current system? Get the government out of medicine then tell me the current system isn't working. The current system spends an ungodly amount of time trying to please and accomplish government requirements.

We do have a current system don't we? It may be a cluster-f*ck, but it's a current system.

 

[Tawnos]

Agree. I wonder though, do you think that right-out the gate we can have a plan designed that is infallable?--I don't. You have to start somewhere, then work with what you got, refine the turd.

That's what I'm proposing by having the states each try their own plan.

The middle class, and the poor ought to be able to contribute something, but nothing like the thousand dollars a month I was havening to pay for myself, and my family, that was 25% of my income at the time. For some, it is a greater portion of their income.

What if I told you the only way to balance the budget without cutting the social services you want would be to make you pay 35% of your income? 40%? 50%?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

That's what I'm proposing by having the states each try their own plan.

And what I am stating is that the States ought not have their own plan.

What if I told you the only way to balance the budget without cutting the social services you want would be to make you pay 35% of your income? 40%? 50%?

I disagree. Cut our defense budget, significantly.Take for-profit insurance out of the private sector. Just those two things alone would save a significant amount of money. Shut down private hospitals, have all doctors working for the Federal Government, but all of the medical decisions are by the doctors, not law-makers; law-makers ought not be in the business of deciding what doctors can and cannot do, medically. Revamp our end-of-life care where the focus is on the dignity of the dying patient over keeping them alive for an extra week in pain, and/or misery when there is no hope for survival. Death is a natural part of life, and ought to be culturally treated as such.

Example: A couple of years ago a friend of mine attempted suicide. My wife had found our friend, still breathing, but basically brain dead. So, she is rushed to the emergency room, they place her on a bunch of machines, three weeks later her father pulls the plug, withdrawls food, and she dies three days later. My friend had put me down as a family memeber on her medical information, and I receive a call from the hospital about two weeks after she died, asking if I knew what her number was, and that she has a medical bill for 110,000 dollars. I told the lady on the phone that she had passed away, and the lady apologized for calling. My point is, there was no hope for recovery, and the last three weeks of her life were not dignifying, there was nothing but money wasted on someone that was dead before they even got to the hospital.

The funny thing is we keep hearing that there isn't enough money to help the poor, there is enough money for education, so we have to cut cut cut; but we can raise the defense budget, we can go into wars that aren't necessary, we can give the wealthy tax breaks, we can bail-out banks, etc. America doesn't have a debt problem as much as we put our money in places that we ought not be putting our money.

We pull our military out of every State, bring them home, and if somewhere comes here looking for trouble, then we go out there and kill them, period. All of this so-called pre-emptive crap is not worth the time, treasure, nor blood. Say we have a policy: for every American you kill we will kill fifty of you...for starters.

 

[OC for ME]

How significantly? Specifics please.

What to cut, where to cut, how much to cut. How many 'troops' are too many, too few, just the right number?

Do we then move on to the next government agency after we finish with the military? Then do this same process for every government agency after the previous agency until all agencies are accounted for?

Specifics please....it should be easy the way you speak to the matter.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The Commerce Clause, and the Tenth Amendment is what's being argued concerning the current healthcare law. SCOTUS will sort it out, I am sure; hearing a one of the Justices complain about havening to read the entire law is disconcerting--their a Justice for christ-sake!

Except the commerce clause is only supposed to apply to enumerated powers read the quotes by the founders. They shouldn't have to read the entire law toss it out, the congress didn't read it when they passed it, and the president didn't either. Let's also look at the meaning of 'regulate' at the time the "commerce clause" was instituted, to make regular, not to impose restrictions on or force people to do it in a way mandated by congress, it was simply to encourage free trade between the states so you didn't end up like Europe at the time with myriads of tarifs and taxes as you cross state (country) lines.

Government is meant to be the mediator between competing individuals, and groups.

Um, no it's not. I don't see that anywhere in the enumerated powers granted. Competition is good for consumers and raises the standard of living for the not rich.


We do have a current system don't we? It may be a cluster-f*ck, but it's a current system.

That's my point, it's a cluster f*ck because of the involvement the government has in it, the solution is not give them more power over it.....What is continually espoused by pro socialist/positivist is that we are in this cluster because of greedy unregulated capitalists and that is just bull-scat.

People don't realize how much of a fight this Healthcare bill will have even if endorsed by SCOTUS, people are going to fight it you cannot mandate I buy something I don't want. I guess when you go to the store and buy your groceries I should mandate that you buy a 1/3 more than what you need so that I can give that to the hungry?

 

[ManInBlack]

Government is meant to be the mediator between competing individuals, and groups.

LOL no.

The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. For instance, the government is supposed to try to prevent you from killing me, because that violates my right to life. It is supposed to prevent things like you from stealing the products of my labor, as that violates my right to liberty. And it is supposed to keep your grubby little hands off of my wealth, because allowing you access to it violates my right to property.

Have you ever actually read (or, as you like to write, "reade" lol) the Constitution? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know anything at all about whence you speak, or is a position of ignorance your preferred podium?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snippers]....it should be easy the way you speak to the matter.

Nothing is easy.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

LOL no.

The purpose of government is to protect individual rights. For instance, the government is supposed to try to prevent you from killing me, because that violates my right to life. It is supposed to prevent things like you from stealing the products of my labor, as that violates my right to liberty. And it is supposed to keep your grubby little hands off of my wealth, because allowing you access to it violates my right to property.

Have you ever actually read (or, as you like to write, "reade" lol) the Constitution? Have you ever read the Federalist Papers? Do you know anything at all about whence you speak, or is a position of ignorance your preferred podium?

Sorry, I forgot to add that Government ought not only be the mediator, but the place where society forms consensus for mandate. I have reade the Constitution, DOI, Federalist, anti-Federalist, but that's not we are talking about here, we aren't talking about how many books we have reade.

You think Government is supposed to try to prevent one individual from killing another? Say, by coercion?--then I agree. Neither of us have right to Liberty; unfettered Liberty stops the second man is conscious.

 

[ManInBlack]

You think Government is supposed to try to prevent one individual from killing another? Say, by coercion?--then I agree. Neither of us have right to Liberty; unfettered Liberty stops the second man is conscious.

Sigh..."liberty," the way the sane, non-airplane glue huffing population understands it, does not include the ability to kill another person without just cause. Your mileage will definitely vary.

My liberty is completely inviolable until I violate yours. There is nothing contradictory about that.

 

[ManInBlack]

we aren't talking about how many books we have reade.

I am surprised you can even read.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

(1)That's my point, it's a cluster f*ck because of the involvement the government has in it, the solution is not give them more power over it.....(2)What is continually espoused by pro socialist/positivist is that we are in this cluster because of greedy unregulated capitalists and that is just bull-scat.

(3)People don't realize how much of a fight this Healthcare bill will have even if endorsed by SCOTUS, people are going to fight it you cannot mandate I buy something I don't want. I guess when you go to the store and buy your groceries I should mandate that you buy a 1/3 more than what you need so that I can give that to the hungry?

I am not sure what you want me to respond to here.

(1)So, we agree, it is a cluster-f*ck. Whether it has to do with the Government, well, that is where we part-ways. The Federal Government is not taking any more Power, the Federal Government already has the Power.

(2) Socialist does not necessarily equal Positivist. We are in this mess for a number of reasons. Giving food-stamps to poor people isn't high on the list, IMO.

(3)Then let there be a fight; it's just part of the process. HealthCare is an Interstate Commerce issue, IMO.--by extension, I suppose one could argue that food is as well.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

[snippers]

My liberty is completely inviolable until I violate yours. There is nothing contradictory about that.

I agree, there is nothing contradictory about that.--if you accept the premise.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I am surprised you can even read.

I have been responding to your posts, haven't I? Apparently I can read just enough.

 

[OC for ME]

Nothing is easy.

Actually, somethings are easy. Before I hit the military I'd hit the low hanging fruit, like the GSA, Dept. of Ed, EPA, FCC, etcetera. These folks are nothing more than a means to spend money that would be better spent by the states, especially the states that have a balanced budget requirement.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Actually, somethings are easy. Before I hit the military I'd hit the low hanging fruit, like the GSA, Dept. of Ed, EPA, FCC, etcetera. These folks are nothing more than a means to spend money that would be better spent by the states, especially the states that have a balanced budget requirement.

I agree regarding the FCC.

I get it, warring, and war-mongering is in our American blood. We ought to get control of the amount of money we throw at our military. What do I know, I am just sitting here behind my laptop typing opinions, I could be wrong about all of this, and we ought to instead cut all taxes for the wealthy, cut all services to the poor, and increase our military budget for that boogey-man out there that will likely never come.

 

[OC for ME]

You have good intentions. That is the problem with liberals, the intended good results rarely, if ever, materialize, resulting in their (liberals) call for more 'government' to 'fix it'.

When 'you' can speak to the specifics then a discussion can be had, until then it is not productive to discuss good intentions only.

I could be wrong about all of this, and we ought to instead cut all taxes for the wealthy, cut all services to the poor, and increase our military budget for that boogey-man out there that will likely never come.

Confirms my contention, once again, that liberals are not interested in 'fixing' anything.

 

[ManInBlack]

I could be wrong about all of this, and we ought to instead cut all taxes for the wealthy, cut all services to the poor, and increase our military budget for that boogey-man out there that will likely never come.

Why can't we cut taxes for everybody, cut off most services for everybody, and fund a modest military tasked with the proper function of defending the borders of the United States?

It is not an all or nothing proposition, you know.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You have good intentions. That is the problem with liberals, the intended good results rarely, if ever, materialize, resulting in their (liberals) call for more 'government' to 'fix it'.

When 'you' can speak to the specifics then a discussion can be had, until then it is not productive to discuss good intentions only.

Confirms my contention, once again, that liberals are not interested in 'fixing' anything.

I never stated that we would have 'good results.'

You can conclude that Liberals are not interested in fixing anything; and I can conclude that neither party is interested in fixing anything.