Lol Toby I suppose you're right but I'm not the only one like that. If people of all ages were given the same respect, Diplomat would have felt no need to lie about his age.

"What broken promises?"

Are you serious? How about not running a deficit? How about shrinking government spending? How about reforming Social Security? How about not being in the business of nation building?

The Republicans have seriously lost their way. They are fast becoming Democrats who lie just a little bit more about what they're actually going to do in power, it's just that Republicans lie about what they'll do and never do it and Democrats lie about what they won't do and then do it, generally speaking.

"which was the now claimed to be sarcastic statement made by Diplofool. And I can assume he was referring to flying in the US for a US airline because this thread is about the US Constitution and he has claimed, in the past, to be a tenured professor ata major US university."

Come on, professor. You're not fooling anyone. There was a thread awhile back that a dedicated snooper can find now where the mods admit The_Master_Warrior and the good doctor diplomat1824 are one and the same. The fact that you said that this thread represents your NEW political beliefs also goes to show that you've talked about politics on here before. Go ahead and ignore when people try and connect your two accounts, but don't deny it. The cat's out of the bag.

Way out. Lol I think it was out on like... the second post of this thread?

But look, a deficit isn't cut overnight, so you can't say that's a "broken" promise. And they're taking steps to reduce it, which is more than I can say for other administrations. I don't remember a promise about Social Security, and I don't care.

I'm 18 and I'm resigned to the simple truth, which is to say I'm going to be paying into this pyramid scheme most of my life and never see a dime when I'm old. And that's ok with me, I'd just as soon not have social security benefits. The most good SS does is it gives everyone a number so that notarizing is easier.

I do recall the nation building promise. By the looks of it, they're not doing that either. They're just continuing what was being done when they were there until such a time as they can leave.

There is a difference between being reasonable and being naively stubborn. They ARE mutually exclusive.

Are you serious? How about not running a deficit? How about shrinking government spending? How about reforming Social Security? How about not being in the business of nation building?

The Republicans have seriously lost their way. They are fast becoming Democrats who lie just a little bit more about what they're actually going to do in power, it's just that Republicans lie about what they'll do and never do it and Democrats lie about what they won't do and then do it, generally speaking.

I agree. Moderate Republicans are fast losing their way. That's why I became CP supporter.

Republicrats FTW

The Constitution Party is no better, because they won't cut military spending and are too busy worrying about social matters that the government has no place in. You can't have a successful national party that puts more emphasis on a gay marriage amendment than seriously fixing America's financial house.

Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, these are people I like. Centrism is the only way to go.

That's also why at first I was for McCain, but when he sold out... not so much.

@ Invictus

>Come on, professor. You're not fooling anyone.

That confused me at first, but he wasn't trying to fool anyone. He was quoting Draugnar, and not using quotation marks properly. (Just like he didn't use quotation marks when he quoted you in his latest comment.)

The next paragraph, written by TMW himself, accepts the assumption that he is the same as ‘Diplofool’.

While I've got you here, what do you think about the Libertarian Party?

Joe Lieberman, Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, these are people I hate. Centrism is for people without the balls to choose one way or the other.

That's also why at first I was for McCain, but when he sold out... not so much.

McCain is too moderate and failed the intellect test by picking McCain. However, Obama didn't make a much better choice with Chia Pet Biden.

Yup, Biden is just as bad as Palin would have been, but unless Obama dies or resigns it makes no difference. Vice Presidents are usually irrelevant. Cheney was just about the only exception in history.

For Toby Bartels, there are just too many crazy people in the Libertarian Party who don't even want the government paying for roads and thinks Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. I think the GOP back on tract would be best, but unless the party starts listening to Ron Paul and its true base then I might just have to start writing my own name in on election days.

Invictus '24!

not to try having a serious conversation here, but how did they manage to come up with a system to reduce the deficit while spending money on a federal healhcare plan?

That seems difficult or complicated, and if it's true means there is a whole load about the health care system in the US which i don't know a thing about... (unless it involves mandatory taxation of everyone for health insurance, and is replacing a tax credit given to those who choose - ie can afford - to get the insurance : which would mean the government was already paying (through a decreased tax take) for health insurance, but only for those who could afford to pay that tax. (which is fucked up on several levels)

sorry, didn't mean to imply that your conversation wasn't serious, i accidentally forgot i was only on the second to last page and didn't see this one. (because i had to make a phone call)

what it means is that it pays for itself in the long term, actually more than pays for itself. therefore it actually reduces the deficit.

also, if you think centrists have no balls then you have no idea what is really going on.

it takes a lot of guts to stand up to both parties at once. not to mention the fact that centrists are the only ones who ever get anything done

actually, yeah, providing health care to everyone all the time (when they need it) would probably improve the average health of your citizens and thus reduce the total cost of health care.

but how does that pay for itself? I'm still confused...

if you're curious look up max baucus' health care bill, in plain text. the finance committee, if memory serves, predicted it would actually save the nation a few billion dollars over its ~800bn dollar cost.

I think it was actually the GAO that estimated the cost (I think generally with bills like this they have the GAO look at them and estimate the cost/savings/impact).

Check out this website
www.talkmankind.com

A great site for debating and arguing against other intelligent people.

I think the GOP back on tract would be best, but unless the party starts listening to Ron Paul and its true base then I might just have to start writing my own name in on election days.

True. So true.

"if you're curious look up max baucus' health care bill, in plain text. the finance committee, if memory serves, predicted it would actually save the nation a few billion dollars over its ~800bn dollar cost."

It doesn't matter if it ends the world's problems. It is a direct violation of the Tenth Amendment.

@The_Master_Warrior - in what way does it violate the Tenth Amendment? It's my understanding that States will still be able to regulate health insurance within their borders.

The Tenth Amendment states that any rights not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution are the rights of the states or the people.

And, no, the bill does not give the rights to the states. It takes away the rights of the states.

Would you please start using quotation marks if you're gonna quote people?

"The Tenth Amendment states that any rights not specifically given to the federal government by the Constitution are the rights of the states or the people."

Yes, that's what the Tenth Amendment says, but the Necessary and Proper Clause of the constitution gives Congress the authority to make laws to carry out its enumerated powers. These directly clash. There's no definitive answer on the relationship between the two, so any attempt to wrap your argument in the Tenth Amendment can easily be countered by saying it falls under this "necessary and proper" umbrella.

This clause has usually been interpreted in favor of Congress and the federal government rather than the states or people. Like it or not, the Tenth Amendment is all but irrelevant today.

Yeah states' rights kind of died with the Confederates. And you know what, it was a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

No, it was subsumed by the new responsibilities the federal government took on from the New Deal and Civil Rights. And it's not a good thing, because it means that more decisions are made farther away by people less accountable to the citizens affected by those decisions.

State's Rights has been used for the wrong goals, like slavery and segregation, but the basic idea of sovereign states with their own laws is a very important safeguard for freedom. Would you really like a totally unified system where Congress legislates for everything? Local concerns are very important and our government is better for not being a one-institution hegemon.

Also, just to defend the principle of States' Rights and for those who think it is synonymous with slavery -

It is little realized that without states' rights, the New England states which abolished slavery shortly after The Revolution would not have been able to do so. And when slave catchers would try to apprehend escaped slaves in the North under the Fugitive Slave Act in later years, many a northern sheriff would round up a posse, beat the crap out of the slave catcher, and tell him to go back home - clear defiance of federal law and authority. In modern times, without states' rights there would be no right for dying cancer patients to smoke cannabis (as my uncle did regularly for pain control; unfortunately, he still died of colon cancer at the ripe old age of 38 - leaving a widow and three small children behind, the youngest not even a year old at the time) or homosexuals to get married and share health benefits, rights of inheritance, and a host of other legal privileges. Under a centralized system, where my own state of California would have to answer to puritanical Christofascist politicians from the other side of the continent, these freedoms would be unknown anywhere in the country.

"Yeah states' rights kind of died with the Confederates. And you know what, it was a good thing as far as I'm concerned."

Vertical federalism is dead?

That would suck and be unconstitutional.

Well, certainly there will be some more federal regulation of healthcare, but it seems to me that falls pretty squarely under the interstate commerce clause, (no need to refer to the necessary and proper clause) given that it involves businesses that will reach across states.

Can you show me where you got your information on the specific rights it's taking away from the states? I still think I recall reading that the States would still be largely in charge of regulating healthcare within their borders, though perhaps with a few more restrictions. I'm just trying to get an idea of exactly how the responsibilities will be split.