"Disagreeing has never been so much fun!"
New Health Care Law is Treason Scum
Health Care Plan is What USA Needs
Forcing Americans to pay for health care even when they can not get it or afford it is loving, right? Obama said in his campaign that everyone will be getting health care! That is a lie. It guarantees no one health care. $ is only promise!
Debate Leaders
Ryan Kazinec
(18 votes)
Validated Ego
big ben
(9 votes)
LIBERAL
(4 votes)
Jeff
(2 votes)
Neutral Fans: (0)
Side A Comment
big ben - 7/26/12 @ 6:15 PM:
oh, and pre- existing conditions will be covered! Oh yeah the will be. Good damn luck paying for the premium though suckers!!!!!!!no disrespect for those with these conditions. I would be grateful if there was a cap from insurance companies to what they can charge in premium. If there is, show me the proof. I bet you will not find it. I am just saying the obamacare is abait and switch. You can promise people anything the want. The question is, will they be able to afford it??
LIBERAL - 7/26/12 @ 6:49 PM:
Rival | Side B
Big Ben, that's the whole point. No one can tell for certain just yet. Instead of playing the part of Negative Nancy why don't we see if it works before we tear it down? What is the point of removing all of the great features of this law when it will help so many that couldn't get or afford it before? I would rather have this law in effect and not work to be repealed and new legislation considered than to have none at all. Besides, what other choice is there? The only thing that the Republican party had come up with is almost exactly this same law minus the individual mandate, except in Massachussets (where it is currently working). If they had produced a viable alternative then why didn't they try harder to get it passed? I blame both Democrats and Republicans for that, by the way. If both would quit bickering over partisan issues and constantly trying to add earmarks to bills legislation would be passed far more easily and with better resolve.
Side A Comment
big ben - 7/26/12 @ 6:11 PM:
Look at the cost of the bronze plan. Look at what some employers are charging families right now for health care. I know two different people. One works for coke and his premium is 550 month just for him and his son. he cannot afford it. Another friend works for gatorade and hers is a little more. She cannot afford to get healthcare. Look at the price of the bronze plan. It is outrageous!. It is the ?$*#! plan too. The only people who benefit from this are the people who dont work. Screw this commy care. Heck, I pay my employer for the best plan, which is a 3000 dollar deductible. The insurance companies wrote the bill and they are the ones who are screwing the working class the most. Damn, i need to become a serf and seek the cheese reward.!
LIBERAL - 7/26/12 @ 6:53 PM:
Rival | Side B
You have no idea whether this law will be effective or not. Neither do I, but I am at least willing to give it a chance. Who knows... ...maybe once the rebates are issued and plans are re-evaluated the two you mentioned might be able to afford better insurance. I don't know. My name is not Nostradamus, and neither is yours. Isn't it at least worth the consideration? I think so.
Side A Comment
big ben - 7/25/12 @ 8:01 PM:
No one tell me that it won't cost families thousands in taxes if they are not able to afford a health care plan offered by their employer. Do not tell me that the health care providers will not look at the tax fees and adjust the cost of premium to the employee accordingly!! They are not stupid! Gee, let my employee pay me just below the tax rate, or let them pay the higher tax??????
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-is-the-obamacare-penalty-tax-2012-7
"Many Americans are furious that Obamacare will require them to buy health insurance.
Most of these folks seem to hate the idea that Obama is forcing them to do something more than they hate the idea of shelling out money.
But for those who also care about the money, here are the details.
The good news is that, for most people, the "penalty tax" for those who choose not to buy health insurance will cost a lot less than health insurance.
As with everything tax-related, there's no simple answer to "How much is the Obamacare penalty tax?" But here are some key points, from FactCheck.org:
The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.
The minimum penalty/tax in 2016 will be $695 per person and up to 3-times that per family. After 2016, these amounts will increase at the rate of inflation.
The minimum penalty/tax per person will start at $95 in 2014 (and then increase through 2016)
No family will ever pay more than 3X the per-person penalty, regardless of how many people are in the family.
The $695 per-person penalty is only for those who make between $9,500 and ~$37,000 per year. If you make less than ~$9.500, you're exempt. If you make more than ~$37,000, your penalty is calculated by the following formula...
The penalty is 2.5% of any household income above the level at which you are required to file a tax return. That level is currently $9,500 per person and $19,000 per couple. The penalty on any income above that is 2.5%. So the penalty can get expensive quickly if you make a lot of money.
However, the penalty can never be more than the cost of a "Bronze" heath insurance plan purchased through one of the state "exchanges" that will be created as part of Obamacare. The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.
So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:
Less than $9,500 income = $0
$9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
$50,000 income = $1,000
$75,000 income = $1,600
$100,000 income = $2,250
$125,000 income = $2,900
$150,000 income = $3,500
$175,000 income = $4,100
$200,000 income = $4,700
Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan
The IRS will collect the penalty-tax, a fact that will no doubt further enrage those who hate Obamacare.
But here's some more good news for those folks:
The IRS will not have the power to charge you criminally or seize your assets if you refuse to pay. The IRS will only have the ability to sue you. And the most the IRS can collect from you if it wins the suit is 2X the amount you owe. So if you want to thumb your nose at the penalty-tax, the IRS won't be able to do as much to you as they could if you refused to pay, say, income tax.
By the way, the following folks will be exempt from the penalty-tax:
Those who make less than $9,500
Employees whose employers only offer plans that cost more than 8% of the employee's income
Those with "hardships"
Members of Indian tribes
Members of certain religions that don't pay Social Security tax, such as Amish, Hutterites, or Mennonites
And, of course, Obamacare isn't free. So, whether you pay the penalty or not, you're going to have to pay a lot of other taxes to pay for it. Here they are >
LIBERAL - 7/25/12 @ 11:27 PM:
Rival | Side B
You're absolutely right Big Ben, in as much as no one can make you see the truth of the matter. I can show you several websites and studies that show a complete contradiction to everything you just stated in your first couple of paragraphs. However, that would be as useful as trying to explain the quantum mechanics of a black hole to a third grader. It's just not going to happen.
Those that oppose and those that approve of the ACA are practically split 50/50 among American citizens, so there would be no point in arguing that matter either. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Responsible Americans should purchase insurance. What really makes more sense? A family who purchases insurance and uses it to pay for the majority of their medical care and pays the rest out of their own pocket, or a family who doesn't purchase insurance and leaves the rest of us who did purchase insurance to foot the entirety of their medical care through increased premiums?
Just a little common sense is all that is required sometimes. Otherwise, it is simply right-wing propaganda used to scare Americans into opposition. Why fan the flames of ignorance when you can put the fire out? That's all I ask.
Those that oppose and those that approve of the ACA are practically split 50/50 among American citizens, so there would be no point in arguing that matter either. We will just have to agree to disagree.
Responsible Americans should purchase insurance. What really makes more sense? A family who purchases insurance and uses it to pay for the majority of their medical care and pays the rest out of their own pocket, or a family who doesn't purchase insurance and leaves the rest of us who did purchase insurance to foot the entirety of their medical care through increased premiums?
Just a little common sense is all that is required sometimes. Otherwise, it is simply right-wing propaganda used to scare Americans into opposition. Why fan the flames of ignorance when you can put the fire out? That's all I ask.
Side B Comment
DollyFan - 7/24/12 @ 12:14 AM:
Wow, this rivalry has mostly gotten off track. I love how your two brilliant minds go back and forth at each other. For having brilliant minds, you'd think you would agree with each other more often. Tells me that neither Rick nor Ryan is brilliant! LOL that really did make me laugh out loud! Hee Hee. Anyway, I agree that Obamacare is not perfect but that parts of it are good. Pre-existing conditions being eliminated, keeping your children on your insurance til age 26, etc. are some good things. And being made to have health insurance helps you pay for healthcare instead of me paying for all of your healthcare because you didn't have it and I have to pay higher prices. Some people chose not to get healthcare and then expect the rest of us to cover the costs. Of course, some CAN'T afford healthcare and this program does nothing to address that! So I believe this is a step in the right direction but there are some problems to work out.
Side A Comment
Ryan Kazinec - 7/10/12 @ 8:37 AM:
Validated Ego
A quick note, I consider myself part of the Tea Party movement so terms like Teabagger are insulting. This would be like me referring to liberals as libtards. I can understand placing a label like that on an individual who is deserving of it but to blanket an entire movement with it is insulting. I'm not mad at all just being straightforward. Correction: Just noticed you used as a stereotypical reference and while I don't agree with the stereotype it wasn't a blanket reference. Let's stick to the stereotypes that are true like Tea Party Members tend to have ENORMOUS......... Intellect.
LIBERAL - 7/10/12 @ 7:38 PM:
Rival | Side B
Ryan, are you trying to be funny? Seriously? We all use stereotypes in one way or another, and you know that to be truth. Are you seriously going to explain that you've never stereotyped another person or party? Now, while I don't believe all Tea Party members are idiots, I am afraid I consider quite of few of them to be of low intelligence, and to suggest that there isn't sufficient reasoning for this is simply ludicrous. Case in point:
http://http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/teabonics-will-someone-teach-these-nit-wits-to-spell-already/
Stereotypes derive from some truth or else they wouldn't be used in the first place. In other words if there weren't so many of the signs, demonstrations, and statements made by the ignorant part of this movement then their lack of education/knowledge would not be called into question. For example: Don't we all love us some Sarah Palin? I know I do. Here's a quote by the infamous former Alaskan governor.
"Go back to what our founders and founding documents meant-they're quite clear-that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments."
Yep. She actually said that aloud. Here's another quote.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
That was stated by a gentleman giving a speech before the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. His name was John Adams.
If the Tea Party didn't want to appear so inept and uneducated, then I would suggest making sure someone at these rallies perform a spellcheck before allowing every Tom, #*? and Harry to carry around their signs where everyone could see them. I would also suggest that it might be more beneficial for their candidates to have someone assist them with their history before making baseless and ridiculous quotes like this.
I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm not even saying that all Tea Party members are ignorant or stupid. What I am saying is that if a certain group of people don't wish to be stereotyped in such a manner, then perhaps they should not allow themselves to be placed into that position in the first place. You have to admit... ...they brought it upon themselves.
http://http://samuel-warde.com/2012/06/teabonics-will-someone-teach-these-nit-wits-to-spell-already/
Stereotypes derive from some truth or else they wouldn't be used in the first place. In other words if there weren't so many of the signs, demonstrations, and statements made by the ignorant part of this movement then their lack of education/knowledge would not be called into question. For example: Don't we all love us some Sarah Palin? I know I do. Here's a quote by the infamous former Alaskan governor.
"Go back to what our founders and founding documents meant-they're quite clear-that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments."
Yep. She actually said that aloud. Here's another quote.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
That was stated by a gentleman giving a speech before the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. His name was John Adams.
If the Tea Party didn't want to appear so inept and uneducated, then I would suggest making sure someone at these rallies perform a spellcheck before allowing every Tom, #*? and Harry to carry around their signs where everyone could see them. I would also suggest that it might be more beneficial for their candidates to have someone assist them with their history before making baseless and ridiculous quotes like this.
I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm not even saying that all Tea Party members are ignorant or stupid. What I am saying is that if a certain group of people don't wish to be stereotyped in such a manner, then perhaps they should not allow themselves to be placed into that position in the first place. You have to admit... ...they brought it upon themselves.
Ryan Kazinec - 7/10/12 @ 8:15 PM:
Ally | Side A
Trying? I'm insulted. That !!% is funny.
I too could gather a bunch of ignoramus comments, signs, etc... by groups like the Occupy Protesters but doing so would have the same affect as your attempt; it will fall flat and prove nothing about the entire movement. It's always the idiots that are filmed and photographed because they bring the most entertainment value to the 24 news channels. I do have to disagree that the stereotypes have to be embedded in some truth; Fox News works to build stereotypes of groups like the one aforementioned and every other news channel does the same against the Tea Party. It doesn't validate the stereotype it validates our corrupt slanted media outlets.
I too could gather a bunch of ignoramus comments, signs, etc... by groups like the Occupy Protesters but doing so would have the same affect as your attempt; it will fall flat and prove nothing about the entire movement. It's always the idiots that are filmed and photographed because they bring the most entertainment value to the 24 news channels. I do have to disagree that the stereotypes have to be embedded in some truth; Fox News works to build stereotypes of groups like the one aforementioned and every other news channel does the same against the Tea Party. It doesn't validate the stereotype it validates our corrupt slanted media outlets.
LIBERAL - 7/10/12 @ 8:36 PM:
Rival | Side B
Then you and I disagree. How about that? By the way, media does not create stereotypes. People do. Media simply substantiates it by its biased opinion. It is simply human nature to do so, and anyone who says they don't or haven't is either too naive or too complacent to admit the truth. By the way, Occupy protesters protested Wall Street. They did not specifically identify their political affiliations because they were composed primarily of all party types. Bad analogy. ;-0 I see what you were trying to say, but the argument is still moot due to human nature. Please remember this though, my stereotype was of a fraction of the Tea Party members. I did not classify the Tea Party with my insult, but the group within them that insists on showing themselves to be a highly uneducated, racist, and bigoted cartel of hatemongers who claim to love America. Admittedly I'm sure the liberals and Democrats have a similar base, but at least we purposely try to distance ourselves from them. I don't mind if you call those types libtards. Perhaps they deserve it. Yeah, they probably do. As the saying goes "a few rotten ones will spoil the whole bunch". If some members of the Tea Party would admit how ridiculous some of these people are I wouldn't be so inclined to think it so humorous, but often is the case that they actually defend these morons.
Ryan Kazinec - 7/10/12 @ 8:41 PM:
Ally | Side A
Oh come on, organized labor was all over those protests and they weren't just protesting Wall Street (Do I really need to pull up pictures of their signs? I wouldn't think that would be necessary). They're as liberal as the Tea Party is conservative. I disagree with your disagreement, How about that?
Okay, if we're going to get so technical to break down the social manufacturing process of stereotypes then sure the Media doesn't create it but you can't bake a pie without the ingredients and that they do supply.
Okay, if we're going to get so technical to break down the social manufacturing process of stereotypes then sure the Media doesn't create it but you can't bake a pie without the ingredients and that they do supply.
LIBERAL - 7/10/12 @ 8:44 PM:
Rival | Side B
Well, I can argue all night with you about this, but if you keep insisting on not being right then we will just have to disagree. Agreed? LOL. Now, that was funny. ;-)
LIBERAL - 7/12/12 @ 3:09 AM:
Rival | Side B
Ryan,just wanted to show you what I meant concerning my argument about how we all use stereotypes from one degree to another. I'm not being a smarta$$, but after our argument it just seemed to me as though you were implying you never stereotype. I disagreed and stated that we all do it, because it is human nature.
Ryan Kazinec - 6/17/12 @ 2:21 PM:
I'd imagine this is one of those issues that will split down party lines but I'm sure there are some independent thinkers out there that aren't amused by the progressive influence these celebrities have over the idiotic dumb-masses not to mention the close relationships they have with our president.
Obviously I get nauseated anytime one of these elitist celebs opens their mouth spewing progressive rhetoric but it is their right as it is their right to use their influence to help a like minded president. Not that Obama could ever gain my support but being surrounded by Hollywood brass doesn't do anything but further turn me off to anything he has to say.
It seems like once a week I get an email from the Obama campaign touting another dinner with X celebrity and a plea from Joe, Michelle, or Barack to donate for a chance to win a seat. Folks this is real life, not Hollywood special effects, screenplays, and fake boobs.
Ryan Kazinec - 6/23/12 @ 8:06 AM:
My personal opinion of the Gay and Lesbian community is that they are a bit out there with their parades and such but there is no way this reflects the majority of the community. This is simply a couple *@$!?* that obviously didn't think their actions through.
Ryan Kazinec - 5/30/12 @ 6:56 PM:Ally | Side A
While I certainly see your point I have to strongly disagree. Maybe it's my business mind set but you HAVE to analyze your return on investment (ROI) and determine whether or not it's cost effective to attend college. Currently there are certainly means to get a decent education for under 25k and while that's a bit steep I could argue it's worth it for a number of reasons. However we are facing a crisis that will push College tuition to the point of making it a horrible investment in the very near future. Tuition is skyrocketing faster than inflation and wage increases and if it doesn't slow down or retract community college could cost 50k and at the point you really have to ask yourself when you'll see a ROI.
You are right there are many avenues to have your schooling paid for (or borrow) if you're below the poverty line and especially if you've popped a couple of kids out that are being fed by EBT and WIC but for all of us working folk those handouts aren't available as someone has to pay for them.
We all do it, whether we freely admit it or not. I don't mind saying that I have and do, because I'm not perfect.
Ryan Kazinec - 6/17/12 @ 2:21 PM:
I'd imagine this is one of those issues that will split down party lines but I'm sure there are some independent thinkers out there that aren't amused by the progressive influence these celebrities have over the idiotic dumb-masses not to mention the close relationships they have with our president.
Obviously I get nauseated anytime one of these elitist celebs opens their mouth spewing progressive rhetoric but it is their right as it is their right to use their influence to help a like minded president. Not that Obama could ever gain my support but being surrounded by Hollywood brass doesn't do anything but further turn me off to anything he has to say.
It seems like once a week I get an email from the Obama campaign touting another dinner with X celebrity and a plea from Joe, Michelle, or Barack to donate for a chance to win a seat. Folks this is real life, not Hollywood special effects, screenplays, and fake boobs.
Ryan Kazinec - 6/23/12 @ 8:06 AM:
My personal opinion of the Gay and Lesbian community is that they are a bit out there with their parades and such but there is no way this reflects the majority of the community. This is simply a couple *@$!?* that obviously didn't think their actions through.
Ryan Kazinec - 5/30/12 @ 6:56 PM:Ally | Side A
While I certainly see your point I have to strongly disagree. Maybe it's my business mind set but you HAVE to analyze your return on investment (ROI) and determine whether or not it's cost effective to attend college. Currently there are certainly means to get a decent education for under 25k and while that's a bit steep I could argue it's worth it for a number of reasons. However we are facing a crisis that will push College tuition to the point of making it a horrible investment in the very near future. Tuition is skyrocketing faster than inflation and wage increases and if it doesn't slow down or retract community college could cost 50k and at the point you really have to ask yourself when you'll see a ROI.
You are right there are many avenues to have your schooling paid for (or borrow) if you're below the poverty line and especially if you've popped a couple of kids out that are being fed by EBT and WIC but for all of us working folk those handouts aren't available as someone has to pay for them.
We all do it, whether we freely admit it or not. I don't mind saying that I have and do, because I'm not perfect.
Ryan Kazinec - 7/12/12 @ 5:19 AM:
Ally | Side A
Actually, I issued a correction mentioning that I noticed it was used in a stereotypical reference which is why I followed up with an outstanding joke.
I have no problem with stereotypes but let's not confuse the comments you referenced of mine as anywhere near as insulting as referring to a group of people as a male bean bag being smacked against a face. Tremendously different. But then again, stereotypes are fine, I initially thought you had issued a blanket statement about the entire community. But I appreciate you highlighting some wonderful comments of mine!
I have no problem with stereotypes but let's not confuse the comments you referenced of mine as anywhere near as insulting as referring to a group of people as a male bean bag being smacked against a face. Tremendously different. But then again, stereotypes are fine, I initially thought you had issued a blanket statement about the entire community. But I appreciate you highlighting some wonderful comments of mine!
LIBERAL - 7/12/12 @ 11:25 AM:
Rival | Side B
LOL, Ryan, I understand that reference is used in that manner, but the TEABAGGER reference isn't actually based upon that circumstance. It's based upon those within the Tea Party that use tea bags to decorate themselves with who attend those rallies. It's unfortunate that the term is so synonymous with that act, but it's origin is not based on a sexual act, rather the acts of those who attend the rallies. If you choose to equate the two, it's because YOU did, not me. I use the reference exactly as it's meant. You can't always prevent people from misinterpreting things, but did you forget that it was me that made the reference? You know very well that's not how I intend it to be used. Let's at least be honest about that, though you did make me laugh a little seeing it this morning. All jokes aside, any time I make that reference it is intended exactly as I meant. It represents those members who drape them from the corners of their hats and other articles of clothing.
Side A Comment
Ryan Kazinec - 7/10/12 @ 8:32 AM:
Validated Ego
While I'm hesitant to jump on the Treason portion of this rivalry I do despise Obamacare. However, I wanted to add a source for the argument that the United States isn't a Republic.
According to Wikipedia,
"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches.[1]
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."
"Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Source(No problems listed on this page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Also on Wikipedia,
"The United States is a federal constitutional republic, in which the President of the United States (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and judiciary share powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments."
Source(This page has citation warnings but not in the section quoted): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States
According to Wikipedia,
"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers must be separated into distinct branches.[1]
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."
"Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. [It is] not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law."
Source(No problems listed on this page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic
Also on Wikipedia,
"The United States is a federal constitutional republic, in which the President of the United States (the head of state and head of government), Congress, and judiciary share powers reserved to the national government, and the federal government shares sovereignty with the state governments."
Source(This page has citation warnings but not in the section quoted): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States
LIBERAL - 7/10/12 @ 5:16 PM:
Rival | Side B
LOL. Ryan, come on. I know you're far too intelligent to believe that crap. You know very well you had to look up the specific term "constitutional republic" in order for it to come close to applying to the United States government. Look, I can do it too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_democracy
The fact is just as it explains under this link that a "constitutional republic" is actually a FORM of democracy. Otherwise, the term would stand on its own, which it does not.
The reason why it does not stand on its own is because unlike a true republic the minority is not completely protected by the will of the majority. For example: How do you like Obamacare? It's the law now. It's even Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled, and after July 11th when the House of Representatives repeal it, but it fails to pass in the Senate it will remain law. Your right as the minority was protected though, correct? Even though it's law, you still feel as if you've been truly represented, right? Because that's how a republic works. It scrutinizes the majority, but still protects the rights of the minority. So, that's what happened with the ACA? The minority was still protected? If your answer is anything other than yes, then I'm afraid you, Big Ben, and myself reside in what we all know is a democracy, but so many like to call a republic. 'Cause it sounds better that way. What might have been intended as a republic so long ago certainly did not end up that way after the Constitution, and simply for two reasons. One, the founding fathers did not trust the will of the people. They didn't think them smart enough to handle that kind of responsibility. Second, they knew that in order for a federal government to assert its power it would have to be a strong central government. Mind you there are checks and balances, but at the end of the day, the majority has and always will have the last word. Whether you acknowledge it or not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_democracy
The fact is just as it explains under this link that a "constitutional republic" is actually a FORM of democracy. Otherwise, the term would stand on its own, which it does not.
The reason why it does not stand on its own is because unlike a true republic the minority is not completely protected by the will of the majority. For example: How do you like Obamacare? It's the law now. It's even Constitutional as the Supreme Court ruled, and after July 11th when the House of Representatives repeal it, but it fails to pass in the Senate it will remain law. Your right as the minority was protected though, correct? Even though it's law, you still feel as if you've been truly represented, right? Because that's how a republic works. It scrutinizes the majority, but still protects the rights of the minority. So, that's what happened with the ACA? The minority was still protected? If your answer is anything other than yes, then I'm afraid you, Big Ben, and myself reside in what we all know is a democracy, but so many like to call a republic. 'Cause it sounds better that way. What might have been intended as a republic so long ago certainly did not end up that way after the Constitution, and simply for two reasons. One, the founding fathers did not trust the will of the people. They didn't think them smart enough to handle that kind of responsibility. Second, they knew that in order for a federal government to assert its power it would have to be a strong central government. Mind you there are checks and balances, but at the end of the day, the majority has and always will have the last word. Whether you acknowledge it or not.
Ryan Kazinec - 7/10/12 @ 6:59 PM:
Ally | Side A
I certainly can't argue that a great deal of destruction has been done by progressives of both parties throughout history and our present system of government has been grossly altered from what it was. (Correction: Should have stated Role of Government and power(Especially to the Executive Branch.))
FYI, I was legitimately looking up the discussions of republic vs democracy but for kicks and giggles, navigate to the link you provided which has liberal pasted over the entire source(sarcasm implied). After you've navigated there, you will see where the United States is listed in parenthesis directly after "May have a presidential system". Click on the United States and you are now on the wikipedia page for the United States. You will also see something strange on the second line of that entry. I'm simply presenting proof that I didn't go and search for constitutional republic nor would I have to in order to be presented with that information.
This is the page you will make it to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
FYI, I was legitimately looking up the discussions of republic vs democracy but for kicks and giggles, navigate to the link you provided which has liberal pasted over the entire source(sarcasm implied). After you've navigated there, you will see where the United States is listed in parenthesis directly after "May have a presidential system". Click on the United States and you are now on the wikipedia page for the United States. You will also see something strange on the second line of that entry. I'm simply presenting proof that I didn't go and search for constitutional republic nor would I have to in order to be presented with that information.
This is the page you will make it to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
LIBERAL - 7/11/12 @ 12:40 PM:
Rival | Side B
Well, there's something we do agree on. Destruction has been done throughout the years to the rights guaranteed to American citizens under the Constitution, but you and I probably disagree as to which rights have been violated to a degree. I don't believe in the Patriot Act. It is much too overreaching an act that it violates the rights of Americans. The NDAA/AUMF places too much power into the hands of a sitting and future President. I'm sure there's more, but now I'm getting off topic. Sorry.
While I believe the founding fathers wanted a Republic they just didn't trust normal everyday Americans with things like foreign relations, military, treasury, and many other issues to the point that they could place that trust in their hands. Which is why we ended up with a charter that created more of a democracy than a republic. I just find it humorous so many think we currently live in one(republic), when in fact, it never really resembled much of one in the first place. I'm not saying that is such a bad or good thing, just that that is the way of things whether we admit it or not.
I know you weren't purposely looking for it Ryan. It was just a jab. A joke. I was poking fun at the definition, yet pointing out the truth.
All aboard!! I'm getting back on track now. LOL. This law is not treasonous. That's what opponents yell when they don't agree with something. I believe that this law is a huge step forward to hopefully either a single payer system or public option health care system. Obviously I don't like everything about it, but at least we're heading forward instead of backward. People oppose this law just like they did other programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, those same people would now stand up and make boisterous remarks like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" LOL. Really? The government is the one responsible for them having this program in the first place. It just seems a little ironic to me. People seem to have no real sense of history anymore.
While I believe the founding fathers wanted a Republic they just didn't trust normal everyday Americans with things like foreign relations, military, treasury, and many other issues to the point that they could place that trust in their hands. Which is why we ended up with a charter that created more of a democracy than a republic. I just find it humorous so many think we currently live in one(republic), when in fact, it never really resembled much of one in the first place. I'm not saying that is such a bad or good thing, just that that is the way of things whether we admit it or not.
I know you weren't purposely looking for it Ryan. It was just a jab. A joke. I was poking fun at the definition, yet pointing out the truth.
All aboard!! I'm getting back on track now. LOL. This law is not treasonous. That's what opponents yell when they don't agree with something. I believe that this law is a huge step forward to hopefully either a single payer system or public option health care system. Obviously I don't like everything about it, but at least we're heading forward instead of backward. People oppose this law just like they did other programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. However, those same people would now stand up and make boisterous remarks like "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!" LOL. Really? The government is the one responsible for them having this program in the first place. It just seems a little ironic to me. People seem to have no real sense of history anymore.
Side B Comment
LIBERAL - 7/9/12 @ 3:21 AM:
Well, how about that? Pick a side and vote points down. Then you leave without actually offering a real opinion or valid argument? You know TNinfidel for someone who claims to be a libertarian you certainly show very similar traits to the stereotypical Teabagger. You shout how unfair everything is yet have no argument as to why you think so, blame everyone else for all of America's misfortunes, and then claim that you're somehow the enlightened one? LOL. You truly are pathetic. I really do feel sorry for you. That's not a joke. I really do.
Next time you decide to vote any of my responses down do me the favor of actually explaining why, if you can actually place together a logical explanation. Otherwise, just admit you really have no real ideas, and are simply disagreeing just to be contrary.
Oh, and if you actually do respond to this, please remember which screenname you're under. That way I know it's actually you, and not one of your other aliases. Trying to figure out which one of you I'm actually talking to is like trying to figure out which position Mitt Romney is taking on an issue today.
Next time you decide to vote any of my responses down do me the favor of actually explaining why, if you can actually place together a logical explanation. Otherwise, just admit you really have no real ideas, and are simply disagreeing just to be contrary.
Oh, and if you actually do respond to this, please remember which screenname you're under. That way I know it's actually you, and not one of your other aliases. Trying to figure out which one of you I'm actually talking to is like trying to figure out which position Mitt Romney is taking on an issue today.
Side A Comment
big ben - 7/7/12 @ 2:49 PM:
The only promise is that America will have to pay more money for the same garbage health care that we have now. The only insurance I can afford now is with a 3,000 dollar deductible. I am sorry, I lied, it is actually the only thing offered to me for me and my son. I have friends who can not afford health care right now for themselves and their kids, and now they are going to have to pay a tax for nothing! This is treason scum and illegal. America will now have to pay for nothing but make the rich richer, and they are not even guaranteed health care! We have now lossed our 4th ammendment right to our person. It does not matter if we want to try to get health care or not, the state is forcing us to get it. The state has no right to force anything onto our bodies. NO RIGHT! Medical care is for our bodies! Obama lied! Obama Lied! Obama lied! You are not guaranteed anything damn thing but more taxes. How dare anyone support this. If you do you are a traitor to the republic! Traitor!!! This does not guarantee health care to everyone! It is a lie, and their are already hundreds of companies immune from this.(immune from having to give health care insurance) This is a mafia of a few big insurance companies (who wrote the bill), and the IRS and will do nothing but make the IRS bigger and fatter!)
LIBERAL - 7/8/12 @ 3:42 AM:
Rival | Side B
I was actually going to argue many of the incorrect assumptions you've made where this LAW is concerned, but it would just be pointless to show you the facts. You'll simply say they're not right, or my favorite, just say I got them from some liberal. You're obviously not open minded enough to hear reason. I would point you to the website CBO.gov. It's the Congressional Budget Office site that shows all of the facts about the ACA "Obamacare" costs, incentives, and actual taxes (penalty). Everything you've said was first said by Republicans about the Social Security Act in 1935, then again about the Social Security Act of 1965 that created Medicare and Medicaid. Whether you like those programs or not they continue to help millions of Americans. This country needs a universal health care system. Although I don't agree with everything it does, it is a huge step toward that goal. Therefore, I am VERY glad it passed and look forward to it being improved upon as the years pass.
P.S. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the rights against unlawful searches and seizures. The loosest definition does not cover your statement. The right to be secure in our person is simply an extension of the wording, and would not include something as trivial as purchasing a product like health care coverage. That's just silly.
P.S. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guaranteed the rights against unlawful searches and seizures. The loosest definition does not cover your statement. The right to be secure in our person is simply an extension of the wording, and would not include something as trivial as purchasing a product like health care coverage. That's just silly.
LIBERAL - 7/8/12 @ 4:27 AM:
Rival | Side B
Okay, wow, I just realized you used the word "republic" to identify the United States. Wrong! What might have been considered a Republic style form of government under the Articles of Confederation from 1781 to 1787 with an actual charter and state constitutions was completely rewritten under the United States Constitution. Where the citizens once had a more direct vote and civic responsibility was completely removed six years later. With the inception of this document the United States became more a Democracy than a Republic. The people are less involved civicly in government with an indirect form of representation where the majority always rules and the minority is just that, a minority. They have no real consideration or protection under the law. The majority rules. That is the true definition of a Democracy, not a Republic. No activist politician or judge throughout history is responsible for this occurrence. We have only our founding fathers to thank for that.
