Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The great left wing conspiracy speaks

Comments Filter:
  • If you have any actual verifiable information on the health care various bills, please, go ahead and post it. Near as I can see, it is all obfuscated, hidden, comes on a lot of different flavors, etc, yet the "left wing" is insisting "it must pass". well, which "it" must pass?

    All we have to go on is previous track record, medicare, broken, medicaid, broken, veterans health care, broken, national purse, already in deficit for two generations. Upcoming unfunded mandates in the multi trillions, with every mont

    • in it's 1018 page glory. Took me a weekend to read it.

      I don't blame people for being *suspicious*- I blame them for not researching rumor. And don't go asking your local congresscritter about it if you don't trust him to begin with- go the the damn original bill and *read it*.

      Especially given that this bill opens up Congress's health care plan to any citizen who cares to sign on- the non-profit option (which replaced the public option when it got dropped to the GOP Ghosts inside Obama's brain)- and due t

      • Because they can fleece all the loot that person has left quickly, and not worry about paying anything back like social security, pensions, etc. And if by any small stretch the poor person has a few farthings left, they'll bring up the death tax again and take that from their estate. It's all about money, power, control and the lust to have the ultimate power over other human beings, the same things the demonic bent aristocrats have always wanted. Absolutely nothing new there. They can't have an overt huge

  • ... to consider the President and Congress as enemies of the State, and it is our duty as citizens to do everything within our rights to oppose them. They have violated our trust and are working to destroy the country in the false name of reform. That sums it up pretty much.

    I simply do not trust these people. All they are doing is recycling the same tired and failed nonsense we've been hearing for half a century. Furthermore, the Democrat party is deeply intertwined with a level of radicalism that makes

    • to consider the President and Congress as enemies of the State, and it is our duty as citizens to do everything within our rights to oppose them. They have violated our trust and are working to destroy the country in the false name of reform. That sums it up pretty much.


      Well, some have most certainly. But all? And they derive, first of all, their power from their fake vote every year. What good would it do the Democrats to kill off their largest demographic, those who are over 65?

      • to consider the President and Congress as enemies of the State, and it is our duty as citizens to do everything within our rights to oppose them. They have violated our trust and are working to destroy the country in the false name of reform. That sums it up pretty much.

        Well, some have most certainly. But all? And they derive, first of all, their power from their fake vote every year. What good would it do the Democrats to kill off their largest demographic, those who are over 65?

        Um, sorry. My neck snapped

        • Oops! I accidently left one your sentences pasted into my reply. Shooda previewed more.

          Every "totalitarian power grab" since then...

        • Um, sorry. My neck snapped from the non sequitur there. No, not all members of Congress are (dare I say?) evil, but too many, almost all, are beholden to things other than the Constitution of the United States

          According to my reading of the Constitution, they're supposed to be beholden to something other than the Constitution. Their constituents should be their first priority. That's how I judge the evil ones from the good ones- whether they're following their constituents or their campaign contri

          • According to my reading of the Constitution, they're supposed to be beholden to something other than the Constitution. Their constituents should be their first priority.

            I have to jump in here for this one. As far as I can tell--you aren't being terribly specific as to where in the Constitution you're getting this--congressmen are bound to uphold the Constitution above all.

            It's right there in Article VI:

            The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution

            • Support != Only Interest != Beholden. In fact, given the vague language in the Constitution itself, one could support an entirely non-capitalistic economy and still be supporting the Constitution.

              • Support != Only Interest != Beholden.

                I never implied that it was their only interest, just their primary interest. Of course they can listen to their constituents, so long as they do not have to violate their oath to "support this Constitution" to do so.

                We don't have a parliamentary system like England.

                In fact, given the vague language in the Constitution itself, one could support an entirely non-capitalistic economy and still be supporting the Constitution.

                You're mostly right. Except for some vague stuff about property ownership and compensation, we could have pretty much any economic system we want and still use our current constitution.

                • I never implied that it was their only interest, just their primary interest. Of course they can listen to their constituents, so long as they do not have to violate their oath to "support this Constitution" to do so.

                  Given that the Constitution includes a process for it's own revision, and thus supporting the Constitution could include completely *rewriting it*, that could mean anything.

                  You're mostly right. Except for some vague stuff about property ownership and compensation, we co

                  • Given that the Constitution includes a process for it's own revision, and thus supporting the Constitution could include completely *rewriting it*, that could mean anything.

                    You're missing the point. They swear to uphold the constitution. If we want to change the constitution, then they have to uphold that version. All this means is that they should follow the instructions for amendment given in the constitution, rather than simply ignore it.

                    It's the whole rule of law thing.

                    And even those could be ammended out without giving up on supporting the constitution.

                    Yep. I think the only thing that couldn't be amended out is a state's Senatorial representation. That's it. Everything else is fair game.

                    We're getting off on a tangent here. A congressman's highest responsib

                    • It's the whole rule of law thing.

                      I thought the whole concept of a republic was government "of, by, and for the people" not "of, by, and for the law" or worse yet, what we currently seem to have "of, by, and for the corporations".

                      We're getting off on a tangent here. A congressman's highest responsibility is to the constitution, and then his constituents. If his constituents want him to do something which is prohibited by the constitution, he must not.

                      I disagree. It's the Su

                    • I thought the whole concept of a republic was government "of, by, and for the people" not "of, by, and for the law" or worse yet, what we currently seem to have "of, by, and for the corporations".

                      The concepts of the rule of law, and a government "of, by, and for the people" are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand how you can believe that they are.

                      Rule of law is what allows us to have a government "of, by, and for the people", in the first place.

                      I disagree. It's the Supreme Court's decision whether something is constitutional or not- Congress can try to, and succeed, in passing an unconstitutional law (they do it all the time, actually), and then the Supreme Court will nullify it, at which point Congress has the option of bringing it back as an Amendment.

                      Again, you're reading into the constitution something that just is not there. The constitution itself is the final arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

                      Your mistake is thinking that just because the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitutional,

                    • The concepts of the rule of law, and a government "of, by, and for the people" are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand how you can believe that they are.

                      You've just shown how they can be- when the constituents of a Congresscritter (the people) want something that is unconsitutional (the law) then "of, by, and for the people" becomes downright opposed to rule of law. At which point, I'd say that the law needs changing.

                      Your mistake is thinking that just because the Supreme Cour

                    • You've just shown how they can be- when the constituents of a Congresscritter (the people) want something that is unconsitutional (the law) then "of, by, and for the people" becomes downright opposed to rule of law. At which point, I'd say that the law needs changing.

                      (emphasis mine)

                      I don't know what you are referring to when you say "rule of law". But, that is pretty much what rule of law is. When the people demand something that is unconstitutional, we change the constitution. If that's not rule of law--and government of, by, and for the people--I don't know what is.

                      What is constitutional in one generation, is not necessarily constitutional to another generation, yes.

                      So, if the Supreme Court can be wrong in their decisions, that means they are not the final arbiter, right? If they truly were, they could not be wrong, by definition.

                      But yes, in our system of government, the Supreme Court is the absolute, final authority in telling us what is constitutional and what isn't.

                      No, it's not. I don't know if you misse

                    • I don't know what you are referring to when you say "rule of law". But, that is pretty much what rule of law is. When the people demand something that is unconstitutional, we change the constitution. If that's not rule of law--and government of, by, and for the people--I don't know what is.

                      The original argument was that Congresscritters should be beholden to the law primarily- that Constituents should be of only secondary concern. Under that system, you don't change the law to support what the Con

                    • The original argument was that Congresscritters should be beholden to the law primarily- that Constituents should be of only secondary concern.

                      That's basically what I'm arguing the Constitution requires.

                      Under that system, you don't change the law to support what the Constituents want- you simply require the politicians to live within the law.

                      This is where you're not making sense. A "rule of law" system is not so constrained.

                      The only thing higher than the Supreme Court- is the next Supreme Court.

                      No. The only thing higher than the Supreme Court is the constitution which gives it power in the first place.

                      They can't be wrong, by definition- they can only be superseded by the next Supreme Court.

                      And the reason why the Supreme Court overturns a previous ruling? Could it be because they believe the previous decision was reached in error?

                      The "three branches of government" was basically outdated within the first 4 Presidencies.

                      It's true: The federal government bears only a passing resemblance to what the founders envisioned. But, we still hav

                    • That's basically what I'm arguing the Constitution requires.

                      Then you're arguing that the Constitution should never be changed- because to change the Constitution would put Constituent's views ahead of the rule of law.

                      This is where you're not making sense. A "rule of law" system is not so constrained.

                      Then it should be called the "rule of suggestions", because it isn't LAW. Law, once written, can't be changed if it is to rule.

                      No. The only thing higher than th

                    • Then you're arguing that the Constitution should never be changed- because to change the Constitution would put Constituent's views ahead of the rule of law.

                      No, I'm specifically not arguing that. Nothing I've said even implies that conclusion.

                      The Constitution contains methods and procedures for legally changing it. How can so doing be a violation of the rule of law?

                      Then it should be called the "rule of suggestions", because it isn't LAW. Law, once written, can't be changed if it is to rule.

                      Now you're simply redefining words. Sorry, that's not at all what the law is.

                      The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution- the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court wants it to say.

                      And what Congress wants it to say... And what the President wants it to say... And what the states want it to say... And what the people want it to say...

                      Yes, so? Those justices are no longer a part of the Supreme Court- the institution is not in error, the previous judges were.

                      "Those justices" don't issue rulings. The Supreme Court does.

                      No it doesn't- because of rule of law.

                      This woul

                    • No, I'm specifically not arguing that. Nothing I've said even implies that conclusion.

                      Law is law- once written, in stone, can't be changed. Rule of law is unwavering justices to the law.

                      The Constitution contains methods and procedures for legally changing it. How can so doing be a violation of the rule of law?

                      Well, according to you, rule of law must *ALWAYS* be primary, regardless of constituent demands. Thus, any demand the constituents make, if in violation of the law,

                    • Law is law- once written, in stone, can't be changed. Rule of law is unwavering justices to the law.

                      No, it's not. Sorry, I'm back here in the real world. Where are you?

                      Well, according to you, rule of law must *ALWAYS* be primary, regardless of constituent demands. Thus, any demand the constituents make, if in violation of the law, cannot be fulfilled, even when the law gives a way to do so.

                      No, that's not according to me. You must be talking about someone else. Maybe you should try actually reading my responses, instead of putting words in my mouth.

                      Where with my version, in a representative Constitutional government, the ultimate authority is the people, not the Constitution- which can be changed.

                      What makes you think that a changeable Constitution cannot exist within a system of rule of law? The method to change it is right there in the highest law of the land.

                      Only if you allow Congress to follow their constituency instead of "rule of law".

                      Only if he's free to follow his constituency, instead of rule of law only.

                      Your blatant misreadings of my posts must be intentional, right?

                      In a rule of law system, the people don't matter- only the law. (The Soviet Union followed this method).

                      I don't know what kind of perverted meaning you pers

                    • What part of "congressmen are bound to uphold the Constitution above all."

                      Do you think I was misreading?

                    • What part of "congressmen are bound to uphold the Constitution above all."

                      Do you think I was misreading?

                      All of it...

                      Nowhere at all did I ever imply that they could not respond to the wishes of their constituents within the constitutional framework. The constitution allows us to change (almost**) any part of the laws, which we create to govern ourselves, constitutionally.

                      I don't understand why it is so hard for you to understand how we can have rule of law, and still have a government of, by, and for the people. There is no inherent incompatibility between the two; though you seem hell-bent on finding one.

                      I ca

                    • Nowhere at all did I ever imply that they could not respond to the wishes of their constituents within the constitutional framework. The constitution allows us to change (almost**) any part of the laws, which we create to govern ourselves, constitutionally.

                      Isn't that exactly what I said, "Support != Only Interest != Beholden. In fact, given the vague language in the Constitution itself, one could support an entirely non-capitalistic economy and still be supporting the Constitution.", in other words

                    • Isn't that exactly what I said, "Support != Only Interest != Beholden. In fact, given the vague language in the Constitution itself, one could support an entirely non-capitalistic economy and still be supporting the Constitution.", in other words, that the PEOPLE are the final arbiter, not the LAW?

                      The people are the final arbiter. But, we're talking about our representatives. Those representatives only have power under the Constitution.

                      The hierarchy goes like this: the people > Constitution > representatives

                      That is because, the way the Constitution has been interpreted today, I see a HUGE disconnect between the will of the people and the Constitution- almost to the point that we would be better off scraping it and starting over.

                      Well, there's your problem right here. If the "will of the people" truly had turned against the Constitution (or our present interpretation of it), we'd simply change it.

                      We've got NO freedom left- there's no place left to go that you are free from governmental and big business control.

                      On this, I agree. Our institutions have too much control over our day to day lives.

                      Our "representatives", don't represent our interests hardly at all- they just defeated health care reform when over 60% of Americans have had a problem with the health care system.

                      This is simply a false dichotomy.

                      And interstate commerce is now actively working AGAINST any attempt to grant us jobs, we're now below the number of jobs available in 1980, when adjusted for population.

                      I don'

                    • I don't know what you're talking about; who's "granting" you a job?

                      The US Trade Commission, of course- trade treaties define the economy of the United States. When this body ceased to be protectionist, in the 1960s, American wage deflation began and continues to this day.

                      As soon as the "will of the people" reflects your own opinion, that's what will happen.

                      And how will that happen, as long as corporations are the primary citizens and people only secondary?

                    • The US Trade Commission, of course- trade treaties define the economy of the United States. When this body ceased to be protectionist, in the 1960s, American wage deflation began and continues to this day.

                      Oh... I see. You want the "will of the people", but only when it agrees with you personally. The rest of the time, it should just be ignored, right? When "the people" decide they want cheap imports, that's not okay?

                      And how will that happen, as long as corporations are the primary citizens and people only secondary?

                      Did a corporation follow you into the voting booth? Were you not free to vote for whoever you wanted?

                      Let me know when that happens; because, then you might have a point.

                    • You want the "will of the people", but only when it agrees with you personally

                      No, I want the will of the people when it protects the people.

                      The rest of the time, it should just be ignored, right? When "the people" decide they want cheap imports, that's not okay?

                      Yeah, right, the people want to be fired and have their jobs sent over seas and see their towns die in return for cheap, low quality imports that have a total cost of ownership twice as much.

                      Did a cor

                    • No, I want the will of the people when it protects the people.

                      Oh, so the people are too stupid to protect themselves?

                      Yeah, right, the people want to be fired and have their jobs sent over seas and see their towns die in return for cheap, low quality imports that have a total cost of ownership twice as much.

                      Let me get this straight, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The people--not the corporations, not the government, just the people--decided to purchase cheap imports. Why do you not respect their decision?

                      You realize that it doesn't matter what kind of free-trade policies our government pursues, or how much outsourcing corporations do, if the American people decided to shun imports, there wouldn't be any, right?

                      Again I ask, why are you so qui

                    • Oh, so the people are too stupid to protect themselves?

                      September 2008 proved that quite adequately- that the market itself hides too much information for people to protect themselves from the corporations.

                      Let me get this straight, to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. The people--not the corporations, not the government, just the people--decided to purchase cheap imports.

                      No, I'm saying that's a ridiculous viewpoint- the people were not informed of the full cost by t

                    • September 2008 proved that quite adequately- that the market itself hides too much information for people to protect themselves from the corporations.

                      No, I'm saying that's a ridiculous viewpoint- the people were not informed of the full cost by the corporations before acting.

                      See above- it wasn't a fully informed decision.

                      So, the answer is "yes", you do think people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That raises the question as to why you go on so much about the "will of the people".

                      They aren't given the choice, because the domestic products are removed from the market.

                      Nope. Domestically produced products were only "removed" from the market when no one was buying them.

                      If you really believe that the people want domestically made products, why don't you make some? If you're correct, you should have no shortage of customers, right?

                      Once again- because it wasn't a fully informed decision. Nobody said the truth- that cheap imports would mean no US Factories, thus no jobs, and no money to buy those cheap imports with.

                      Yes, I understand: You believe people are too stupid to see the consequence

                    • So, the answer is "yes", you do think people are too stupid to make their own decisions. That raises the question as to why you go on so much about the "will of the people".

                      I hope one day people will be informed enough to make their own choices and not be taken in by liars and cheats.

                      Nope. Domestically produced products were only "removed" from the market when no one was buying them.

                      Then why did WalMart go to Vlassic Pickles and tell them "unless you move production oversea

                    • I hope one day people will be informed enough to make their own choices and not be taken in by liars and cheats.

                      Until you decide that the people are informed enough, of course, you don't want them making their own decisions. I see.

                      Then why did WalMart go to Vlassic Pickles and tell them "unless you move production overseas, we're taking you off our shelves"? That happened over and over and over in the past 20 years- DIRECT corporation destruction of US Manufacturing, with NO domestic option for consumers available.

                      Here's a shocker: Wal-Mart was responding to consumer demand. If the people agreed with you, the backlash to this off-shoring would have been signal enough to Wal-Mart and Vlassic. That this backlash didn't happen is compelling evidence of the "will of the people".

                      You don't think Wal-Mart would make a decision which would hurt their profitability, do you?

                      No shortage of customers if I sell it right- but a great shortage of capital because no *corporation* is interested in building a domestic factory to make quality products. The retailers also won't carry the product.

                      Wow, that's not even wrong. If there

                    • Until you decide that the people are informed enough, of course, you don't want them making their own decisions. I see.

                      Or at least protected from the Advertising Industry.

                      Here's a shocker: Wal-Mart was responding to consumer demand.

                      And what was that demand, exactly? Was it "Please throw all my relatives out of work so that I may have lower prices"? Because that's what they did.

                      If the people agreed with you, the backlash to this off-shoring would have been

                    • Or at least protected from the Advertising Industry.

                      Please stop pretending you care about the "will of the people", when that will does not mirror your own.

                      And what was that demand, exactly? Was it "Please throw all my relatives out of work so that I may have lower prices"? Because that's what they did.

                      Evidently. I don't think anyone ever made people shop at Wal-Mart at gunpoint.

                      And, before you start with the whole, "Wal-Mart drove all the mom-and-pop shops out of business" angle... The consumers drove those mom-and-pops out of business by not shopping there.

                      Most people still haven't made the connection.

                      Once again you demonstrate the sheer contempt you hold for the intelligence of the people, whose will you claim to respect.

                      The backlash didn't happen because there are groups actively attempting to hide this information.

                      They didn't hide it very

                    • Please stop pretending you care about the "will of the people", when that will does not mirror your own.

                      How do you know that will does not mirror my own when your side keeps lying to everybody?

                      Evidently. I don't think anyone ever made people shop at Wal-Mart at gunpoint.

                      Nope, they just used a combination of land-use laws, low-quality products, and not paying overtime to lower costs and outcompete everybody else, right? After all, it doesn't have to be a level playing field

                    • How do you know that will does not mirror my own when your side keeps lying to everybody?

                      Vote counts. Poll results. Consumer habits. etc.

                      Nope, they just used a combination of land-use laws, low-quality products, and not paying overtime to lower costs and outcompete everybody else, right? After all, it doesn't have to be a level playing field, as long as the biggest cheat wins you're fine with that.

                      And if people didn't like that behavior, they wouldn't shop there.

                      Hard to afford to after Wal-Mart first closed down all the factories and threw everybody out of work.

                      And why was Wal-Mart able to exercise such control... Because everyone shops there.

                      Not intelligence- ignorance based on the lies told by the market.

                      Ignorance the people are too stupid or lazy to overcome, right? It's still contempt for something you profess to respect.

                      And if you factored in a tax for lost jobs, they wouldn't be purchased either. But it's fine to cheat and socialize the costs, right, just as long as the stockholders make maximum profit?

                      Don't blame me. Blame the people patronizing those businesses. They're the ones responsible.

                      Because that half isn't making a *fully informed* decision, and the other half is lying.

                      And those ignorant people are too stupid to see they're being lied to, right?

                      Because I don't believe people want cheap crap- I think they're being lied to.

                      And there you go. You fin

                    • Vote counts. Poll results. Consumer habits. etc.

                      All of which are skewed by advertising and marketing- the lies. Until you remove the lies from the system, these things cannot be considered even remotely accurate.

                      And if people didn't like that behavior, they wouldn't shop there.

                      #1- the behavior is hidden, MOST people don't know that it is going on at all, so it's not a factor in their decision making. #2- after the behavior is done, they have no other choice- it's the olig

                    • All of which are skewed by advertising and marketing- the lies. Until you remove the lies from the system, these things cannot be considered even remotely accurate.

                      Yes, I understand that you believe the people are too stupid to see through the "lies". You, on the other hand, are so much smarter and more perceptive than them.

                      Your condescension oozes from every post.

                      #1- the behavior is hidden, MOST people don't know that it is going on at all, so it's not a factor in their decision making. #2- after the behavior is done, they have no other choice- it's the oligarchy or nothing, there is no other source.

                      Not only are the people too stupid to see they are being lied to; they are ignorant too. Is there any insult you won't heap upon the people whose will you respect?

                      No, because they used illegal and immoral business practices to make sure everybody else was out of business.

                      Yet another example of something the people were too ignorant and stupid to see, huh? It's a good thing you are so much wiser, and can tell them w

                    • Yes, I understand that you believe the people are too stupid to see through the "lies".

                      Not too stupid to- presented with a complete worldview that includes the lies as normal.

                      You, on the other hand, are so much smarter and more perceptive than them.


                      More that I've been damaged by the lies, and have done some digging that has changed my behavior greatly.

                      Not only are the people too stupid to see they are being lied to; they are ignorant too. Is there any insul

                    • I get it. You don't have to try to justify yourself.

                      You think the people are stupid and ignorant, have been lied to and are too dumb to see it, and should be treated like children.

                      But you, on the other hand, are wise enough to have seen through these lies, and are the one to tell other people what to think and how to act, by virtue of your superior intellect.

                      Somehow, you manage to believe these things and still maintain that you respect the "will of the people"; the people too dumb to think or act for thems

                    • You think the people are stupid and ignorant, have been lied to and are too dumb to see it, and should be treated like children.

                      You've got it exactly backwards- I think people are being treated like children, and as a result, do not have the information necessary to be anything *but* stupid and ignorant. People with very high IQs fell for Bernie Maddoff- by your standards his Ponzi scheme was completely above board.

                      Somehow, you manage to believe these things and still maintain that

                    • You've got it exactly backwards- I think people are being treated like children, and as a result, do not have the information necessary to be anything *but* stupid and ignorant. People with very high IQs fell for Bernie Maddoff- by your standards his Ponzi scheme was completely above board.

                      You think people are too stupid to implement a system where they aren't treated like children. But, you are smart enough to see through this. I got it.

                      I think if people were given more than just a single number price point to base their decisions on, they'd make different decisions.

                      Somehow you were able to obtain more information, right? So, the rest of the people are simply too stupid to figure out what you have, right?

                    • You think people are too stupid to implement a system where they aren't treated like children.

                      No, I think that concentrated wealth implements the systems and the people have almost no say whatsoever. The key- ban concentrated wealth.

                      Somehow you were able to obtain more information, right?

                      Only by spending every free minute for a year and a half on it. And I rather doubt I have the big picture either- or that the big picture is even obtainable as long as PRICE stays the onl

                    • No, I think that concentrated wealth implements the systems and the people have almost no say whatsoever. The key- ban concentrated wealth.

                      They have no say... except for the vote.

                      Only by spending every free minute for a year and a half on it. And I rather doubt I have the big picture either- or that the big picture is even obtainable as long as PRICE stays the only truth ever advertised.

                      It's a shame everyone else is too stupid or too lazy to devote that kind of effort to learning the truth, huh?

                      My condolences. It's too bad you spent so much time coming up with exactly the wrong conclusions.

                    • They have no say... except for the vote.

                      And without being fully educated, the vote is almost useless. A good example was discussed quite frequently this weekend at my class reunion: Stu Rasmussen is serving his fifth non-consecutive term as mayor this year in my hometown. He ran as a Republican, promising to keep taxes low. Three months after the election, he came out of the closet as a cross-dresser, scandalizing the very people who voted for him, and getting breast implants while still claimi

This login session: $13.76, but for you $11.88.

Working...