Pope Francis Takes On Capitalism And Inequality

[The Nehor]

No worries! The economy and the government will collapse regardless of how hard I work. The false utopia peddled by the socialist/progressives is an illusion.

 

They called it tyranny because that is what it was.

 

That is where you are wrong. They are actively working to silence and punish their opposition (because they can not win in the free market of ideas). They are lying, cheating and stealing elections. To what end? Peace and love and harmony?

Yeah, right.

 

Because he already is one.

 

You really have been listening to him have you. What do you think he meant by "fundamental transformation"? He IS fundamentally transforming this nation AWAY from the Constitution, individual liberty and the rule of law.

 

You OBVIOUSLY have never really listen to Limbaugh.

 

So we are completely doomed because those who oppose you are out to destroy everything?

 

Obama is not a fascist. He is barely even liberal. By world standards he is probably to the Right of being a moderate. Go back to Germany or Italy in the 30s if you want to see fascism. Or, if you do not have a time machine, check out the Golden Dawn party in Greece. They are fascists.

 

Please explain how the Democratic Party is working to silence and punish their opposition. The silly IRS thing that went nowhere doesn't count. Give me a concrete example of them doing so. Something that was effective. Then explain the vast amount of Republican gerrymandering going on and explain how that is not the same.

 

To my shame I listened to Limbaugh every day at work right out of High School. I found him entertaining. Then he started speaking on things I happened to know something about and I realized how twisted everything he said was and how much of it was total nonsense. I agreed with him on that issue (still do in fact) but the reasoning was infantile and based on lies. Now that I know more I realize most of his gibberish is the same. He almost drove me away from Conservativisim but I am still a card-carrying Republican. My favorite president in the last century is probably Eisenhower and I liked Reagan. I just want the party back and to negate the fringe wackos who somehow got a voice. Both parties have nutters in them. The Democrats wisely do not listen to the Communists and Socialists that vote their way because it is closer to their views and give them no say in party policy. The Right for some reason listens to their nutters and gives them a voice.

 

 

Nope. It limits the Federal Government to ONLY regulating interstate commerce. Unfortunately they have gone well beyond that limit. They are now regulating things that don't ever cross state lines.

 

No, that clause gives the federal government that power. It does not mean all other regulations are excluded. It means that you must look in other portions of the Constitution to find what else you can regulate.

 

For example a terrorist cannot claim protection under the Commerce Clause if he buys restricted materials in Arkansas, keeps them in Arkansas, and builds a weapon in Arkansas when a Federal agency breaks down his door and seizes the material. He would (rightly) be laughed out of court if he tried to defend himself saying it was not interstate commerce and therefore not subject to federal oversight.

 

 

The typical leftist/progressive rhetoric/propaganda is that the tea party types want to eliminate the federal government. And unfortunately their drones sop that slop up. It is about limiting the federal government to ONLY its Constitutional duties and stop it from encroaching upon the rights of the States and the individual.

 

Oh, they don't want it eliminated. How would we invade other nations in the interests of National Defense without a federal military?

 

 

Not so. It limits the federal government to the ability to regulate ONLY the commerce that crosses between states. It is barred from interfering or regulating intrastate commerce.

That is a State requirement, not a federal one.

Those are Local issues not federal ones.

Finally you get to a federal issue.

Again, a local issue not a federal one.

It is becoming painfully obvious that you don't know what you are talking about. A product of government schools I presume.

The problem is that it is going it the wrong direction and taking a GIANT leap. It is unconstitutional in many ways. The rules were violated to get its initial passage. They were violated again to keep it passed. The democrats in congress and the president KNEW it was against the will of the people yet they, by hook or by crook continued. The president is violating the law EVERY time he "grants" a delay in its implementation.

We are moving from the greatest medical care in the history of the world (imperfect as it may be) to something that is far worse than Britain's ugly system.

 

Ah, so states and local governments are free to be tyrannical as long as the constitution prohibits the federal government from acting? Most of the issues you label as local and state are regulated at the federal level and have been for decades.

 

What rules were violated to pass the Affordable Care Act? Holding legislators hostage perhaps?

 

Let's look at health care worldwide:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita

 

Yep, if by most best health care in the world you mean most expensive then yes, we are the world leaders. You would think all that inefficient socialism with its government waste would push them to the top but no, looks like the free market has got it handled. In efficiency (quality for $ spent) Bloomberg rates us behind China. We are beating Brazil and Serbia if that is any consolation. The American Healthcare system works very well as long as you are relatively wealthy and can get insurance through your job. I can take comfort in that; many people I know cannot.

 

I think the best (though somewhat cruel) method of showing how broken free market health care in America is would be to abolish Medicare and watch senior citizens regularly lose their retirement savings because no free market insurance company is going to sell them insurance they can afford.

 

Did you know that ship owners and seamen operated OUTSIDE OF the States. So, naturally the federal government had authority. DUH!

 

Actually no. This included navigable river trade inside the United States........even if the origin and destination were in the same state.......DUN DUN DUNNNNNNNNN!!!!!

 

 

Apparently, according to you the Anti-Federalists were right, in their accusation, for you seem to be claiming that there are no limits to what the federal gov can intrude into.

 

That is as stupid as claiming Conservatives want to destroy all government. Hyperbole to no purpose. Most leftists for example oppose the Patriot Act and the authorization it gives to monitor US citizens. Most conservatives I know insist it is necessary. Now who wants no limits?

 

And we spin around and around.

[Bikeemikey]

That's one of the interesting things about BY, i.e., the biggest proponent of the United Order and also the richest man in the territory. Not sure how to explain that. We all embody contradictions and maybe this was one of BY's.

 

Easy answer is ... he was getting rich off the united order.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

Easy answer is ... he was getting rich off the united order.

Not quite that easy. He was also a major contractor for the transcontinental railroad, a when the U.S. Army gave up and went home after the first Mormon war he and others bought up their cast off equipment and supplies, even their flagpole at pennies on the dollar.

[Calm]

I can't figure this thread out...I am guessing it is a Christmas present from the mods to those who like to discuss politics on the board...either that or the mods are gifting themselves by keeping the wild ones all corralled up in the same playpen.

[3DOP]

I can't figure this thread out...I am guessing it is a Christmas present from the mods to those who like to discuss politics on the board...either that or the mods are gifting themselves by keeping the wild ones all corralled up in the same playpen.

 

Me either Cal. I have been one who thinks politics and religion go together. Maybe I need to rethink. If ever there was an argument that religion and politics have nothing to do with each other, it is this thread.

[Calm]

Me either Cal. I have been one who thinks politics and religion go together. Maybe I need to rethink. If ever there was an argument that religion and politics have nothing to do with each other, it is this thread.

Perhaps the board is out of training for such discussions....or those that would provided some stability are too used to board rules to jump in while the mods are looking the other way.

[The Nehor]

I can't figure this thread out...I am guessing it is a Christmas present from the mods to those who like to discuss politics on the board...either that or the mods are gifting themselves by keeping the wild ones all corralled up in the same playpen.

 

Yeah, I am also surprised. I keep expecting it to be dead.....and it keeps being here.

[thesometimesaint]

The Nehor:

 

I'm not a member of any political party. Not too sure they'd even want me. But I do agree with the Green Party more than any other.

My most favored President was Lincoln(Republican) and my least favored was Reagan(Republican). So it really is more about the ideas they espouse, and not their political party affiliation.

Edited December 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

BTW, I am still waiting for you to address that CFR.

 

I did fulfill your CFR. You just didn't like the answer.

[Vance]

I did fulfill your CFR. You just didn't like the answer.

No, you didn't fulfill the CFR, all you did was quote a left wing rag that made the claim WITHOUT ANY substantiation.

I want you to provide the ACTUAL law that you are claiming exists. IF it is real, it won't say what you are claiming.

Requiring ships that operate in international and/or interstate waterways to have a doctor on board IS NOT THE SAME AS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!

[Vance]

Pray tell, are there ANY limits to what the federal government can do?

[Vance]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just found your real CFR response! (Thank you, by the way.) And is says EXACTLY what I expected it to say, and NOT what the WaPo claimed.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

From your response,

Sec 8. And be it [further] enacted, That every ship or vessel belonging to a citizen or citizens of the United States, of the burthen of one hundred and fifty tons or upwards, navigated by ten or more persons in the whole, AND BOUND ON A VOYAGE WITHOUT the limits of the United States, shall be provided with a chest of medicines, . . .

Get that WITHOUT, meaning OUTSIDE. And a "chest of medicines" "accompanied by direction for administering the same" does NOT equal health insurance.

The sad part of it all is that you FELL FOR IT! You bought the leftist lies hook, line and sinker.

I love ya man, but DUDE!

Edited to add, because I couldn't resist. Your WaPo article claimed,

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[...]

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

I think we have put the LIE to that one.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vance

[Stone holm]

Pray tell, are there ANY limits to what the federal government can do?

Not many except the individual liberty guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

[thesometimesaint]

No, you didn't fulfill the CFR, all you did was quote a left wing rag that made the claim WITHOUT ANY substantiation.

I want you to provide the ACTUAL law that you are claiming exists. IF it is real, it won't say what you are claiming.

Requiring ships that operate in international and/or interstate waterways to have a doctor on board IS NOT THE SAME AS REQUIRING HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!

 

I posted the actual law written in 1790. In 1798 they expanded that to include individual sailors in 1798.

 

The law does not differential between international waters, US waters, waters between States, or waters solely in a State. It is based on tonnage.

BTW still to this day the US Coast Guard enforces those laws.

 

Moreover Forbes isn't my idea of a left wing rag.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

 

The simple FACT of the matter is that the Founders vary much did mandate that individuals do buy and maintain consumer products including insurance. Yours is a specious argument.

[Vance]

Not many except the individual liberty guarantees in the Bill of Rights.

You mean like this one?

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So, any power NOT mentioned in the Constitution SPECFICALLY is prohibited to the federal government.

[thesometimesaint]

Pray tell, are there ANY limits to what the federal government can do?

 

The limits are spelled out in the Constitution and the Amendments, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. BTW That is also a Federal government function since 1803.

[Vance]

I posted the actual law written in 1790. In 1798 they expanded that to include individual sailors in 1798.

 

The law does not differential between international waters, US waters, waters between States, or waters solely in a State. It is based on tonnage.

BTW still to this day the US Coast Guard enforces those laws.

 

Moreover Forbes isn't my idea of a left wing rag.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/

 

The simple FACT of the matter is that the Founders vary much did mandate that individuals do buy and maintain consumer products including insurance. Yours is a specious argument.

You mean the part of that 1798 law that states,

§ 1.

Be it enacted, Sfc.

That from and after the first day of September next, the master or ownerof every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving FROM A FOREIGN PORT into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, . . .

Another leftist lie exposed.

[thesometimesaint]

You mean like this one?

Amendment 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

So, any power NOT mentioned in the Constitution SPECFICALLY is prohibited to the federal government.

 

The tire old 10ther argument

United States v. Darby Lumber, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

[thesometimesaint]

You mean the part of that 1798 law that states,

Another leftist lie exposed.

 

Now Forbes is a Leftist rag. Who knew. As I said the CFR was answered you just didn't like the answer.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Now Forbes is a Leftist rag. Who knew. As I said the CFR was answered you just didn't like the answer.

Those are your words BTW not Vance. He never once called it a leftist rag. carry on.

[thesometimesaint]

Those are your words BTW not Vance. He never once called it a leftist rag. carry on.

 

Actually he did. SEE his #310 post.

 

I don't mind carrying on. Getting carried away is another matter.

Edited December 18, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Vance]

Those are your words BTW not Vance. He never once called it a leftist rag. carry on.

Correct, I called the WaPo a leftist rag not Forbes.

TSS seems to think that Forbes quoting a leftist professor somehow makes it Forbes' position.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vance

[Vance]

The tire old 10ther argument

United States v. Darby Lumber, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:

The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.

So, the purpose of the X Amendment was "to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted".

How does this help your cause?

[Vance]

Here is one of the responses to the Forbes article.

 

As usual “Left-wing Logic” applies only to what the left wishes to point out, and blatantly ignores everything which contradicts its opinion.

If we are to take this lame analogy to heart, then we would have to also take to heart certain aspects conveniently excluded by the author.

“An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen”.

If one were to contend as fact that this law affected all sailors, they would be wrong. Its wording was quite specific, and only affected sailors employed by US Shippers who dealt with trade arriving from foreign Ports; it did not encompass all sailors. Nor does it require that such garnishments be required of sailors that were US citizens only.

§ 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That from and after the first day of September next, the master or owner of every ship or vessel of the United States, arriving from a foreign port into any port of the United States, shall, before such ship or vessel shall be admitted to an entry, render to the collector a true account of the number of seamen that shall have been employed on board such vessel since she was last entered at any port in the United States, and shall pay, to the said collector, at the rate of twenty cents per month for every seaman so employed ; which sum he is hereby authorized to retain out of the wages of such seamen.”

The law also states that ALL merchants who entered US Ports from foreign Ports would be required to abide by this law; none were to be excluded by unethical back room deals. It does require all of the employers to monetarily assume the burden of this expense. There is no threat of penalty set forth for sailors to comply, which is understandable due to the fact that the law does not “Require” that such payments must be paid by the sailors. It merely states that the shippers “May” deduct such expenses from the sailors wages to cover that EXPENSE.

To state this was the first income tax is not only absurd but ludicrous, unless the author contends that employers who deduct from their employees pay items required as a term of employment such as meals, uniforms etc. is somehow a form of income tax levied by the government to compensate the employer for such expenses. The simple fact is the government allows employers to collect for such EXPENSES, it does not require by law that the employers must deduct such expenses, nor does it require by law that employees must pay such expenses, and it most assuredly does not threaten the employees with civil or criminal penalties for refusal.

However, the most glaring of the convenient oversights arises from the authors’ inability to comprehend the grounds for opposing Obama Care as Unconstitutional. This law only exposes that the grounds are well founded.

The opposition is that the Federal government cannot constitutionally force American citizens to purchase services from “PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS”. The monies collected in regards to the Act in question were not required to be paid to a Private institution; they were required to be paid to agents of the Federal government.

Unless Obama Care intends to take over the health insurance industry, and intends to build Federal hospitals, it cannot constitutionally force American Citizens to purchase services from private institutions.

Another factor that the author conveniently chooses to exclude, is the matter of the federal governments jurisdiction over matters pertaining to maritime law, including ports. That authority is specifically limited to this area only.

The other issues that are avoided in this comparison would be the simplicity found in the seaman’s act, which was specific as to a particular area of federal jurisdiction, where Obama Care is all over the board, with nearly 100 non-health care related items included.

There is absolutely nothing concerning this act that forced any individual citizen to purchase health-care, and in no way required that such monies must be deducted for payment to a private institution. This is an irrefutable fact.

The founders clearly show by this Act, that the law they applied was with-in the constitutional jurisdiction of the government.

They clearly did not seek to extend such authority to areas such as Manufacturing, and farming, which produced the same potential for physical harm. By not doing so, it is just as feasible to state the reason to be, “they knew they did not have the Constitutional authority to do so”.

The attempt to cite something as lame as the “Seaman’s Act” as a precedent to claim that the founders would have supported such a “Totalitarian Atrocity as Obama Care”, serves more as a precedent to show just how disturbed the “Liberal Nazis” mental cases have become.

No matter how many lame brain attempts the Liberal Nazis attempt to cite, nothing can refute the fact that the overwhelming majority of true Americans, oppose this dictatorial law. A law that was enacted by a means, which clearly denied the vast majority of Americans their protected right to Representation by blocking our representatives from reading or debating the law. Anyone who would dare attempt to state that the founders would support such actions, is in need of serious medication.

I will add that his last paragraph is unfortunate.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Vance

[thesometimesaint]

The Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. Has been declared Constitutional by the US Supreme Court. Its genesis is firmly established in early US history.