[quote]pushharder wrote:
<<< I can’t imagine a Ronald Reagan reacting like McCain did. There would’ve been another “There you go again” moment(s).[/quote]
The only thing more classic than the way Reagan said “now there you go again” was Mondale’s giggling, boy am I ever toast reaction. That was great. The funny thing about McCain is that he has been much better on the floor of the senate lately and then he goes all mushy here.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I agree. I saw part of the debate. No one I saw ever mentioned the constitutional impropriety of what they were discussing.[/quote]
How bout the constitutionality of SS, medicare, medicade or even the FDA (this one’s debatable I suppose), nevermind healthcare/insurance "reform, whatever the hell that turns out to be from either side of the aisle.
I doubt there is even one politician in DC save for, dare I say it, Ron Paul, who would so much as seriously question the propriety of ever heading down that fork in the road in the first place.
One thing is for sure. The teleprompter-less Barack Obama brought his sophomoric niggling arrogance into full hi-def display for all the world to see.
I saw about 90% of it. Brutal, absolutely brutal.[/quote]
I was just wondering if you realized that SS etc took a few tries at getting through over a span of a few years. I forget the specifics but they didn’t go through the first time because they were labeled as communist ideas and fell through.
[quote]ridethecliche wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I agree. I saw part of the debate. No one I saw ever mentioned the constitutional impropriety of what they were discussing.[/quote]
How bout the constitutionality of SS, medicare, medicade or even the FDA (this one’s debatable I suppose), nevermind healthcare/insurance "reform, whatever the hell that turns out to be from either side of the aisle.
I doubt there is even one politician in DC save for, dare I say it, Ron Paul, who would so much as seriously question the propriety of ever heading down that fork in the road in the first place.
One thing is for sure. The teleprompter-less Barack Obama brought his sophomoric niggling arrogance into full hi-def display for all the world to see.
I saw about 90% of it. Brutal, absolutely brutal.[/quote]
I was just wondering if you realized that SS etc took a few tries at getting through over a span of a few years. I forget the specifics but they didn’t go through the first time because they were labeled as communist ideas and fell through.
[/quote]
Yes, I was aware of that and would have agreed with the critics. Every step of the way there were voices telling us that if we started down that path we would end up exactly where we are now. It’s been quite a while, but I spent a substantial amount of time studying early 2oth century American history. The federal reserve bank, the income tax, all of FDR’s abominable ideas, you name it. There were those with the wisdom and foresight to discern the disastrous eventual consequences of attempting centrally planned social justice.
The most mind bending thing though is that we have people at this moment up to their ears in the truth of those predictions who think the Republican party has gone all right wing on us. The entire scale has shifted 800 miles to the left. I am telling you the men who designed and set this nation in motion would absolutely weep if they could see what we’ve done with what they left us. They gave the clearest, practically prophetic warnings that if we did exactly what we’ve done, we would be ushering in the end of their vision which we most assuredly are doing.
The government will continue to get bigger and bigger. it is an inevitable trend and it can only be slowed, not reversed.
Can someone explain to me the Constitutionality of federal tort reform? Tort reform is obviously an important issue, but how/why can the federal government control and mandate a state cause of action?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Speaking of “healthcare stories,” this is from Beck and it’s hilarious:
Holy fuck that was funny!
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Can someone explain to me the Constitutionality of federal tort reform? Tort reform is obviously an important issue, but how/why can the federal government control and mandate a state cause of action?[/quote]
That is actually a great question for which quick answers will not suffice. It does raise the question of whether many “limited government” people don’t actually mind deep intrusion as long as it’s the kind they favor. It also punctuates the point I’ve been making all along. Private moral consensus is the foundation of a free and stable society. Once a certain percentage of a population must be forced to behave in accordance with the standards of the rest, or at all, both freedom and stability are living on borrowed time.
This is everywhere in the writings of our founders.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Can someone explain to me the Constitutionality of federal tort reform? Tort reform is obviously an important issue, but how/why can the federal government control and mandate a state cause of action?[/quote]
That is actually a great question for which quick answers will not suffice. It does raise the question of whether many “limited government” people don’t actually mind deep intrusion as long as it’s the kind they favor. It also punctuates the point I’ve been making all along. Private moral consensus is the foundation of a free and stable society. Once a certain percentage of a population must be forced to behave in accordance with the standards of the rest, or at all, both freedom and stability are living on borrowed time.
This is everywhere in the writings of our founders.[/quote]
Very interesting point, Trib.
I think the important point is not whether we have “limited government” per se, but whether the Feddal Gubbamint is justified in it action, scope and powers by a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution; which is another way of saying that it’s subject to the rule of law, and limited by the enumerated powers therein. If people want the Feddal Gubbamint to have expansive powers- fine, let’s put it to the Amendment process.
As to TBT’s question, personally I’ve always thought the “tort reform” aspect of healthcare was a bit of slight-of-hand anyway, in a number of respects.