Congressional Budget Office - ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

[senseamp]

Which again requires VOTING which benefits the majority. Again, if the majority can VOTE to violate the rights of the minority that's not freedom.

Even in Rush's situation, lets say the 30 "dissenters" asked for another vote to address their grievances and there was a system in place for a simple vote override that only needs 35 votes to repeal. . . and it came out 30(for repeal) to 70(against repeal).... well, sorry! See, there is a system in place. . . .sucks for you lol!

So you are proposing something that you know will never happen in the American system of government?

 

[Lithium381]

So you are proposing something that you know will never happen in the American system of government?

So you are proposing that the American system of government can't and doesn't and won't protect the liberties of individuals?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Today I learned.

Thanks.

 

[Victorian Gray]

if you take off your racist glasses once in a while, the world is a much brighter place...

Don't have any racist glasses, just regular ones to help with distance sight.

 

[ivwshane]

Which again requires VOTING which benefits the majority. Again, if the majority can VOTE to violate the rights of the minority that's not freedom.

Even in Rush's situation, lets say the 30 "dissenters" asked for another vote to address their grievances and there was a system in place for a simple vote override that only needs 35 votes to repeal. . . and it came out 30(for repeal) to 70(against repeal).... well, sorry! See, there is a system in place. . . .sucks for you lol!

Yeah you don't understand how our government works at all.

Perhaps you should move to a country that meets your ideals because this one is "ruled by a majority".

 

[Lithium381]

Yeah you don't understand how our government works at all.

Perhaps you should move to a country that meets your ideals because this one is "ruled by a majority".

So then why is it illegal to possess pot?
Why is marrying someone the same gender not legal?
Why were people allowed to own slaves?

Because the majority of people feel that that's good policy, regardless of how the minority feels. oops.

Explain to me why basic inidividual liberties are so limited in the "most free country on earth"?

 

[senseamp]

So you are proposing that the American system of government can't and doesn't and won't protect the liberties of individuals?

It does protect their liberties. We have an independent judiciary just for that purpose.

What you are proposing
Is

Happen!

 

[Lithium381]

It does protect their liberties. We have an independent judiciary just for that purpose.

What you are proposing
Is

Happen!

lol that's awesome, i didn't get it at first but i almost spit soda out my nose! well played!

Independent Judiciary? Tell me how that is? They can't get on the bench without the executive branch and the legislative branch. .

 

[brycejones]

Really? Last time I checked, slaves weren't free to leave their masters when ever they wished.

Don't like the rules? Then petition their change like everyone else or get the fuck out! Until then you will obey the rules or suffer the consequences.

Another unamerican piece of trash! A slave who has the freedom to post shit freely on a medium created by his master.

A slave? Holy fuck you people are retarded!

I don't support lithium's position, I've just exchanged enough posts with him to at least know where he is coming from.

 

[Lithium381]

I've listed several examples of where the majority rules over the minority and haven't heard a response as to why that's okay.

 

[Lithium381]

I don't support lithium's position, I've just exchanged enough posts with him to at least know where he is coming from.

and indeed you're spot on :thumbsup:
can you offer insight as to why you think my position is in error, since you don't support it?

 

[senseamp]

lol that's awesome, i didn't get it at first but i almost spit soda out my nose! well played!

Independent Judiciary? Tell me how that is? They can't get on the bench without the executive branch and the legislative branch. .

It's the system we have. You have to set achievable goals within the context of that system. It's easy to say, things should be like this and like that, but if it's not politically sustainable, it's just useless magical thinking.

 

[Lithium381]

It's the system we have. You have to set achievable goals within the context of that system. It's easy to say, things should be like this and like that, but if it's not politically sustainable, it's just useless magical thinking.

well that's why i'm still here, trying to work within the system and not moved to Somalia yet. I'm trying to change the minds of people by proposing my position and hoping it resonates with people. Individual freedom is nigh achieved with our current system. How is personal and individual freedom not politically sustainable? when nobody has their rights trampled on in "the name of the public good". There is a desire to be controlled, as if government is a diety that will bestow greatness on all...

why is it okay for someone to rule someone eles life through legislation?

 

[Jhhnn]

So then why is it illegal to possess pot?
Why is marrying someone the same gender not legal?
Why were people allowed to own slaves?

Because... Conservatives, remember?

 

[senseamp]

well that's why i'm still here, trying to work within the system and not moved to Somalia yet. I'm trying to change the minds of people by proposing my position and hoping it resonates with people. Individual freedom is nigh achieved with our current system. How is personal and individual freedom not politically sustainable? when nobody has their rights trampled on in "the name of the public good". There is a desire to be controlled, as if government is a diety that will bestow greatness on all...

why is it okay for someone to rule someone eles life through legislation?

Pretty much every, if not every, democratic country has eventually enacted universal health coverage. You can make your own value judgment on that, but those are the odds you are looking at.

 

[Zorkorist]

This is like serious, duh.

Government is a governor, or something that slows down something.

Government is restrictions to freedoms.

Left unfettered, it kills.

Many, many nations, and political systems have learned this lesson.

The less Government the better.

-John

 

[Lithium381]

Because... Conservatives, remember?

wow, for ONCE just take off your partisian hat. . fsck.

doesn't matter which group it was, but why are these restrictions allowed? i thought we had a series of checks and balances and an "independent judiciary" as Seasanmp says to protect us. . . . why are we still under the influence (get it lol) of these laws?

 

[Lithium381]

Pretty much every, if not every, democratic country has eventually enacted universal health coverage. You can make your own value judgment on that, but those are the odds you are looking at.

Depending on how UHC is ipmlemented it may or may not be awesome. If they FORCE people to pay for it then it's terrible, if it opperates out of charity of the hospitals and donations then :thumbsup::thumbsup:. Don't get me wrong, the "left" has a lot of good ideas that i would likely support on a voluntary basis but resist strongly to being forced. There is a certain psychology of HAVING to do something and WANTING to do something.

 

[senseamp]

Depending on how UHC is ipmlemented it may or may not be awesome. If they FORCE people to pay for it then it's terrible, if it opperates out of charity of the hospitals and donations then :thumbsup::thumbsup:. Don't get me wrong, the "left" has a lot of good ideas that i would likely support on a voluntary basis but resist strongly to being forced. There is a certain psychology of HAVING to do something and WANTING to do something.

How many countries in the world have developed universal health care systems operating on charity of hospitals and donations as you describe? That should tell you how likely that is to happen.
Plus, if a hospital has money for charity, someone is forced to pay a higher bill than they would have otherwise.

 

[Lithium381]

It doesn't change my premise just because it doesn't exist. Individuals can't be free when they need permission from their master to be free.

 

[berzerker60]

I've listed several examples of where the majority rules over the minority and haven't heard a response as to why that's okay.

Basically it's just not worth going through an entire Political Theory 101 course in this context. It's not like this stuff hasn't been discussed before. Some starting points:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/politica...on-to-political-thought-spring-2004/index.htm

http://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114

 

[Jhhnn]

wow, for ONCE just take off your partisian hat. . fsck.

doesn't matter which group it was, but why are these restrictions allowed? i thought we had a series of checks and balances and an "independent judiciary" as Seasanmp says to protect us. . . . why are we still under the influence (get it lol) of these laws?

Today? Because change is slow. Overcoming tradition isn't easy. Tradition is a central aspect of conservative values.

Cannabis has been illegal longer than all but a few Americans can remember and prohibition has thus become traditional.

Gay Marriage? Hell, being openly gay in a western predominately christian society has gained acceptance only recently and partially. In historical terms, Gay marriage has only become an issue in the last couple of seconds. Traditionally, conservatively, western tradition has called for gays to be scorned, jailed & even killed.

Slavery? The tradition of slavery goes back thousands of years.

See where this goes? Conservatives, traditionalists, carry a whole set of values that are quite ancient- about women, about race & class, marriage, property & inheritance. They resist change very effectively.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Quote: Originally Posted by Lithium381 View Post So then why is it illegal to possess pot? Why is marrying someone the same gender not legal? Why were people allowed to own slaves?


Because... Conservatives, remember?

What does being conservative have to do with slavery?

Gay marriage? I know plenty of conservative folks who have no problem with it. The ones I know who have issues tend to be followers of particular brands of various religions but are not representative of all religious folk, conservative or not. I've also met more than a few self-described liberals who have issues with it as well.

Pot? That was more a combination of racial prejudice and economics than any particular strand of conservative ideology. And plenty of self-described liberals have backed continued prohibition over the years.

So, because why again?

 

[rudeguy]

What does being conservative have to do with slavery?

Gay marriage? I know plenty of conservative folks who have no problem with it. The ones I know who have issues tend to be followers of particular brands of various religions but are not representative of all religious folk, conservative or not. I've also met more than a few self-described liberals who have issues with it as well.

Pot? That was more a combination of racial prejudice and economics than any particular strand of conservative ideology. And plenty of self-described liberals have backed continued prohibition over the years.

So, because why again?

I could not possibly care less if two guys get married.
I could not possibly care less if someone wants to smoke weed.

Slavery was wrong. We ended it. We tried to make things right with those affected. Get over it.

 

[Jhhnn]

What does being conservative have to do with slavery?

Gay marriage? I know plenty of conservative folks who have no problem with it. The ones I know who have issues tend to be followers of particular brands of various religions but are not representative of all religious folk, conservative or not. I've also met more than a few self-described liberals who have issues with it as well.

Pot? That was more a combination of racial prejudice and economics than any particular strand of conservative ideology. And plenty of self-described liberals have backed continued prohibition over the years.

So, because why again?

As I pointed out, because conservatives are traditionalists. That varies by culture. In Russia, for example, some people pine for the traditions of Communism to come back. In context, they're conservative, even reactionary. In their own cultures, so are Islamists & Teahadists, too.

Conservatives resist change to their traditions or want things to go back to some idealized vision of the past when their traditions held more sway.