Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 12:17:42 PM
That is incorrect.  Anyone who has read the federalist papers or the notes of the constitutional convention know that our founding fathers deliberately put in safeguards to protect certain rights against the will of the people.

For example, if the majority of Americans voted right now to send Jews to gas chambers, the constitution uses courts as a last line of defense to prevent it.

I am not comparing the two scenarios, but it is false as you stated it.

That being said, nobody has a right to make pastors marry anybody.  It seems to me a pastor should be allowed to choose who to marry based off of his own beliefs.  I don't think that this law makes a different in that sense.

For example, a pastor cannot be made to perform a muslim ceremony or a jewish one.  I don't see the difference but I affirm my agreement that pastors shouldn't be forced to do anything against their wishes.  I was just unaware that they had been.

Okay, let's discuss this a little further.

Why don't you post a supporting document for your statement...... courts can overrule the people.

It appears to me that this government was given to the people.  It is a government "of the people", "by the people", "for the people".  The ballot box reigns supreme in all issues.  As Ben Franklin famously said, "We have given you (the people) a constitutional Republic..... if you can keep it."

I have never heard anywhere that SCOTUS can knock down a national referendum.  The only exception would be if the referendum defied the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  To change that we were given the option of Constitutional Amendments.

Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
Obamacare was a bill written, literally, by health care companies, for health care companies.

Where do you get your information?

Ever hear of Johnathan Gruber?  Robert Creamer?  Ezekiel Emanuel?

The plan for Obamacare is to become a one payer system, the government, which would eliminate the need for insurance companies.   

Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:11:28 PM
Obamacare was a bill written, literally, by health care companies, for health care companies.

It did not solve healthcare, I agree.  But it has nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with insurance/ and pharma profit.

Wake up and smell the borscht, Komrade!  Capitalism is the enemy of the marxist, socialist state!  State control of one seventh of the US economy and state mandates that bypass the individual states ordering  state dictazted behavior...couple this with the same "croanie capitalism" which has always existed in Marxist regimes from Stalin to Chairman Mao and you have a perfect storm for destroying the free market along with individual liberties.  The Cloward-Piven Plan (for CHANGE through orchestrated crisis) calls for exploiting the freedoms of our system in order to place unrealistic demands upon the system and thereby bankrupting the economy; then blaming capitalism as a failed economic system and ultimately replacing it with marxist socialism.  State controlled Healthcare is a means to an end!

Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
That being said, the free market was not solving health care at all.

There hasn't been a free market health care system.  The government has interfered for years in our system.  A free market system with very little government would significantly improve our system.

Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 03:45:29 PM
There hasn't been a free market health care system.  The government has interfered for years in our system.  A free market system with very little government would significantly improve our system.

Taxed, I'm afraid we're either talking with a Libtard Troll or an Anarchist.  Considering his (stevefolkster) apparent love for all things that flow from the UN  and hatred and distrust of the American system of free enterprise and capitalism, e either is with the other Team or he just has given up and can't see the forest through the trees!  He don't much sound like a COnservative to me...justsayun! 

Quote from: steve folkster on May 13, 2015, 02:00:31 PM
That being said, the free market was not solving health care at all.

The problem is not free market healthcare.  The problem is the government's insistence upon forcing medical doctors and hospitals to treat non paying patients.  That is NOT free market.  That is government oppression. 

Also, medicare forces physicians and hospitals to treat the elderly for ridiculously low amounts of government compensation.  It is unsustainable.  And the government dictates what type of healthcare a medicare recipient can receive.  Medicine is no longer between a patient and the doctor.  We have the long arm of government present in every clinical situation.

This is socialization of the worst kind!

Quote from: kroz on May 13, 2015, 04:09:41 PM
The problem is not free market healthcare.  The problem is the government's insistence upon forcing medical doctors and hospitals to treat non paying patients.  That is NOT free market.  That is government oppression. 

Also, medicare forces physicians and hospitals to treat the elderly for ridiculously low amounts of government compensation.  It is unsustainable.  And the government dictates what type of healthcare a medicare recipient can receive.  Medicine is no longer between a patient and the doctor.  We have the long arm of government present in every clinical situation.

This is socialization of the worst kind!

There are a couple of other problems that flow from goverment interference with the market and overregulation.

1.  TORT REFORM!!!  Everyone in the Healthcare profession must practice defensive medicine to the point of paranoia!  Anyone bold enough to take a chance and only do what is deemed medically necessary, reasonable and/or appropriate is the target for every ambulance chasing lawyer on tv and those who aren't!

2.  The Federal Goverment won't allow medical insurance to be sold accross state lines.  Why is that?  It's because so many of our various states are also infected with the Liberal Cancer of requiring the people "insure" against all manner of stupid mandaes!

3. THE STOOOPID  POLITICALLY MOTIVATED  MANDATES that requires everyone's policy insures for shit to shine-ola.  (eg;  fifty year old woman must be insured to cover prenatal care/ oh, don't forget mandates like all of our policies covering such things as abortion, whether we want it or not, or sex change (gender reassignment) counseling through the surguries themselves.) All these mandates cost all of us consumers more and more money to pay for a never ending dictated lists of whatever state and federal goverments mandate us to "insure" for.  The dirty little secret is that everyone's costs go higher to pay for those things that may only be of concern to a little minority of people.  I can except we are all at risk for things like heart disease and cancer...BUT not that many of us are  at risk for needing expensive gender reassignment healthcare treatment!!!!

Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 04:07:14 PM
Taxed, I'm afraid we're either talking with a Libtard Troll or an Anarchist.  Considering his (stevefolkster) apparent love for all things that flow from the UN  and hatred and distrust of the American system of free enterprise and capitalism, e either is with the other Team or he just has given up and can't see the forest through the trees!  He don't much sound like a COnservative to me...justsayun! 

He's a hot mess......

Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 04:42:46 PM
He's a hot mess......

A lot of people are.  In fact, it is part of the Obama strategy to divide us so they canultimately win.  As you aptly pointed out, Ben Franklin showed his reluctant support for the new goverment they created saying it is a republic, if we can keep it.  Madison explains in Federalist Papers #10 why we need the struture of an overarching Federal Republic in order to control factions, lest a small faction one day either controls us, or competing factions lead to civil war.

Both Alynsky and the Cloward-Piven Plan prey upon our system by exploiting the inherent imperfections in this system.  Ben Franklin expressed his fears in his utterence of "if you can keep it".  Long before Ben Franklin,  Voltairre said, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good".   As Obama and his cabal fan the flames of discontent, they point our and grossly exagerate every flaw and imperfection.  Some succumb to this propaganda and forget what a great (good) country we have because we are portrayed as being so grossly imperfect.  They lose the perspective that there exist no better place on the face of this earth; nor has their ever existed a nation as "good" as this country the we, still love!

It's their plan; to alienate us from each other and to alienate us from our love of this country!  It seems to be working with this newbie, just the way they HOPE to CHANGE people like him!

Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 05:08:09 PM
A lot of people are.  In fact, it is part of the Obama strategy to divide us so they canultimately win.  As you aptly pointed out, Ben Franklin showed his reluctant support for the new goverment they created saying it is a republic, if we can keep it.  Madison explains in Federalist Papers #10 why we need the struture of an overarching Federal Republic in order to control factions, lest a small faction one day either controls us, or competing factions lead to civil war.

Both Alynsky and the Cloward-Piven Plan prey upon our system by exploiting the inherent imperfections in this system.  Ben Franklin expressed his fears in his utterence of "if you can keep it".  Long before Ben Franklin,  Voltairre said, "The Perfect is the enemy of the Good".   As Obama and his cabal fan the flames of discontent, they point our and grossly exagerate every flaw and imperfection.  Some succumb to this propaganda and forget what a great (good) country we have because we are portrayed as being so grossly imperfect.  They lose the perspective that there exist no better place on the face of this earth; nor has their ever existed a nation as "good" as this country the we, still love!

It's their plan; to alienate us from each other and to alienate us from our love of this country!  It seems to be working with this newbie, just the way they HOPE to CHANGE people like him!

It's one reason I am such a strong believer in reforming the education system, which is to de-unionize it and let the free market run schools.  The union and Marxist stronghold is so insane and just opens up the propaganda hose on young kids who are still trying to figure life out.

Quote from: taxed on May 13, 2015, 05:11:56 PM
It's one reason I am such a strong believer in reforming the education system, which is to de-unionize it and let the free market run schools.  The union and Marxist stronghold is so insane and just opens up the propaganda hose on young kids who are still trying to figure life out.

I'm afraid it's a lost cause!  It's like trying to fix a sieve so it will float;  The best you can do is bail...BAIL..BAIL!!!! each and every motherflippin day!   You'll keep it afloat only as long as you keep bailing!  Then, one day you Bail Out and let someone younger bail for awhile!

In spite of all it's problems, we still have people emerging who have learned to think for themselves.  In time, the Leaders of Tomorrow may make the whole ship of state float much better than it does... That's pretty much like trying to float a sieve, as well..Methinks!   

Quote from: wally on May 13, 2015, 05:24:52 PM
I'm afraid it's a lost cause!  It's like trying to fix a sieve so it will float;  The best you can do is bail...BAIL..BAIL!!!! each and every motherflippin day!   You'll keep it afloat only as long as you keep bailing!  Then, one day you Bail Out and let someone younger bail for awhile!

In spite of all it's problems, we still have people emerging who have learned to think for themselves.  In time, the Leaders of Tomorrow may make the whole ship of state float mush better than it does... That's pretty much like trying to float a sieve, as we..Methinks!   

I disagree.  I'm pretty optimistic.  We're beating this thing.  A lot of light has been shining on a lot of cock roaches.

My wife is a school teacher in for a city school system.  She commutes into and out of the city every day.  She'll be long gone before this pendulum takes a swing for the better.  Right now they're tying Teachers hands on discipline and letting the inmates run the asylum while they are scapegoating teachers for poor performance of these petulant wannabe ganstahs!

Quote from: kroz on May 13, 2015, 02:58:19 PM
I have never heard anywhere that SCOTUS can knock down a national referendum.  The only exception would be if the referendum defied the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  To change that we were given the option of Constitutional Amendments.

Theoretically, this is exactly what the courts are doing: comparing laws (whether written by legislators or passed as referendums by the People) against limitations written into state constitutions, or the U.S. Constitution. If the law violates constitutional provisions, then it is thrown out, no matter how large a percentage of people support that law.

The problem comes in when those on the bench read the Constitution according to what they want it to say, rather than what is actually says. The most apparent example of this is the entire issue of the 2nd Amendment. If justices were to read the 2nd Amendment according to the design and intent of those who wrote it (and there are plenty of records which tell us exactly what was intended) then about the only gun control laws which would stand the test of constitutionality would be those which prohibit ownership by convicted felons. But, instead they reinvent the meaning of "militia", and come out with ridiculous notions such as "surely they did not intend people to own nuclear weapons!", and many other excuses to ignore what the Constitution says in favor of what they want to do to us.

A second problem comes in when the courts decide to define a previously undefined right under the heading of the 9th Amendment. Certainly amendments 1-8 did not define all human rights which need protection from government encroachment. But along comes progressive humanism, claiming "rights" which are anything but, such as the right to kill unborn human children with no more thought than popping a pimple. And now they are claiming that marriage is an unlimited "right" (even while claiming "No right is unlimited" in their typical practice of hypocrisy....) and therefore neither the state nor the People have the authority to refuse homosexuals the right to marry.

Too many people think it's the government that gives them rights.  Some people are now talking about the right for everyone to have a basic income.  I'm assuming they mean getting a check without lifting a finger.