-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
- Status
el retorno
Member
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html
Seriously congress sucks.
Seriously congress sucks.
GenocidalMarshmallow
Member
That shooting in Illinois is a terrible tragedy and my heart and prayers go out to all the victims. Two little kids were killed! Why do people do things like this? 
Of course there will be time for mourning but it will turn political first, and understandably so, if we get at the root of the problem, maybe we can fix it.
First of all, if you want someone to blame besides the shooters, the NRA, and congress, try blaming the founding fathers. Now I understand that they weren't perfect and we changed the constitution out of necessity before. We got rid of the 3/5 compromise and slavery. Men who don't own property, women, and non white people can vote now, which is a good thing.
But take something as essential and fundamental as the Bill of Rights, and we're on a slippery slope with a very shaky argument here. Taken as as a whole, most would agree it's good. Freedom of Speech, No unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive bail, fair trial, no incriminating oneself, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc and we are all good on that. No one would argue against that.
Now the Second Amendment comes into question. The right to bear arms, as made obviously clear by our founding fathers, is a right. Now we can repeal the second amendment like we repealed prohibition, but should we?
I'm a liberal and all for more gun control, but total disarmament? No, not really. But that's the scary thing here. A lot of GAF seem to say in this thread and others that we should repeal the second amendment completely and ban all guns for all reasons from everyone permanently.
Now background checks, assault rifles, rounds per magazine, okay I get that. But good luck at convincing the American people to give up that right completely. Not gonna happen. This is a terrible thing to say, but I've talked to many people and can conclude that a lot of these NRA gun loving members will never give up that right, no matter how many shootings occur. Obviously when it comes close to home and someone you know gets hurt that can impact them, but still.
I talk to people that say things like "Do you think I care about those kids at Sandy Hook? Or at Aurora Movie Theater? No, I don't. I think it was a small price to pay for us to keep our rights because there will always be collateral damage". Yes, I have met people who say shit like that.
You can try to chip away at that right slowly over time, but it is unlikely you'll succeed in completely repealing it. And good luck getting the greedy NRA and Congress to do this. Most Republicans and NRA members, Hell, 90% of Americans, supported Universal background checks. Did that pass in congress? No, 90 percent of the American people supported something but we didn't have 90 or even 80 represented in congress.
Wasn't it like 56-44 or something like that? I think a simple majority of 51 should do it, not 60 votes in the senate.
Also, what about the millions of people that own guns and aren't mentally unstable, psychopathic murderers? Is it really fair to take away all the law abiding citizens right to bear arms away when they don't kill people with them just so no one has them? I get keeping them out of the hands of dangerous and crazy people and convicted felons and mentally insane and ill, but why should everyone give up that right when they harm no one?
I don't know how strong this background check legislation would have been, seems pretty weak and flimsy to me. But you'll never convince the American people as a whole to give up that right, and even if you did, if the recent background check legislation shows anything, it's that the NRA and other lobbying groups won't let congress represent the people's demand's anyway.
SO instead of talking about complete disarmament and the repealing of the second amendment, why don't we just focus on controlling the flow with things such as assault weapons bans, limiting rounds per magazine and background checks for starters?
This reminds me of that Republican that said "If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted". Like wtf is that even supposed to mean, anyway?
But yeah, can't we come to some kind of medium, a compromise of sorts, where we achieve a balance of safety and well being while insuring that one's rights aren't trampled on? Universal Background checks are a necessary evil, and registering a gun is no different than registering a car.
Also regarding the foundations for and reasoning behind the second amendment. Even if it wasn't originally INTENDED for a civilian's right to own a firearm for whatever reason, if we look at the Supreme Court and the history of the interpretation of the Constitution, whose to say it can't change?
Example: The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Amendment XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now this was originally intended to guarantee the rights of newly freed slaves, they soon got taken away but that's another story. It got encompassed into giving women the right to vote in the twentieth amendment. Also a new generation saw the equal protection clause-"no state shall deny an person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"-in a whole different light. Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. Precedent of separate but equal was overturned and integration was allowed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 are other examples.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act, the one that Ron Paul takes issue with, is where private business have to serve everyone and can't just discriminate and say "no n-word's allowed" and it was justified under Congresses constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce since supplies traveled across state lines.
Now do you think that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned or even supported the use of interstate commerce as a means for violating property rights for civil rights? Or the equal protection clause on integration or women's suffrage? Or free speech on movies and video games, which didn't exist yet? No, they never could have imagined it.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, "The Earth belongs to the living". So our generation, the living gets to decide how we interpret the constitution and what we add and what we scrap. So constitutionally we could repeal the second amendment, but the American people as a whole will never agree.
I support more gun control like assault weapons bans, magazine limits and background checks, but not complete disarmament like some on GAF in this thread and others have said. The argument that the founding fathers "never intended for this to mean that or be interpreted that way", doesn't hold much water in my book.
Of course there will be time for mourning but it will turn political first, and understandably so, if we get at the root of the problem, maybe we can fix it.
First of all, if you want someone to blame besides the shooters, the NRA, and congress, try blaming the founding fathers. Now I understand that they weren't perfect and we changed the constitution out of necessity before. We got rid of the 3/5 compromise and slavery. Men who don't own property, women, and non white people can vote now, which is a good thing.
But take something as essential and fundamental as the Bill of Rights, and we're on a slippery slope with a very shaky argument here. Taken as as a whole, most would agree it's good. Freedom of Speech, No unreasonable searches and seizures, excessive bail, fair trial, no incriminating oneself, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc and we are all good on that. No one would argue against that.
Now the Second Amendment comes into question. The right to bear arms, as made obviously clear by our founding fathers, is a right. Now we can repeal the second amendment like we repealed prohibition, but should we?
I'm a liberal and all for more gun control, but total disarmament? No, not really. But that's the scary thing here. A lot of GAF seem to say in this thread and others that we should repeal the second amendment completely and ban all guns for all reasons from everyone permanently.
Now background checks, assault rifles, rounds per magazine, okay I get that. But good luck at convincing the American people to give up that right completely. Not gonna happen. This is a terrible thing to say, but I've talked to many people and can conclude that a lot of these NRA gun loving members will never give up that right, no matter how many shootings occur. Obviously when it comes close to home and someone you know gets hurt that can impact them, but still.
I talk to people that say things like "Do you think I care about those kids at Sandy Hook? Or at Aurora Movie Theater? No, I don't. I think it was a small price to pay for us to keep our rights because there will always be collateral damage". Yes, I have met people who say shit like that.
You can try to chip away at that right slowly over time, but it is unlikely you'll succeed in completely repealing it. And good luck getting the greedy NRA and Congress to do this. Most Republicans and NRA members, Hell, 90% of Americans, supported Universal background checks. Did that pass in congress? No, 90 percent of the American people supported something but we didn't have 90 or even 80 represented in congress.
Wasn't it like 56-44 or something like that? I think a simple majority of 51 should do it, not 60 votes in the senate.
Also, what about the millions of people that own guns and aren't mentally unstable, psychopathic murderers? Is it really fair to take away all the law abiding citizens right to bear arms away when they don't kill people with them just so no one has them? I get keeping them out of the hands of dangerous and crazy people and convicted felons and mentally insane and ill, but why should everyone give up that right when they harm no one?
I don't know how strong this background check legislation would have been, seems pretty weak and flimsy to me. But you'll never convince the American people as a whole to give up that right, and even if you did, if the recent background check legislation shows anything, it's that the NRA and other lobbying groups won't let congress represent the people's demand's anyway.
SO instead of talking about complete disarmament and the repealing of the second amendment, why don't we just focus on controlling the flow with things such as assault weapons bans, limiting rounds per magazine and background checks for starters?
This reminds me of that Republican that said "If babies had guns they wouldn't be aborted". Like wtf is that even supposed to mean, anyway?
But yeah, can't we come to some kind of medium, a compromise of sorts, where we achieve a balance of safety and well being while insuring that one's rights aren't trampled on? Universal Background checks are a necessary evil, and registering a gun is no different than registering a car.
Also regarding the foundations for and reasoning behind the second amendment. Even if it wasn't originally INTENDED for a civilian's right to own a firearm for whatever reason, if we look at the Supreme Court and the history of the interpretation of the Constitution, whose to say it can't change?
Example: The Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Amendment XIV. Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Now this was originally intended to guarantee the rights of newly freed slaves, they soon got taken away but that's another story. It got encompassed into giving women the right to vote in the twentieth amendment. Also a new generation saw the equal protection clause-"no state shall deny an person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"-in a whole different light. Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education. Precedent of separate but equal was overturned and integration was allowed.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights Act of 1965 are other examples.
Title II of the Civil Rights Act, the one that Ron Paul takes issue with, is where private business have to serve everyone and can't just discriminate and say "no n-word's allowed" and it was justified under Congresses constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce since supplies traveled across state lines.
Now do you think that the founding fathers could have ever envisioned or even supported the use of interstate commerce as a means for violating property rights for civil rights? Or the equal protection clause on integration or women's suffrage? Or free speech on movies and video games, which didn't exist yet? No, they never could have imagined it.
As Thomas Jefferson so eloquently put it, "The Earth belongs to the living". So our generation, the living gets to decide how we interpret the constitution and what we add and what we scrap. So constitutionally we could repeal the second amendment, but the American people as a whole will never agree.
I support more gun control like assault weapons bans, magazine limits and background checks, but not complete disarmament like some on GAF in this thread and others have said. The argument that the founding fathers "never intended for this to mean that or be interpreted that way", doesn't hold much water in my book.
rocketknight
Member
For comparison, for me, COBRA from my last insurance was going to be about twice what the PCIP was. COBRA varies based on your employer's plan and level of assholery, of course, but the PCIP was less. The main issue with it was having to wait six months without coverage to sign up, which sounded scary.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Fuck this.
I remember when Republicans tried to trick Democrats into passing legislation that would require all congressmen/the president/etc. to enroll in the public option.
They scuttled it after Al Franken and Sherrod Brown co-signed.
empty vessel
Member
You mean the right that they've had since all of 2008? I support repeal of the Second Amendment. I support a handgun ban, like most advanced democracies have.
Nobody. It can change by being repealed.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Wow, fuck these guys.
Time for some more liberal backpatting:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...acism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...acism-conservatism-and-low-iq-go-hand-in-hand
Zero-Crescent
Member
Yeah, that was a great segment and a good interview. A nice pick-me-up after John Oliver's depressing (but still good) segment.
speculawyer
Member
How about this for a gambit? . . . legalize long-gun machine guns in exchange for a total ban on any small handgun.
Now that would never get passed, but I bet it would reduce gun deaths. If you get rid of those concealable handguns, you could probably really reduce the gun death rate.
Yes, there would be occasionally mass-shootings that are even more bloody but those are quite rare compared every day shootings with handguns.
Thinking outside the box.
Half and half
Member
Hey I got a solution. Congress can up the amount of subsidies provided and even extend them to higher incomes. iotw, improve the exchanges.
Obama better not let them weasel out of this.
Fucking idiots.
jamesinclair
Banned
This cracked me up.
News article:
First reply:
How do these people have internet access?
News article:
First reply:
How do these people have internet access?
I had to go look Agenda 21 up, people are afraid of a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan that basically says wouldn't it be nice if we could pollute less?
That's about it. Anything that discourages car use is evil to conservatives, because public transit and walking is for communists, and cars are a symbol of freedom!
Link
The Autumn Wind
Reading this makes me realize that I need to do some serious reading up on Obamacare. For the most part, I'm quite unfamiliar with how things are goimg to work.
Half and half
Member
So does this mean that congressional staffers cannot just receive subsidies just like any other American would? Because if they can, then they should just have to deal with it.
i'm assuming congressional staffers are out of the "subsidy" range. They already have paid for health insurance since they work for a large organization full time. There is no reason they shouldn't continue to have that, lawmakers are just asking for clarification as to how they can be on exchanges but still pay for the insurance
Sirpopopop
Member
That would be a bill of attainder.
EXPLICITLY FORBIDDEN by the constitution. These Republicans who so revere the constitution should read it sometime.
Half and half
Member
The original politico article mentioned entry-level guys who make 25k/year being left to hang. So I figure, give the lower end guys their subsidies and slide that window as salaries increase.
I'm being idealistic here, but I'd say a reason to have them get their insurance this way is so that they have a vested interest in making sure the system works for the rest of America.
they shouldn't have their benefits removed for idealistic purposes. They have benefits today, they shouldn't have to have them removed. Having them use the exchanges (even if they are paid for), is still making sure there is a vested interest in making sure the exchanges don't suck
shadowsdarknes
Member
I'd like one of these to defend me against government drones. Keep my handguns, I don't want em.
The Librarian
Banned
I was eager to show off my pretty banner.Totally missed that there was a new thread. I thought the old one just died off a bit
Not just explicitly forbidden, but explicitly forbidden to both the federal government and state governments over two separate sections!
Because politics definitely needs more fantasy.
Unicorns are more realistic than half the shit Alex Jones says.
Because unicorns are awesome.
I used to have my parents rent me Unico movies or The Last Unicorn on a practically weekly basis when I was 4 or 5. I currently have the Unicorn Zord from Power Rangers Mystic Force on my entertainment center, and I've got a couple unicorn Transformers as well.
el retorno
Member
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=07SxpNsYZSs#!
McConnell: GOP is the Party of Compassion
Also, All those white people.
McConnell: GOP is the Party of Compassion
Also, All those white people.
Link
The Autumn Wind
No surprise to anyone that the comments are disabled.
el retorno
Member
I was really disappointed I couldn't express my love for their harlem shake video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMp_yzm8D9w
Just watching MSNBC
Props to Barbra Bush: "we've had enough bushes"
itshappening.gif?
The Librarian
Banned
Aaron Strife
Banned
Interesting that the GOP's anointed savior Chris Christie is back in 3rd with only 14%, in a state that would theoretically better fit his ideological profile than a state like Iowa or South Carolina.
Now why would that be?
Oh yeah it's because the Republican electorate is fucking bonkers and doesn't care about electability.
tekumseh
a mass of phermones, hormones and adrenaline just waiting to explode
I'm pretty proud of myself. I made it right up to the point where the music crescendoed and the flame on Lady Liberty's torch burst into color. Then, I threw up in my mouth a little and had to look away...
Link
The Autumn Wind
Did it taste like freedom?
tekumseh
a mass of phermones, hormones and adrenaline just waiting to explode
Not really. More metallic with overtones of desperation and hypocrisy and a serious bullshit aftertaste...
*giggles to herself uncontrollably*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_(word)
FIRST LORD BILL CLINTON. CAN'T WAIT.
rocketknight
Member
Wonder if they'll stream this. Would be fun to play along at home, including the mentioned whiskey.
TacticalFox88
Banned
I'm now in the boat where I think if Hillary doesn't run, she's going to regret it on her deathbed.
Random comment, I know, but the more times that goes by where it seems like she'd be a complete and utter fool not to run.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Everyone talks about Florida but it gave Bush the presidency by 7,000 votes.
A high school, Grosse Point South High, paid Rick Santorum $18k to speak to the students.......
http://wonkette.com/513732/here-is-...lers-in-totally-non-political-way#more-513732
Not political at all, sure....I'd be pissed if I was a teacher at that school and saw my budget used on this nonsense.
http://wonkette.com/513732/here-is-...lers-in-totally-non-political-way#more-513732
Not political at all, sure....I'd be pissed if I was a teacher at that school and saw my budget used on this nonsense.
speculawyer
Member
speculawyer
Member
Yeah, unless she's just feeling too old & tired, I think she'll run. She would not have run for Senate and take the SoS jobs if she wasn't into this stuff.
Of course, I don't want to talk about this 2016 stuff. Better to talk about the current stuff.
- Status