More independents agree with supreme court decision than disagree!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
most people don't understand the law of unintended consequences. this will come back to bite them in the ass and they will be left wondering how it could happen.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So if a poll doesn't go your way, your conclusion is that the respondents are stupid?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
1) didn't read the poll, so my answer isn't in response to it
2) my conclusion is based purely on real world statements from the multitude of morons i've met and conversed with who have no more clue about the law than they do with theoretical physics.
3) people that base their ideas of good law directly on how it gives them things for 'free', have no business voting. It's almost blasphemous, but I am seriously considering pushing for a voter test.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So someone who votes for candidates promising tax cuts for "job creators" has no business voting?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
what does that have to do with knowing the law? If a person votes for someone based on tax cuts to create jobs, and then that elected individual serves his own interests instead of his constituents, should that person vote for that lawmaker again he/she should have his voting privileges revoked.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
a whole whopping 3%. that is huge jarod. newsworthy in fact.
the reality is, most people don't have a clue how screwed up this decision is.
the reality is, most people don't have a clue how screwed up this decision is.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
How would you justify revoking someone's voting privileges for that? Constitutionally?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you suddenly support the constitution?
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
You suddenly avoided the question?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
way less than you do, so you should still be happy.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So you can't justify what you said.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
SmarterthanYou
rebel
sure I can. What I can't justify is answering your idiot question about it.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Then do so.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Well, I know all of the stuff you'd expect to learn about theoretical physics from reading popular science mags and stuff. Basically, there's string theory, in which there are strings all over the universe, and they have multiple dimensions at very close ranges, and it describes the universe surprisingly well but would need a particle accelerator of impractically large power (like the LHC x 10) to directly test so, you know, we really don't know. There are also some alternatives, like quantum gravity. Also, dark energy.
I hope this has been an enlightening discussion.
1. My justifications are somewhat more sophisticated than that.
2. I've always used the term "universal" rather than "free".
3. I suspect that with my degree, I'd be earning enough that I probably wouldn't benefit directly from the law. I'll probably never benefit this law, at least in terms of direct subsidies.
I don't think anyone's ever really found a significant correlation between any sort of general intelligence metric and ideology. This has, of course, not stopped practically everyone of any ideology from seeming to believe that an intelligence test would obviously favor the people on their side. And, call me cynical, but I think better educated voters, on aggregate, will probably just tend to pursue the sorts of interests that fit their demographic, rather than pursuing some of demonstrably better government - and such a test would disproportionately affect minority and poorer voters without as much access to those educational resources. It's important that everybody take part in the democratic discussion, in order to prevent us from becoming a more disunified country where there are many groups who's interests are ignored, which would probably eventually lead to instability, instability that would either have to be crushed through illiberal measures or appeased through greater ballot access. I don't think it's a good idea to sacrifice all of this for the sake of implementing some harebrained scheme that you believe will provide you with short-term political benefit.
It's also worth noting that, for one thing, I can list a couple of Nobel Prize Winning economists who support this law, and I assume their opinion should at least be considered equal in weight to the great SMY's. Plenty of well educated people support this law. The most educated voters (post-grad) tend to be Democratic, while the Republicans and Democrats are fairly even when it comes to those with college, some college, and high school education. The Democrats do dominate amongst those with no high school education, but that's an almost non-existant demographic. The Republicans do tend to dominate amongst the richer and more educated - in the southeast. But the Republicans own the southeast anyway. You may win 80% of the vote in Mississippi instead of 60%, thus going from 4 electoral college votes from the state rather than the 4 you get now. Congratulations. Up north, things tend to be much more even, and taking out less educated voters would largely just be more biased towards the upper class left.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
as soon as you stop asking for it in an absurd manner.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
How is my question absurd?
Why can't you explain how you'd justify that action constitutionally?
apple0154
MEOW
LOL The "problem" is people are waking up to the mischaracterizing and outright lies about ObamaCare. I think it's obvious Justice Roberts realized the vital importance of ObamaCare by not only refusing to strike it down but to officially state how it could continue to be implemented.
Responsible, intelligent people realize the importance of health insurance. They also realize being part of any "pool" results in decreased costs. ObamaCare addresses both by having everyone obtain health coverage. Folks also realize if ObamaCare was scrapped nothing would be done to address the medical problem as no politician would want to touch it.
This has been going on for a century! (Excerpt) U.S. health reform in the period 1912-1920 was an issue raised nationally by Theodore Roosevelt's call for national health insurance, in his third party bid for president in the election of 1912. Woodrow Wilson was preoccupied with other domestic policy issues and World War I, so most of the debate during this period was at the state level.
The American Association for Labor Legislation was instrumental in developing and advocating a model insurance law for universal health insurance that would have been administered on a compulsory basis by the states. Although this model bill was introduced in several state legislatures, progress on state-level universal coverage initiatives stalled.
Conservatism and fears of communism of the latter years of World War I and its immediate aftermath, were factors. Doctors, some of whom initially supported reform efforts, became the chief force opposing reform. (End) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Doc_Tropics/United_States_health_reform_1912-1920
Remember Obama telling the Repubs not to come to the table with tired, worn out ideas? After one hundred years of "we'll come up with a good plan" it was time to get it done and Obama did it. The American people lived with the unintended consequences for a century including 45,000 people currently dying every year due to a lack of medical coverage. It couldn't be more clear when a Conservative Justice breaks rank, sides with the Liberals and puts an end to the insanity.
Really? Haven't y'all disenfranchised enough voters already? Women, blacks, gays, hispanics, the elderly, students and so on?
Now you want to keep the DUMB from voting? Horrors! There won't be anything left of the Republican Party!