That's just exactly what America needs right NOW! Shut this out of control spending machine down ! We should fire our congress , the president and senate immediately anyway ! I would move to Russia rather than watch the demise of this nation any further ! The absolutely abysmal condition of our leadership is shameful at best and treasonous at the worst ! Congress at 10 % approval .Good God ! Hitler was more effective in leadership !
Hitler was a dictator. If you think Russia has a better system of government, you are welcome to move there.
+1 What else is there to say. Comparing any of our leaders to Hitler is highly offensive. I don't like Obama, I hated Bush, never compared either one to Hitler.
Yes, but I'm fairly certain more than 10% of the German people believed he was doing a good job of bringing Germany out of its crippling depression and back onto the world stage.
I'm sorry, but if you think Hitler - who murdered millions of people systematically as a part of his plan of racial cleansing - had better leadership, there is something seriously wrong with you.
Think Russia is better? Try living there for a year and tell us again.
Honestly, just... what the hell.
This is an example of what passes for "thought" among certain people.
Looks like you're conveniently overlooking Obama's advocacy for the murders of millions of unborn babies who are simply "inconvenient" "mistakes".
Oh no, he doesn't personally try to kill them; he just stood on a public podium and advocated for their murders. So.........which is worse----to give orders to have millions killed, or to prey on the minds of women and men "in crisis" and tempt them into thinking it's okay to kill millions, and urge them to use the horrid unConstitutional law that allows them to kill them?
And here you are, advocating the deaths of many of those women, who would die--excruciatingly, I might add--in childbirth.
Aren't you just so proud of yourself?
Many women are dying excruciatingly in childbirth?
Are you a time traveler from the 14 Century???
Howard, you would be shocked to know that women STILL DIE TODAY in childbirth, in America (which is far from the "safest" country for women to have babies). Women who have been denied abortions when their lives are endangered have died and still die today.
Brenda, it is shocking, horrible and incredibly, INCREDIBLY offensive to compare any politician to Hitler. I don't see how this isn't common sense. Honestly, how dare you say that abortion is on any way equivalent to the Holocaust. There are still living victims of the Holocaust today who remember the atrocities and torture they and their murdered families were put through at concentration camps and more.
This is not comparable, and you are not going to win ANY sympathies for making such a terrible - and let's face it, STUPID - comparison.
Also, you know nothing of the women who are in crisis and have to go through abortions. Keep your judgments about their lives and "fragile mental states" to yourself.
It is INCREDIBLY offensive to advocate for abortion.
And I WILL state my opinions any time I choose to, just like you.
It's very bullying of you to tell ANYONE to keep their opinions to themselves.
AND you can stop making it personal.
I was speaking in general and about a man whose very position makes him subject to scrutiny.
And YOU have no knowledge of my life and what I've been through, so stop being such a judgemental bully.
If I wanted to be as rude and crude and offensive as you, I could rightly call what you said STUPID. But I didn't, now did I? Yet YOU did. Did no one ever teach you any manners? How old are you anyway? Are you old enough to be a hubber? You sure don't act like it.
Yeah, it means what I think it means.
And I'm requesting that you stop trying to engage me in conversation anymore, Zelkiiro.
I don't need your insults like you've posted before, nor do I need your obvious attempts to take up for someone ELSE who's bullying me. Got it?
Um... what? I'm sorry, but this comment actually made me laugh out loud. You're mad that I told you how offensive it is to compare the Holocaust with women's reproductive rights? And that makes me a bully? And suddenly you think I'm "not old enough to be on Hubpages" because I let you know you made a really stupid and offensive comparison?
Fact: I never made any comment about your personal life. I commented on the fact that you a) said something horrible and deserved to be called out on, something that basically invalidates any point you were ever trying to make and b) you judge women who go through abortions and treat them like children who are fragile and only have abortions because Obama pressured them to do it.
What you're doing now is whining that someone had the audacity to disagree with you - and claim that I'm a bully for doing so (even though I never personally attacked you, only your comment, but you went straight for the personal attacks yourself). Listen, if you make absurd claims about how Obama is Hitler and abortion is the Holocaust, best believe that you're going to get feedback about it, and frankly, I was pretty darn respectful compared to what most people would think of that. Go on, say what you just said to a Holocaust survivor - I dare you.
I dare YOU to actually learn some manners, AND to learn the facts of life before you start spouting off about "women's rights".
AND I'm requesting that you don't try to engage me in conversation anymore until you learn to engage in mature conversation (that means without insulting people personally, especially just because they actually have the guts to take up for the rights of unborn babies).
Learn the facts of life, then maybe I'll be willing to talk to you.
Lol you don't get to tell people they can't comment on you. If you post in a public message board, people are going to comment. If you are afraid about the feedback you might get on radical posts, think twice before you post it.
Mature conversation? I honestly feel like one of us is not being very mature, and I don't think that's me. Considering you're the one who says something ridiculously horrible and then cries about personal attacks and bullying as soon as someone refutes that claim, even though there was no attacking or bullying involved.
And I'm not going to even start to engage you about abortion rights, because... well, you compared abortion to the Holocaust and Obama to Hitler. Honestly, whenever someone does that, they've instantly lost the argument and all arguments thereafter.
Gogo Godwin's Law, where the only exception is if Nazis were the subject of debate to begin with! :>
Well LOL right back at you, because you don't "get" to tell people to stop talking about something, nor do you legitimately "get" to tell people their opinions are stupid. Both of which you did. So I ''get" to call you on your rudeness and immaturity and yes your personal attack on me.
Honestly, when someone ignores the plight of innocent babies who are being KILLED, AND tries to say that Jewish Holocaust survivors WOULDN'T feel compassion for others who've been tortured and/or killed, they've lost the argument already. No matter how much your immature rude tongue says otherwise. It is YOU who was trying to compare WOMEN who got pregnant with Jewish Holocaust survivors! See now, you seem to have no idea even what you're talking about, in any of this whole issue. So please take my advice and grow up, learn the facts of life, and actually learn how to engage in a mature conversation about serious matters. Otherwise, you're gonna only be good at ogling Justin Bieber or Madonna or some other frivolously-engaged person. Maybe you could converse well about........which soda fizzes more or which one you like better.......?
Wow, personal attacks. She must have really got under your skin... I'm considering adding her to my X-mas card list.
Wait! You can't say X-mas! YOU'RE DISRESPECTING JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR (despite the fact that X is based on the Greek letter "ku" that forms the first letter in the word "Christ" and was heavily used by early Christians as an abbreviation for Christ as an identifier) AND YOU'RE GONNA BURN IN HELL AS WORMS RAPE YOU IN THE BUM FOR ALL ETERNITY YOU FILTHY HEATHEN
Now, is that someone raping me with worms or the worms themselves raping me? Cause I'm not sure that I could be all that traumatized by worm rape... you know considering the anatomy of worms.
Well, in Hell, the "worm dieth not," so apparently they're integral to the torture somehow, and I don't think their microscopic mouths would be a threat* to human skin...
* - Assuming, of course, the ludicrous notion that a Hell exists, your body maintains its form when you go there, and that you somehow have nerve endings to ravage or a lifespan to threaten
Why do you say I don't get to call stupid opinions stupid? If you said black people are America's number one problem, I'd call you racist. If you said women belong in the kitchen, I'd call you sexist. If you said the earth was flat, I'd definitely call that stupid (wait, you don't think the earth is flat, do you..?)
I never said you couldn't have opinions. I said - correctly so - that any opinion you express is going to get feedback on public forums, and a lot of the opinions you expressed are not going to win you many admirers. Especially relating anything to the Holocaust - it's just NOT an okay metaphor.
I honestly don't even understand your second paragraph, so I'm not going to comment on that.
Except I'm not about to move to Russia or any other Country. This Nation is mine, has been from birth and before that, and I will stay and fight for it if at all possible.
I would, however, be willing to send Obama and his cronies to Russia or wherever. There, they'd have a REAL reason to picket in the streets for "civil rights" and such. But I reckon they'd rather take the easy course and just disrupt easy-going American life.
And by the way, the News has said that Social Security checks and other necessary programs will still be funded.
It was the great Obama who threatened Americans with the dire warning that people might not get their checks, etc. And if the government does "shut down" for a few days or whatever, and if people don't get their checks, it will most likely be because HE causes it. Matter of fact, HE's the one who will have caused the shutdown in the first place, if it happens. The tyrant has vowed to put his unfeasible Bill into effect no matter what, even if Congress bans the bill. No one but a tyrant with a personal agenda would do such a thing.
If the government shut down occurs, Congress will continue to draw their salaries.
But what would we do without people telling us what is best for us?
Our leadership is absolutely abysmal because our citizens are abysmally lazy about seeking knowledge, abysmally lackadaisical about choosing leaders with real ideas and practical solutions instead of rigid ideologues, and abysmally stupid about supporting those who work against innovation and progress.
Yeah, let's shut down the government. What will that solve, exactly?
Exactly, nothing ever gets solved without government.
So wrong. I don't believe that and I didn't say that. I asked, what exactly would be solved by shutting down the government?
Hey well, as you admit, the populace are so bad at picking leaders, it may be better to let them rule themselves and accept the responsibility for their own stupidity. Meanwhile, you can personally agitate for people to help less-advantaged persons and families pay for their healthcare needs instead of trying to enforce it. That might be one way to look at it.
Well, I'm asking the question based on what is happening right now, in the real world. Practically speaking, what is gained from shutting down the federal government? You seem to think it would be beneficial but you won't say how. Shutting down the federal government will not result in the populace "ruling themselves." State and local government will still exist. I would argue that we are ruling ourselves when we participate in and reap the benefits from the governmental systems within which we live. We are choosing to rule ourselves by participating in a process that includes setting up and operating government programs at varying levels. The argument among the vast majority of the populace is not whether or not to have government at all, but what role should government have and at what level.
I'd like to know what wonderful result will happen from the shutting down of the federal government right now, in the real world that currently exists. It's an honest question.
Hurting the little people that depend on govt. in the hopes they will blame the other party.
Other than that, not much.
Well, first of all, in any form, less government generally means less stealing, spying and maiming, so for me that means less government is always better than more. Secondly, if "shutting down the government" means putting off the full implementation of Obamacare, the "service" that will otherwise make healthcare worse and more expensive, I'm all for it. If you're coming from that perspective, it makes perfect sense.
"I would argue that we are ruling ourselves when we participate in and reap the benefits from the governmental systems within which we live."
You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Self-rule would mean that those that do not wish to participate in government programs would not have to - even if they happened to benefit from it. Giving someone a present and then demanding payment from them is still coercion, even if the giver perceives that the receiver is benefitting from it. No matter how noble the intentions nor the amount of people who favour it, a violent act is a violent act.
"The argument among the vast majority of the populace . . . "
"Well, first of all, in any form, less government generally means less stealing, spying and maiming, so for me that means less government is always better than more." That is a broad, sweeping statement that I'm not willing to accept as true just because you said it.
"Secondly, if "shutting down the government" means putting off the full implementation of Obamacare, the "service" that will otherwise make healthcare worse and more expensive, I'm all for it. If you're coming from that perspective, it makes perfect sense." Okay, so you're willing to shut down the entire government because of Obamacare? You like to say that Tea Party republicans are not representative of libertarians yet, here you are, agreeing with them on something that, in my opinion, is not a solution but a useless obstructionist tactic. Why not advocate working together--libertarians, left, right, everyone--to come up with a plan? Shutting down the government over one policy is not a plan, it's a temper tantrum.
"You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. Self-rule would mean that those that do not wish to participate in government programs would not have to - even if they happened to benefit from it. Giving someone a present and then demanding payment from them is still coercion, even if the giver perceives that the receiver is benefitting from it. No matter how noble the intentions nor the amount of people who favour it, a violent act is a violent act." Eh, we've had this discussion before. No one is forcing you to participate. I know you think they are, but you could be a real revolutionary and live off the grid as well as find ways to survive without using money which would remove you from the tax system. People have done both.
"The argument among the vast majority of the populace . . . "
Ad-populum fallacy" Okay, I'll give you that one. ;-)
"That is a broad, sweeping statement that I'm not willing to accept as true just because you said it."
I wasn't expecting it - as you are familiar with my arguments I was simply explaining a rationale from that perspective.
". . . .so you're willing to shut down the entire government because of Obamacare?"
You said yourself that the whole government is not shut down in a "shut-down". "Essential services" are still maintained, never mind local governments. Suspending large elements of the government, however, is a solution I am willing to accept to prevent Obamacare, yes. I agree with the Tea Party on this particular issue but not for the same reason (I happen to agree with Noam Chomsky on foreign policy but he doesn't necessarily represent me either). Again, if you see it from my perspective it makes perfect sense: I believe Obamacare is theft, and it therefore follows that I would believe that any attempt to obstruct it from being implemented is simply self-defense. Imagine if you were being stuck up and you tried to wrestle the weapon away from the assailant - how absurd would it be for him to say "but you're not proposing any practical solution as an alternative!". Well maybe not right now, you'd rather he just leave you alone probably.
I can't speak for the Tea Party, but libertarians have been proposing alternative health solutions for decades. It just so happens that a libertarian health solution does not grant monopoly privileges to insurance companies, so is far less popular politically. Politicians are not willing to listen to solutions that don't involve them, thus why we are ignored.
" . . . you could be a real revolutionary and live off the grid as well as find ways to survive without using money which would remove you from the tax system. "
We also demand the right to live in our homes that we paid for and interact with individuals and groups that wish to interact with us without molestation. Why aren't we allowed to create competing currencies? What exactly gives the government special right to interfere with these relationships? An individual could be born, live, and die in a country without ever taking any advantage from a government service he didn't have to, but still find he has to pay for it. And at no point in his life did he sign a contract into it. If an extra-terrestrial saw this scenario, he would simply see some people running around with guns telling others what to do. He wouldn't construe this as "society".
You've got to laugh! Here's a man arguing that governments are thieves and therefore wrong but that people are right to steal off government!
I'm sorry, Innersmiff, but so much of what you say here makes me laugh. The government is an entity created by people. PEOPLE have created our government as it exists today. We who live under it are implicitly and explicitly agreeing to the rules that we the people have created for ourselves. The government does not have a mind. It does not experience greed; it does not commit murder. People do those things.
As for the rest, as soon as you became an adult, you gained the ability to choose for yourself whether or not you wish to live with the restraints as well as the comforts of the society in which you were born. By continuing to do so, you are agreeing to the "contract" you say you you did not sign. You can get out of this imaginary contract by not participating, as has been pointed out to you many times. I seem to recall you saying, in a previous conversation on these forums, that it was "too hard" to live your libertarian ideals. Well, duh! LOL
If it's so funny, why not actually refute me instead of just repeating slogans?
"The government does not have a mind. It does not experience greed; it does not commit murder. People do those things."
Exactly, people running around telling others what to do on the basis of an imaginary contract. It is violence, that is all.
You are conflating government with society. Society can mean any number of things, some of which have nothing to do with government. For example, just because I was, say, born into a society that thinks it is OK to rape people does not mean I do not have the right to demand that my family and I not be raped. What you're saying is that you have to go along with the crowd . . . just cuz. You live there - deal with it. That is as close to a non-argument as it gets.
I don't think I've ever argued that. You put forward the straw-man that the only way you could live by your libertarian ideals is to completely withdraw oneself from society and live as a primitive, or leave the country. I have never argued that using government services is anti-libertarian - after all, if slaves accept the food they are given, does that mean that they consent to slavery? I have argued, by itself, that to say "just leave" is a non-choice, seeing as one still has to ask permission from the government to leave, and be subject to expatriation taxes, therefore proving my point that the government actively molests individuals, to the point of almost owning them. If it really was a free and open contract, you really could just leave whenever you wanted with no strings whatsoever. It's not just the difficulty in this case, it is the nature of the action. The difficulty is not really the point.
And then if you can leave, you have the choice of which gang of thieves you would rather live under. #freedom
Imagine a time before governments:
Persons A, B and C live in separate houses. Persons A and B get together and agree that money should be pooled to save for a communal hot tub equi-distance from each house. They go to person C and bring it up, but person C says "no thanks, I don't think I need a hot tub". Persons A and B get really mad at this, seeing as they'd each rather pay for a third of a hot tub than a half, so try and persuade him further. C stands firm, he's really not that interested in a hot tub.
So A and B disappear for a while. C sits back and relaxes. One day C receives a letter in the post, inside it is a voting slip for the President of the Three Houses. He writes on the slip that he doesn't want there to be a President, and puts it in the ballot box.
A appears wearing a hat, declaring that he has been voted President since he and B both voted for him, and that the communal hot tub will be built and everyone will pay for it. C says he still doesn't want a hot tub. A argues that by voting he is implicitly agreeing to it, and society will benefit from the hot tub's presence even if he doesn't use it, so physically wrangles the money away from C.
At what point did C give consent to the hot tub?
Is A's violence justified because he put on a hat?
A and B do not have the right to annex C into their govt. If, however, C buys a house that is already a part of the govt, then he is implicitly agreeing to that government. I've had to fight that exact battle as the homeowners association that came into existence around my home tried to force me into their "govt.". They can't force me into it, but they can anyone buying into the area. Do your research before you join a society.
And, I guess, from a practical standpoint A and B have the power to force C into the govt. Not moral, but at the bottom might usually makes right.
"The government does not have a mind. It does not experience greed; it does not commit murder. People do those things."
Exactly, people running around telling others what to do on the basis of an imaginary contract. It is violence, that is all." The reason I find your arguments so funny is you blame people running around telling others what to do on the existence of government, as though people would not do that without government. History shows that some people will bully others with force whether or not a government exists. People have chosen to create governments to create some semblance of order. It is not perfect, but apparently it works well enough or it wouldn't be so prevalent.
"You are conflating government with society. Society can mean any number of things, some of which have nothing to do with government. For example, just because I was, say, born into a society that thinks it is OK to rape people does not mean I do not have the right to demand that my family and I not be raped. What you're saying is that you have to go along with the crowd . . . just cuz. You live there - deal with it. That is as close to a non-argument as it gets." Um, where have I ever said that you have to go along with the crowd? In fact, I've said the opposite. You can demand whatever you want. In fact, I've suggested that libertarians can work with the left and the right to create change. I believe I said that in this thread.
"I don't think I've ever argued that. You put forward the straw-man that the only way you could live by your libertarian ideals is to completely withdraw oneself from society and live as a primitive, or leave the country. I have never argued that using government services is anti-libertarian - after all, if slaves accept the food they are given, does that mean that they consent to slavery? I have argued, by itself, that to say "just leave" is a non-choice, seeing as one still has to ask permission from the government to leave, and be subject to expatriation taxes, therefore proving my point that the government actively molests individuals, to the point of almost owning them. If it really was a free and open contract, you really could just leave whenever you wanted with no strings whatsoever. It's not just the difficulty in this case, it is the nature of the action. The difficulty is not really the point." You like to say you have no choice and are forced through violence, presumably violence committed by government, to participate in this society. If you're going to say that, then I'm going to say "hogwash." You have choices. You are aware that your views are considered extreme by most people living under western governments and that it is unlikely that the change you want will fully occur in your lifetime. You can remain here and work for change, but if you do so you are implicitly agreeing to the "contract" even if you don't agree to every rule within it. I abhor capital punishment but I am not so foolish to think I that because I disagree with many laws and actions conducted by my government that I am somehow "molested" or "violently coerced" into living under them.
"And then if you can leave, you have the choice of which gang of thieves you would rather live under. #freedom" Again, well, duh!
" . . .some people will bully others with force whether or not a government exists."
Almost certainly, and libertarians oppose that too, but focus on the state as the monopoly of legal force over a whole land-mass as the primary aggressor in modern civilisation.
"People have chosen to create governments to create some semblance of order. It is not perfect, but apparently it works well enough or it wouldn't be so prevalent."
The government steals, spies on and kills people for it and its special interest's profit without many people catching on, so from that point of view it works very well, and is why it is so popular. "Order", I'm not so sure. Are the war on drugs, the war on terror, NSA spying and economic collapse examples of "order"? Did the "people" honestly choose all of those things?
"You can demand whatever you want. In fact, I've suggested that libertarians can work with the left and the right to create change."
Here's a compromising scenario for you then: I will personally assist under-privileged individuals and families with their insurance bills with the money saved from my taxes being lowered if you don't force me to participate in Obamacare. That is real cooperation and democracy, not this "like it or lump it", primitive style of governance that does nothing but alienate.
" . . . if you do so you are implicitly agreeing to the "contract" even if you don't agree to every rule within it. "
The right to enact rules in any other scenario comes from the owner of land. The government is a collective of thieves ruling over other people's person and property so is not qualified to tell an individual how to live.
How are you enjoying life at your government provided university?
I've been out for a while, mate, and developed my views when I was already there. Either way, accepting government services is still absolutely consistent with libertarianism. A slave can accept food from their owner whilst disagreeing with slavery.
If someone steals from me and then offers me some service, if it will benefit me in some significant way I will take it. You are saying that if you were enslaved, you would refuse to eat?
You can't raise a point, theoretically accepting my premise (that government is aggression/theft) for the sake of argument, and then just disregard it as soon as you see that I have a logical response.
If the government was aggressive, it would follow that taking from them whatever service they provide would not indicate approval nor consent. I make the same argument about aggression in a different context (slavery) and then you say "but we are not enslaved . . .". We're talking about aggression - slavery, theft, murder, rape. In any of those contexts, accepting any kind of service from the slaver, thief, killer or rapist would not indicate approval nor consent. Do you agree?
It won't let me reply to John's post so I'm replying to my own - just keep in mind I'm talking to John.
What happens to innersmiff happens to me as well. On many posts, there is no "reply" option, so I must reply to a post farther up on the page. It's frustrating because I can see that others have the option to reply to those posts. I wish there was something we could do to remedy that.
Those that do not want to participate in govt need not do so. Of course they will not be welcome to participate in the society that has collectively decided to live within that government, either.
What? If you don't want to be a part of society, opt out and go live in the antarctic! No one will hog tie you and keep you here.
Er! I was agreeing with you. You know, that's what the +1 means generally.
So you believe that when person A and person B has voted to kill person C, that C has implicitly agreed to the action by their presence in the country. That's what we're talking about here.
It's called capital punishment, and yes anyone willing to accept the society by living in it has implicitly accepted the decision to kill C.
They may not like the decision, and may in fact disagree violently, but by remaining have given their implicit permission. Their dislike is insufficient to override their desire for the society.
"Might is right" then. All your posturing against mob rule is simply for show when it suits you obviously.
From a practical standpoint, yes. From an ethical/moral one, no.
The same could be said for the person demanding the use of the things paid for by society/government but not wanting to contribute. If they have the power they can use them, if not they can't.
That's why we have a Constitution, so that person A and person B cannot indiscriminately vote to kill person C. Well, they CAN vote, but their votes will be kicked out by the court system that must uphold the Constitution.
Our Constitution is really our saving grace.
I agree with you wholeheartedly and shutting down the government is a backwards way to re-negotiate laws that were haphazardly passed in the past. Unfortunately this is just another way corporate influence is pulling strings to get out of allowing anything to be deducted from their bottom line. The American people are spoon fed phony news from news conglomerates controlled by corporations that do not want their actions or their names known. If you look at the contributors to our political leaders you will get a glimpse of who they are and the decisions of our law makers are more transparent. Unless we put away the phony issues (birth control, gay rights etc.) that distract us away from the real issues that our government should be concentrating on, congress will continue to act behind the scenes with autonomy and authority.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform is our only hope to get control of our government.
The phony issues are the obvious problems, to those who care to look. The distribution of wealth is what your talking about-term limits, etc. An obvious clue to the power is money vs the power of the people can be found in the gun debate. 86% of the American people polled in numerous polls agreed with stronger background checks. Including NRA members. We know how congress voted of behalf of their elected constituents-they didn't. They voted for the money. The gun debate is not the issue I'm pointing out-I could care less. The way the peoples voices are not being heard is the point. I say all new congress-all new country,
it would be a great folly to shut down the government. We need to keep it running. To stop this machine which keeps all of us on even keel would be disastrous. They just really wanted to stop the forward momentum of Obama care. They thought no further.
...maybe they should have.
The President should ignore the debt limit!
"...Failure to raise the debt will force the president to break a law — the only question is which one.
"The Constitution requires the president to spend what Congress has instructed him to spend, to raise only those taxes Congress has authorized him to impose and to borrow no more than Congress authorizes.
"If President Obama spends what the law orders him to spend and collects the taxes Congress has authorized him to collect, then he must borrow more than Congress has authorized him to borrow. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he will have to violate one of these constitutional imperatives. Which should he choose?..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opini … s&_r=0
"Rebels without a clue"
" This may be the way the world ends — not with a bang but with a temper tantrum.
"O.K., a temporary government shutdown — which became almost inevitable after Sunday’s House vote to provide government funding only on unacceptable conditions — wouldn’t be the end of the world. But a U.S. government default, which will happen unless Congress raises the debt ceiling soon, might cause financial catastrophe. Unfortunately, many Republicans either don’t understand this or don’t care...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opini … ef=opinion
"The House Rushes to a Shutdown"
"This time, it wasn’t just a few Tea Party hotheads who drove the United States government to the brink of shutting down. Early Sunday morning, all 231 House Republicans (along with 17 Democrats) decided that crippling health care reform was more important than keeping the government’s doors open. It was one of the most irresponsible votes since the last shutdown in 1996."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/30/opini … mp;emc=rss
What do you expect them to do, Ralph? Go along just to get along? Their constituents WANT that bill defeated - that means they are duty-bound to do their best to defeat it.
And where are the compromising democrats? Where were they 5 years ago when the GOP asked to be able to contribute? Where were they when Pelosi said they needed to pass the bill before they could learn what was in it? Why were they do determined to shove this bill down our throats without letting the GOP have a part in it?
Memories are long, Ralph, and the GOP hasn't forgotten how badly they were treated, nor has it forgotten on which side its bread is buttered. The GOP needs to represent its constituents - not the democrats' constituency.
Think about that for a second.
"Memories are long, Ralph, and the GOP hasn't forgotten how badly they were treated".
Nope. The memory of the GOP has proven time and time again to be short and selective. This oh so poor treatment they've received is a direct reaction to their conduct. They're like the bully that goes around beating kids up, finally gets punched in the mouth then starts crying to anyone who will listen "He hit me and I didn't do nuthin' I swear!".
The image below that Pretty Panther posted about the religious, certainly applies to the GOP. Attack, attack, attack until they get popped then start screaming about how they're being persecuted. Please stop.
They've acted like petulant children before Obama got elected and during his presidency. As Obama put it himself, anytime he extended his hand, he got back a fist. Anyone with an ACTUAL long memory and truthful recollection can attest to this. Of course though, in typical GOP fashion, when the President/Dems respond in kind it's "Why won't they negotiate? Why won't they compromise? Why are they shoving this down our throats?" Spare me. The "p" in "GOP" is for "projection".
You're speaking out of both sides of your mouth by the way. They're constituents want this bill defeated so everything the GOP does is an effort to make that happen, but you can't figure out why they're not invited to the table to "take part" in crafting it? Riiight. They just want to help of course. You've been shooting at me all day then show up to my door with gun in hand saying you just want to talk? Yeah, I'm the unreasonable one here for not opening my door. **rolls eyes**
Also, it's not a bill, it's a LAW. The time to try to defeat it has passed. It was voted on and it passed. They challenged it on constitutional grounds, they lost. They voted to repeal it 39 times, they failed. Their obligation to their constituents is to fight the good fight but if they lose that fight, they don't get to point guns at the head of the judges to change the score cards in their favor. Al Gore and his supporters wanted GWB to be defeated as well. He called for a recount DURING the election to fight the good fight for his supporters. Once it was clear that he lost, that was it, he lost. He didn't call for another recount after GWB was sworn in.
If you don't understand this... actually, it's not possible to not understand this... but boy will you pretend.
"Their constituents WANT that bill defeated - that means they are duty-bound to do their best to defeat it."
Their ignorant constituents also want the government to keep it's hands off of their Medicare! The Affordable Care Act was passed by both houses, signed by the president, declared Constitutional by the Supreme Court. And Obama was re-elected by a big margin. It's the law of the land. Suck it up! Make it work!
"the GOP hasn't forgotten how badly they were treated". "
Poor babies! They are the one who started playing hardball way back under Gingrich. Obama has done everything but kiss their ass.
By all means stop paying police, firelfighters and soldier. Because that would be far and reasonable. They are all rich enough to skip a few paychecks without being evicted right? And who needs food inspected? We'll just shut the plants down and fire all those people too. Who needs food?
How about we just give poor people access top health insurance and get onto more important wastes of money like pork bills and politicians.
Yes, OP. Shut down the government. The government that actually reduced the deficit and did its best to patch up the economic mess left by your hero, George Bush. Let's shut down the government and leave tens of thousands of workers unemployed for an indefinite amount of time. That'll really help fix things. OR, and this is a crazy suggestion, but hear me out...the radical right could actually put aside its blind hatred of Obama (the atheist Muslim and fascist communist) and start working with democrats to fix the problem. Not that they will. Right-wingers are a bunch of sore losers, who grasped at straws when Obama won, and are now just being jerks to pin the blame on the democrats.
Brenda, I'm inclined to agree that your reaction is a bit extreme. Abortion is a touchy subject, and people will react when arguments like yours come up. I'm fully pro-choice, but even my father, who is staunchly pro-life, said "abortion is a necessary evil in an imperfect world". Maybe you should think of it that way. Rape, ectopic pregnancies, social/family situations...these are all unique cases and can't be seen in black and white. If we lived in an ideal world where pregnancies always went well and never happened by accident, then abortion wouldn't exist - but that isn't the case.
If you don't like smoking, don't smoke. If you don't like drinking, don't drink. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. You believe that you have the right to impose your morals on others. But really, what's moral about creating a black market for abortions? If abortion were made legal, women (and unborn babies) would die in squalid conditions at the hands of back alley doctors or coat hangers. I suppose that seems better to you, though, right? At least our society will espouse proper morals...
Also Brenda, after reading aliasis's post, I can't see anything there that's immature or full of personal attacks. By telling her to "learn the facts of life" (whatever that means), you're essentially attacking her to invalidate her rebuttal. This is what someone does when they're cornered and can't think of a valid argument.
Your comment about the Holocaust is an enormous stretch and completely incomparable. Killing a non-sentient fetus is very different from taking people and murdering them by the millions.
But, since you bring up the "facts of life", here are a few for you:
-Abortion rates have gone down 6% since the year 2000
-By 2010, abortion rates had gone down to about 1.06 million, which is not "millions" as you claim.
In terms of reasons for abortion:
-74% Having a baby would dramatically change their life
-73% Cannot afford a baby now (but I guess you'd rather see poverty increase)
-48% Do not want to be a single mother or having relationship problems (I'm sure a baby would be really happen growing up with an abusive parent or unhappy home)
-38% Have completed my childbearing
-32% Not ready for a(nother) child
-25% Do not want people to know I had sex or got pregnant (i.e. religious reasons, fear of harm from family)
Anyone who says "good" to a government shut down needs to say it to the face of veterans who will lose access to hospitals when they are limited to active duty personal only after the shutdown.
Nobody should do that to those veterans just to make a fucking point. It's pitiful.
I figured as much, Zelkiiro. Most pro-lifers just want to stroke their moral egos. They don't have perspective or foresight. Too bad Brenda seems to have disappeared, as her absurd defensiveness was entertaining and quite reflective of her kind. My diagnosis for her would be a case of severe, acute butthurt caused by inability to handle criticism. I wish her all the best in her treatment and recovery.
http://nationalreview.com/articles/2435 … nis-prager
I could add another reason to this guy's column.
The Left knows its doing wrong, and they want to blame it on the Right.
"...AND tries to say that Jewish Holocaust survivors WOULDN'T feel compassion for others who've been tortured and/or killed, they've lost the argument already."
Brenda, what the crap are you talking about? When did she say Holocaust survivors wouldn't sympathize with people who were killed or tortured. It's YOU who sees abortion as murder...murdering something that doesn't even know it's alive. The idea of abortion being "murder" is a perspective of yours. It's not fact, it's opinion. People like you can't seem to tell the difference.
And I'd like to reiterate aliasis's post about your insane comparison to the Holocaust and Hitler. YOU need to learn the facts of life, because something tells me you know next to nothing about the events and historical figure you allude to so freely. You're the immature one. You've lost your temper several times already. Would you like some painkillers for that butthurt of yours?
Hey Brenda, I just invented a drinking game surrounding your posts. Every time you whine like a little baby when someone disagrees with you, tell them to "learn the facts of life" or use the words "mature"/"immature", I'll take a drink....was going to write something else, but I think I have alcohol poisoning.
Innersmiff, I was not ignoring your point because I felt it was a logical response. I honestly believe that your response is rather unfocused and not very responsive to my points. You say "libertarians focus on the state as the monopoly of legal force over a whole land-mass as the primary aggressor in modern civilisation." Okay. I get that. It is my position that "the state" is not some sentient being that commits aggression. It is people, who happen to be acting together in the form of government, who are being aggressive. Take away the government and people will still act as aggressors. Yes, libertarians focus on the state, that is obvious; I just don't see "the state" as being responsible for aggression. We, the people, are ultimately responsible because we buy into the system and the people who implement it
"People have chosen to create governments to create some semblance of order. It is not perfect, but apparently it works well enough or it wouldn't be so prevalent."
The government steals, spies on and kills people for it and its special interest's profit without many people catching on, so from that point of view it works very well, and is why it is so popular. "Order", I'm not so sure. Are the war on drugs, the war on terror, NSA spying and economic collapse examples of "order"? Did the "people" honestly choose all of those things?. This is you cherrypicking the parts of government that you feel do not provide "order." I could give you a laundry list of services provided by governments that I am quite pleased with: clean water, safe transportation system, a national park system, etc. As for those you listed, I agree that the war on terror has been a waste of money and ineffective, the NSA spying on Americans is wrong, and no one likes an economic collapse. That doesn't mean I want to toss away everything the people have done to create order, safety, and livability through governmental practices.
" " . . . if you do so you are implicitly agreeing to the "contract" even if you don't agree to every rule within it. "
The right to enact rules in any other scenario comes from the owner of land. The government is a collective of thieves ruling over other people's person and property so is not qualified to tell an individual how to live. Okay, so. I get that's what you believe. I disagree. I'm not sure what there is to discuss. Again, "the government" is made up of people. People have decided they want a government that operates under certain rules and they have decided to give certain people the ability to create policies, regulations and laws to govern what other people can do. Sometimes we will like those rules, other times we won't. You believe "the government" is a collective of thieves. I believe people in government provide essential services, services that I am happy are there for me. Yes, I vehemently disagree with quite a lot that is perpetrated by our leaders.
If the government was aggressive, it would follow that taking from them whatever service they provide would not indicate approval nor consent. I make the same argument about aggression in a different context (slavery) and then you say "but we are not enslaved . . .". We're talking about aggression - slavery, theft, murder, rape. In any of those contexts, accepting any kind of service from the slaver, thief, killer or rapist would not indicate approval nor consent. Do you agree?" Since you have a choice, then yes, participating in the system that includes paying taxes and accepting services does indicate implicit agreement to the contract, in my opinion.
I forgot to respond to this one:
"You can demand whatever you want. In fact, I've suggested that libertarians can work with the left and the right to create change."
Here's a compromising scenario for you then: I will personally assist under-privileged individuals and families with their insurance bills with the money saved from my taxes being lowered if you don't force me to participate in Obamacare. That is real cooperation and democracy, not this "like it or lump it", primitive style of governance that does nothing but alienate.
How much money would you save on taxes if Obamacare is not implemented? Would I take your word on the amount?
How will you determine who is underprivileged? What if I don't agree with your assessment?
How will I know you are holding up your end of the bargain?
Assuming I have a way to monitor the agreement, what happens if you don't fulfill it? How will it be enforced?
Here are two ways I envisage it will go down:
1. I will do it individually, case by case - individuals and/or families will come to me explaining their position and why it is they are struggling to pay for their health bills, and I will decide how much money I'm willing to give on that basis.
2. A healthcare charity that I trust can bill me a certain amount and give using their guidelines.
Underprivileged people are those who are genuinely downtrodden or unfortunate. I'm not willing to give to those who I believe will not be responsible with their health or who have squandered their money on trivial things ahead of their health in the past.
If you don't agree, you can try to persuade me otherwise. For the sake of argument I'll say that I will stipulate an absolute promise to pay for the given amount of time, then if I stop paying I can be prosecuted in a civil court for break of contract.
Of course I don't have to stipulate that. I don't have to give to anyone in the first place if I don't want to. It is my money. This is the idea of a voluntary society, as opposed to an aggressive one.
Ah, how Dickensian, the deserving and the undeserving poor.
Ever wondered why private charity failed?
Is it so unreasonable to be opposed to giving money to people who are just going to squander it? Poor, or rich?
Blame the government. The government essentially criminalised fraternal medical aid societies that catered to the poor for less than a week's wages membership fee. High-end doctors and big pharma were not satisfied with this so lobbied for doctor licenceship and swathes of regulation that phased the fraternities out, and allowed hospitals and insurance companies to charge higher prices.
You are actually in favor of unlicensed and so often unqualified people practicing as doctors? Basically it being legal for any person to get up in the morning and decide to be a doctor? Because I sure am not.
"phased the fraternities out"
I'm not aware that fraternities have been "phased out." They have been suspended from several campuses for violating various school rules such as dangerous hazing and overdoing drinking.
Two countries divided by a common language!
I think Innersmiff was referring to fraternities in the UK prior to the formation of the NHS which weren't outlawed or legislated in any way but rather outlived their usefulness.
Thanks. As far as I'm concerned, fraternities have pretty much outlived their usefulness in the U.S. also, but they aren't in any danger of disappearing. On the positive side the have dropped their "clauses" which prohibited anyone with African American or Jewish ancestry from becoming "brothers" or "sisters."
Blarst! Just realised that I missed out the essential part of my response!
The fraternities were health care clubs - people paid a few pence per week for basic health cover.
Our fraternities are private living and dining clubs with Greek names (e.g, Sigma Chi, Zeta Beta Tau, Chi Omega) on college campuses. Until relatively recently they were characterized by racial and religious discrimination, and they are still known for their drinking parties as depicted in the movie "Animal House."
I don't know, having cheap and easily accessible healthcare seems pretty useful to me - no socialism required.
I don't put any value judgment on that - I only qualify that aggressive violence should not be used to prevent an individual from receiving healthcare from whomever they choose.
This is a bit confusing because you've mixed my responses to both you and John into one post. My bit about ignoring my logical response was to John.
Well I'm glad you finally admit that the state is aggressive. There is not a single point I make that contradicts the notion that the state is a group of people committing aggression - what makes the state different from any other gang of thugs, like the mafia, however, is that nobody is under the illusion that the mafia are out for the public's interest, that we vicariously live through the mafia or that we are contracted to the mafia simply by existing. That is what makes the state so dangerous. We are in agreement that aggression is occurring, but the people who vote for politicians don't see it like that. They see it as people power, or something, and that is what's wrong about it.
Is it irrational for someone to question an institution that makes the war on terror, the war on drugs and the NSA spying possible? Is it not conceivable that these - let's not beat around the bush - horrific things are a direct product of the state and not some incidental thing that could have occurred either way? You know, maybe we should be questioning the logic of giving an institution that claims the right to assassinate you all the power over our water, transportation and anything else. All of these things can be and have been provided by private or cooperative institutions, and well regulated by private systems of law - so the idea of a stateless society is not as much of an outrageous idea as commonly believed. Order comes from voluntary cooperation. The state, as monopoly of aggression, is precisely the opposite of disorder.
"I believe people in government provide essential services, services that I am happy are there for me."
OK, so how does this give you the right to force it on others? I feel that my home contents insurance is essential - how does this give me the right to enforce the same policy on to everyone else?
"Since you have a choice . . ."
My philosophy questions the legitimacy of the party that gives me this choice, so it is essentially irrelevant. A mugger comes up to your house and threatens you "Your house is now mine. If you don't like that proposition, you can just leave". That, in the industry of logic, is known as a 'false choice'.
We could go on forever with this. Since we don't agree on the basic concept of whether or not you have a choice to live under government, it makes little sense to continue our discussion. You believe taxation with representation is theft, and I believe it isn't. You believe you cannot extricate yourself from a system that you don't agree with, and I believe you can. You believe choosing to live within that system and enjoying its benefits does not constitute implicit acceptance of a social contract, and I believe it does. We do not agree on these basic premises, and I don't have the time or motivation to continue to argue them.
We are arguing this basic concept and you're fudging it. You've yet to provide any argument in support of your assertions other than "you can leave". You can leave if a burglar raids your house, but does not leaving indicate consent? Simple question really.
Of course, if a burglar raids my house and I leave I am not consenting. The problem is, you are equating government actions that were formed as the result of laws enacted by duly elected representatives of the people with burglary, which is a crime.
Sure, what's the difference between some individual of their own accord attempting burglary, and 51% of people who vote voting for a President that hires the IRS to do it instead? All you've done is deferred the violence a few steps.
I get it. You believe that. I don't. I'm voluntarily participating in a system that works that way. You think you are not voluntarily participating. What more is there to say?
It is my contention that you need to be able to defend what you believe to be true, and you haven't.
Yes, you are right. Like I said I have neither the time nor motivation to continue a philosophical discussion that, in my opinion, cannot properly be done via an internet forum.
Let me just say that I do admire your intellectual conviction. In fact, I used to have similar ideas, back when I was in college. Now, I believe in solutions that are practical. Sometimes we sacrifice some freedom for comfort. That is what humans so. Consider a young adult who has a part-time low paying job and still lives with his or her parents, and the parents have rules under which he or she must live. The young adult chooses to stay there, even though she doesn't like some of the rules, because the apartment she could afford is crappy and she would eat nothing but rice and beans. She willingly sacrifices some freedom for comfort.
We all do it. We just disagree on which freedoms we are willing to sacrifice and for what comforts. It's as basic as that. Libertarians do it, too, they just don't like to admit it. ;-)
Even if we buy that the government is practical, what is so great about practicality anyway? It was vastly more practical and economical to have slaves perform cotton picking than paid labour, but we decided to ignore utility for what is right. Now, I can gather that you accept the logical validity of what I'm saying - so what grounds are there to have an opposing view? Just because we feel like it? That is basically what you are saying.
It is not logically immoral to stay at your parents' house as a young adult - but if they were simultaneously running a human-trafficking organisation there, that would be an entirely different story. Is it OK to ignore that because you happen to get shelter, a bathroom and three solid meals a day? I don't deny the right of an individual to give up their freedom for comfort and security, but you're not just sacrificing your own freedom by buying into the statist paradigm, you are sacrificing others' too. And that doesn't suddenly become legitimate once the majority of people agree (as slavery should have taught us).
The great thing about libertarianism is that even if we disagree, each of us can sacrifice as much and whichever freedoms we wish in exchange for whatever comforts we wish, and nobody is allowed to impinge on that, nor force their own idea upon others. You want a welfare state? Good for you - institute an organisation that will encourage people to contribute for the poor and the needy. You want to be protected from terrorists? Great - hire a security agency. All this furore about school prayer? Gone - send your children to a school that does or doesn't have prayer, depending on what you want. Gay marriage? Do what you want and call it what you want, the government has no business in it.
It just makes things a lot easier, no violence required.
To keep it short, because I have to go to work:
Practicality should be tempered with morality.
You are participating in statist paradigm (as you call it, I don't agree with that label) by choosing to live within it. I know you disagree, but that is what I believe and I have explained why I believe it. Just because you don't accept my explanation does not mean that I have not explained it. You, as an individual, could choose more personal freedom in many ways, but you choose not to for your own comfort. You have said as much in previous discussions.
All that said, there are a million nuanced discussions we could have to explain our positions, but I am not willing to go much further because I'd rather spend my time doing other things.
I do this for distraction and entertainment, mostly, not for deep philosophical enlightenment. I don't think this is the platform for that. I'd rather read a book or have an in-depth discussion with a live person. Who knows, maybe we can do that someday.
You're not getting away with it that easily. You just want to slip in your straw-man and get out. "Look everybody, he stays here so he accepts that government is great! Ha Ha!", even though I've explained why this is logically incoherent without response. You've accepted the point that a burglar has no right to say "you can leave", but ignore the point that doing it by democracy is no different and you respond with something about "practicality". You've essentially ignored my point on that as well.
If that's because you don't have time, that's fine, but repeating the same point that I've dismantled numerous times now as your concluding statement is not honest.
I did not ignore your point about practicality. I stated, very briefly, that practicality should be tempered with morality. That alone is a HUGE discussion and I'm not going to get into it.
I have responded to you many times regarding your points about government force, but you don't accept it, and I'm not interested in taking the time to go into much more detail. You can label that as dishonest if you want, but that is not my intention, and I think you're being a bit immature with that statement. You might believe you have dismantled my points. Fine. Go ahead and believe it. My ego is not so needy as to continue to argue with you over the same things when I know they are deep philosophical differences that cannot be resolved with a few paragraphs on an internet forum.
I must wonder why you enter into a debate if it is not your intention to take it to its logical conclusion. I don't see it as a philosophical issue, only a factual one. What is the difference between theft by burglary and theft by committee? My contention is that there is none. To pass it off, in a concluding statement, as if this is something like a spiritual belief or a quirky way of looking at life, that I don't take seriously is dishonest.
I'm not under the illusion that I'm going to change your mind over a forum thread, but it is important to portray your opponent's arguments fairly, and I don't feel you've done that. I won't say any more on the matter.
What is the difference between theft by burglary and theft by committee? My contention is that there is none. To pass it off, in a concluding statement, as if this is something like a spiritual belief or a quirky way of looking at life, that I don't take seriously is dishonest.
See, this is what I mean. I have explained to you, many times, my position. If the "committee" consists of people who are selected by a fair process to make decisions, and if those people can be voted out if they are found to be lacking by the voters, then it is not theft. The committee might make decisions that are morally wrong, or that some people disagree with. In the U.S., we have appeals processes and courts; we can vote for whoever we want to represent our views. You think it is theft. I've explained why I don't, yet you keep acting as though I haven't explained it. Apparently, you think my position requires further explanation. I don't. That does not make me dishonest.
To pass it off, in a concluding statement, as if this is something like a spiritual belief or a quirky way of looking at life, that I don't take seriously is dishonest. I don't even know where you got that. I have given you a considerable amount of my time, given that I have other priorities, because I respect your responses. I am even taking time, right now, that I would prefer to use for something else, and that is my choice. Just because I don't give you the amount of time YOU think you deserve does not mean I am portraying your arguments unfairly or dismissing your beliefs.
By the way, you engaged me first in this thread. I took the time to respond.
What really burns my a#$ is the government workers who are now speaking out that they were not prepared for the government shut down. They are worried about paying their bills, paying their mortgages and healthcare premiums. I feel so very sorry for them. NOT!!!!!!. I have lost a business I spent twenty years building. My credit is in shambles and I have to learn another occupation after spending forty years learning the one I left. I say it is high time that the other half (government) learn what it is like with no insular job where you get paid no matter what happens. What happened to the sequestration? Did we recover or was it magically waved away? It is about time we let the other half in on the reality of living in the real world and not just talking about them(us) as the people that just have to knuckle under and pay the tab.
And obviously having less qualified more stupid people take government jobs (because the best candidates will leave) will improve the situation.
My son, working for the Bureau of Reclamation, is laid off.
Wonder if congress, including politicians, have had their paychecks stopped along with the rest of the country in this posturing nonsense?
Oh wishful thinking Wilderness , if that was the case they would never have shut it down. I wish there was some way we could fire Congress for not doing thier job and for acting like 2 yr. olds in a play ground except the suckie thing is that their playground is the American public.
No, the POTUS and Congress continue to get paid. Only a small handful of politicians in Washington have opted to refuse their salary.
I'm sure you're right. Just as sure as I am that even those refusing their salary are doing nothing more than grandstanding; losing that small portion of their total income isn't even going to be felt, let alone hurt. Not like my son, who feeds a family of 6 on it.
Can Congress arrange a special election to have the citizens vote on the matter?
Instead of shutting down the government.
Why would they ever want something like that to happen? The very essence of their existence is to govern with autonomy. The elections are set up to their advantage so they can fulfill their agenda as dictated by the party and their contributors. And years have gone into the gerrymandering that now determines their parties numbers to carry forth their objectives. Money is at the center of this whole disturbance in the grand scheme of things for them and the payoff will be the end result. The situation will only change when we the electorate gets up off of our dead butts and decide to elect people not run by the corporate oligarchy. We must learn to listen to the facts and decide what is best for the country and vote for people who carry out OUR wishes. We must not be sidetracked by petty issues drummed up by them and the paid media and find agreement among ourselves and not some phony politicians rants.
Term limits, publicly financed campaigns and lobby reform are our only hope.
Libertarianism worked much better when an ocean was sufficient to separate us from enemies in other countries and our country was primarily one of people living on farms where they grew most of their own food or living in small towns where there was a spirit of community and neighborliness and where children lived nearby and took care of their parents in their old age. Now most people work for employers where they are subject to injuries on the job, layoffs due to failure of the firm or recession, unjust or discriminatory treatment, being fired without good cause and retirement at an arbitrary age without a pension. Health care was provided by a family doctor who didn't expect to become an instant millionaire. Along with many blessings technology has brought the need for government regulation--automobile traffic control, air traffic control, prescription drug testing and control, firearm regulation, police, courts and prisons and so forth. Libertarianism simply doesn't address society's many needs that go beyond each individual. Rand Paul's expression of disdain for the need for public businesses to provide their to everyone without regard to race is an example where libertarianism misses the boat. I assume you agree that hotels, restaurants, airlines, trains, buses should serve everyone without regard to race?? Apparently Rand Paul didn't see why a law is necessary to assure this basic right. (After an avalanche of criticism he may have reluctantly walked his position back on that issue. I don't recall.)
Questions for you:
1. Do you think the public are incapable of recognising threats to society and arranging adequate protection without government coercion?
2. In what time period are you referring to where there were no corporations, no firings, no injuries, no discriminatory treatment, no weapons and no hospitals?
3. Do you think private companies are incapable of providing the skills and resources necessary to enact air traffic control, car traffic control, drug testing, police, courts and prisons?
As for your point on Rand Paul: he actually makes a very good case against the violations of property rights inherent in the civl rights act in your post below if you cared to think about it. Is it incoherent to suggest that if we accept freedom of speech, even those viewpoints we find abhorrent, we should accept freedom of association on the same basis?
My replies would be:
1. Yes. the public is not going to spontaneously create an intelligence agency of the type that detects terrorist action, or a search and rescue squad able to rescue people from the Antarctic (for example)
3. I think they would add a profit margin making all of these things more expensive for no good reason. They would probably also provide worse service as witness privatization of trains (UK) and phone service (US) leading to breakdown of the tracks and grid--resulting in fatalities but not convictions.
1. If we accept that, it would therefore indicate there was no demand for such a thing, which brings into question the necessity of it.
3. Private businesses can provide great public services provided there is adequate competition. An increased profit margin will only encourage more entrepreneurs to get into the market, therefore increasing competition and in turn increase the quality of the service. The presence of other providers will also compel businesses to lower prices. This is not the case with the current practice of phony 'privitisation' involving the handover of government service to whichever private company lobbied them to most to create a monopoly. There is little or no competition in either of the cases you brought up, naturally creating problems.
Who would pay the private enterprise providing anti-terrorism intelligence? Or setting up for a rescue operation in Antartica? I don't think you'll find very many private companies altruistic enough to do either without being paid for it.
1) In which case there is no demand for introducing the system you suggest, as people haven't done it. And by method of civil disobedience they very easily could.
3) Then why is healthcare more expensive than any another country in the world when comparing like to like (e.g. specific surgeries) but does not have the best outcomes in the world (e.g. rates of survival)
"1. Do you think the public are incapable of recognising threats to society and arranging adequate protection without government coercion?"
That's what democratically elected city councils, state legislatures and Congress do. The process is far from perfect and sometimes not very democratic, but it more or less works.
The caption says: "I'm not saying the candidate wouldn't be expensive, but he's withing our budget."
"2. In what time period are you referring to where there were no corporations, no firings, no injuries, no discriminatory treatment, no weapons and no hospitals?"
From the earliest period of our history during which our country has gradually changed from an agrarian, small town and business society to it's present urban, high tech, world-interconnected state.
"3. Do you think private companies are incapable of providing the skills and resources necessary to enact air traffic control, car traffic control, drug testing, police, courts and prisons?"
Private companies are capable of doing a lot, but quite a few scam the public, pollute the environment and abuse their employees.
Rand Paul on Civil Rights:
INTERVIEWER: But under your philosophy, it would be okay for Dr. King not to be served at the counter at Woolworth’s?
PAUL: I would not go to that Woolworths, and I would stand up in my community and say that it is abhorrent, um, but, the hard part — and this is the hard part about believing in freedom — is, if you believe in the First Amendment, for example — you have to, for example, most good defenders of the First Amendment will believe in abhorrent groups standing up and saying awful things and uh, we're here at the bastion of newspaperdom, I'm sure you believe in the First Amendment so you understand that people can say bad things.It’s the same way with other behaviors. In a free society, we will tolerate boorish people, who have abhorrent behavior, but if we're civilized people, we publicly criticize that, and don't belong to those groups, or don't associate with those people.
As the Courier-Journal noted in a long article of Paul’s history of controversial statements, the “criticism mirrored the views of his father [Rep. Ron Paul], who stood up on the House floor when it celebrated the 40th anniversary of the act in 2004 and denounced it as ‘a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.’”
Indeed, Rand Paul, in a 2002 letter to the Bowling Green Daily News, made a similar point about the U.S. Fair Housing Act, saying it "ignores the distinction between private and public property." He added: “Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate.”
In other words, Paul’s problem with the Civil Rights Act appears to be with the delicate balance that Dirksen had struck in order to bring along the votes of other Republicans — not “ramifications and extensions.”
Indeed, we could find no reference to “ramifications and extensions” in the interview — or in other high-profile interviews that Paul had at the time to explain the Courier Journal remarks.
To be fair to Paul, we have included lengthy excerpts from the interviews.
Here’s what Paul told National Public Radio on May 19, 2010:
ROBERT SIEGEL: You've said that business should have the right to refuse service to anyone, and that the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA, was an overreach by the federal government. Would you say the same by extension of the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: What I've always said is that I'm opposed to institutional racism, and I would've, had I've been alive at the time, I think, had the courage to march with Martin Luther King to overturn institutional racism, and I see no place in our society for institutional racism.
SIEGEL: But are you saying that had you been around at the time, you would have hoped that you would have marched with Martin Luther King but voted with Barry Goldwater against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
Dr. PAUL: Well, actually, I think it's confusing on a lot of cases with what actually was in the civil rights case because, see, a lot of the things that actually were in the bill, I'm in favor of. I'm in favor of everything with regards to ending institutional racism. So I think there's a lot to be desired in the civil rights. And to tell you the truth, I haven't really read all through it because it was passed 40 years ago and hadn't been a real pressing issue in the campaign, on whether we're going to vote for the Civil Rights Act.
SIEGEL: But it's been one of the major developments in American history in the course of your life. I mean, do you think the '64 Civil Rights Act or the ADA for that matter were just overreaches and that business shouldn't be bothered by people with a basis in law to sue them for redress?
Dr. PAUL: Right. I think a lot of things could be handled locally. For example, I think that we should try to do everything we can to allow for people with disabilities and handicaps. You know, we do it in our office with wheelchair ramps and things like that. I think if you have a two-story office and you hire someone who's handicapped, it might be reasonable to let him have an office on the first floor rather than the government saying you have to have a $100,000 elevator. And I think when you get to solutions like that, the more local the better, and the more common sense the decisions are, rather than having a federal government make those decisions.
I honestly fail to see the controversy in this. Only rampant statists could see any.
Don't know about controversy, but there is humor there - it's funny to watch him being asked a "yes, no" question and talk and talk all the way around it without ever answering the question itself. Typical politician.
There's a bit of that, there's also the age old problem in that before a libertarian can answer a question from the media he or she first has to address the fallacies inherent in the question.
Libertarians get accused of being isolationists, so the question usually goes "so you find the actions against Syria acceptable?". First the libertarian has to point out that arguing not to intervene in an action is not an argument for the action, and then he or she can actually answer in a way that would be informative.
Anyone who is in favor of a government shutdown has no clue what our government is or what it does. Just take the House Republicans, for example. All but two of them voted in favor of a shutdown, and then all of a sudden an outrage and a temper tantrum asking why the WWII memorial and the NIH are closed. It's because you shut down the government, you idiots! Are these folks just plain out to lunch or what?
Well, yes. They are. Out to lunch, that is.
Their decisions have no effect on them - they carefully make the laws so that they do not apply to congress. Only sometimes they DO have an effect on our lawmakers (the vets visiting the memorial) and suddenly it matters!
By 72 percent to 22 percent, Americans oppose Congress “shutting
down major activities of the federal government” as a way to stop the
Affordable Care Act from going into effect, the national survey from
Quinnipiac University found. (Source: Bloomberg, Oct. 1)
Here's another poll:
A 54-percent majority of voters would like to see all or part of the healthcare law repealed.
President Obama only received a 53-percent majority of votes over Mitt Romney, and many Democrats call that a mandate. Why wouldn't a 54-percent majority of people who oppose Obamacare be a mandate too?
I say, let's listen to the people, open government, and repeal Obamacare. That's what the people want. It sounds like a great compromise, and the majority of Americans would support it. Are you okay with that?
Poll results depend on who takes the poll and what the motivation of the pollster and whoever hired the pollster is and hence the wording of the questions. The results can easily be manipulated by the pollster. I read somewhere that a big majority supported the "Affordable Care Act," but the same people being polled didn't support "Obama Care." There are polls and polls. They should be taken with a grain of salt and not cited as an excuse to shut the country down.
I don't know where you read that the majority of people support Obamacare. Poll after poll says otherwise. I guess if you look hard enough, you might be able to find a poll or two that confirm what you want them to confirm. In reality, however, the polls show that Americans don't want Obamacare.
I'm prepared to concede that most polls indicate that more people are opposed to Obamacare than support it. However, a majority don't approve of shutting the government down over it.
As for Reid’s statistics, they don’t add up too well either. Here’s what Reid said: “CNN, CNBC in separate polling show 59 — the same number in both polls — 59 percent of the American people support Obamacare, and even a larger number of people think the government shutdown is the worst idea that ever came along.”
An aide explained that CNBC had a poll that found “59 percent of Americans are opposed to defunding Obamacare if it means defaulting and shutting down the government.” We see the 59 percent, but opposing to defunding is not the same as supporting the law. We also don’t see that they said that a government shutdown is the “worst idea that ever came along.”
As for the CNN poll, published in May, it found that 59 percent of respondents favor health-care reform or oppose it because it is not liberal enough. Again, we see 59 percent, but this result is not the same as support for Obamacare, as it actually includes people who don’t like Obamacare because it does too little.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac … obamacare/
The good news for Republicans? A new CBS News poll shows ObamaCare just as unpopular as it was before the shutdown in a survey taken on the first day of both government rollouts. The bad news? Even those who oppose ObamaCare aren’t happy to have a government shutdown over it, and more blame is accruing to the GOP — at least so far:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/10/03/c … obamacare/
A recent survey conducted by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans surveyed were unaware that the Affordable Care Act's online marketplace for health insurance exchanges go live on October 1st. Even more disturbingly, nearly three-quarters of uninsured Americans surveyed — those who are intended to benefit from this — were unaware.
But being unaware of this critically important aspect of the law did not stop people from having an opinion of the law itself. And people's opinion of the law also hinges on what you call it.
Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are obviously the same thing, but they have different favorability ratings. CNBC's third-quarter All-American Economic Survey asked 812 respondents what they thought of Obamacare and what they thought of the Affordable Care Act.
Nearly one third of respondents did not know what the Affordable Care Act is, compared to only 12% who didn't know what Obamacare is — which probably reflects the more popular usage of the term "Obamacare" than "Affordable Care Act." The positives and negatives of the law rise when it is called "Obamacare" as opposed to the "Affordable Care Act." The survey concluded that 46% of respondents oppose Obamacare, while only 37% oppose the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, the positive approval rating of the law jumps 7 points from 22-29% when it is called Obamacare. The rest of the respondents were unsure. When Obama's name is attached to health care, people's personal opinions of Obama himself are likely to skew their perception of the law. In other words, Republicans and Democrats react pretty much like you'd expect.
Another interesting revelation of the survey was that Republicans think they know more about Obamacare than everyone else. While 30% of respondents as a whole admitted they felt they didn't know enough about Obamacare to have an opinion, only 18% of Republicans said the same.
The term "Obamacare" was originally coined by opponents of the health care reform law in the days of its inception, and for a long time was used almost exclusively by opponents of the law because it had a more negative connotation to it than "health reform" or "Affordable Care Act". While Obama has won every institutional battle over health care reform, opponents of the law are still winning the propaganda war.
The president remains confident. He told students at a community college in Maryland the other day, "Once it's working really well, I guarantee they will not call it Obamacare."
I agree with the 72% of Americans who do not think government should be shut down to de-fund the ACA. I don't think laws should be repealed based upon a refusal to fund government otherwise. I think the Constitutional method of changing laws should be followed. I used to believe that conservatives supported the Constitution too.
It's disappointing that you won't address the statement I made about a minimum of fifty-four percent of Americans opposing Obamacare. Weren't you recently telling somebody to stop avoiding your questions when you said that they didn't answer your questions about abortion and gay marriage? Now, it appears that you are avoiding the fact that Americans don't want Obamacare.
I oppose the shutdown of government, and I agree with your statement about the right way to oppose policy. I also oppose, just like the majority of Americans, Obamacare.
You are a victim of a propaganda campaign funded by David Koch and designed by Ed Meese:
"WASHINGTON — Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama’s health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.
"DRIVING FORCES David Koch of Americans for Prosperity, Michael A. Needham of Heritage Action and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III played roles in the health law fight.
"Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed “blueprint to defunding Obamacare,” signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.
"It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans — including their cautious leaders — into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.
“We felt very strongly at the start of this year that the House needed to use the power of the purse,” said one coalition member, Michael A. Needham, who runs Heritage Action for America, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation. “At least at Heritage Action, we felt very strongly from the start that this was a fight that we were going to pick.”
"Last week the country witnessed the fallout from that strategy: a standoff that has shuttered much of the federal bureaucracy and unsettled the nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/us/a- … ng.html?hp
I'm not a victim. I simply don't agree with you. I don't need to be reprogrammed or re-educated. The fact is that the majority of Americans oppose Obamacare.
Yes, Republicans adamantly opposed Obamacare. Why would that surprise anybody? Obamacare puts another 1/6 of our economy in the hands of the most wasteful government in the world. That, in itself, runs contrary to conservative ideology. Democrats would have been just as oppositional had a Republican attempted to completely deregulate the health industry.
The majority of Americans do not support a government shutdown, and the majority of Americans do not support Obamacare. You have used polls to your advantage in the past, specifically with regard to gun control. Why are you so unwilling to admit that Obamacare is not supported by the majority of Americans? It's a fact.
Actually no, it puts 1/6 of your economy in the hands of corporations and shareholders.
John, you have adamantly and vocally spoken out against corporations. You have adamantly and vocally spoken for universal healthcare. Why would you support Obamacare if it really put 1/6 of our economy in the hands of corporations?
John, would you replace what you have in Britain with Obamacare? I would appreciate an actual answer rather than a statement about how much better Obamacare is than what America currently does. You and I both know that Obamacare is poor policy.
Unfortunately Obamacare for all its faults is better than what you have.
You can not get round that by trying to restrict my right to say that.
It may be poor policy but it is better than current policy.
Our current health policy is WELL as it is. There are ways that uninsured people can obtain care through their doctors and hospitals. Obama"care" will be a health policy Titantic. It will be a health and socioeconomic DISASTER! Obamacare will be a cataclysmic trainwreck!
I can't restrict you, but I certainly predicted what you would say. Why won't you answer the question?
John, would you replace what you have in Britain with Obamacare?
Thanks for the answer. Obamacare is worse than what you have. President Obama should have copied the most successful programs in the world, if he really wanted universal healthcare. He did not do so, and we are stuck with substandard policy. We both know that.
But to have funded healthcare out of general taxation would have you and others foaming at the mouth.
I'm already furious. At least our policy would have been based on something that is better than what we have. What we have is a joke. It won't work without an overhaul. If new legislation needs an overhaul, it wasn't good to begin with.
People keep talking about how universal healthcare works in other nations. Their plans are superior to ours. Their governments, while wasteful, don't hold a candle to our kind of government ineptitude and waste.
Did you really just say that what we have is better than what you have!
It's a good job we have universal healthcare, I'll need it soon if you carry on like that!
LOL, that was part of the compromise that conservatives like to claim never happened. And now you're criticizing it. The ACA is largely a Republican plan and certainly not the plan that most Democrats wanted, but the one they could enact.
I don't always agree with Republicans. I have a mind of my own.
Democrats had a majority in both the House and the Senate. They didn't compromise. They passed the bill with total partisan politics. There was little to no discussion. Obamacare was rammed through, because the Democrats didn't need Republican votes.
Oh my, I don't know why I continue to be shocked at the crap people believe. You'd think I'd be accustomed to it by now.
+1,000,000,000,000,000- I am a Liberal Democrat who is a feminist and strongly pro-choice. I also support the rights of the LBGT community. However, I am a discerning Liberal. I have a mind of my own and think independently. I have always believed in self-reliance, accountablility, responsibility, and pulling MY OWN weight. Education, let's split and let the others discuss among themselves. They would not understand the basics of Obama"care" in a multillion years!
Yes, please go. Your supercilious and holier than thou attitude is beginning to gall. You are like a child who sees the world not as it is but as a reflection of the fairy tales told to her at her mothers knee.
Furthermore your attitude is highly offensive to all those hard working people who through no fault of their own find themselves in need.
I see the world for what it is. Sadly, American society is becoming an owe me, I can't, help help me, and rescue me society of 2 year old whiners instead of the independent, self-reliant, and responsible America of old. People would rather look for hand outs than to WORK. John, you are excellent at socialist utopia.
I am a realist, work or face the dire consequences there in. Sadly, Rudy Giuliani, a former New York mayor who intended to run for President in 2008, bowed out for health reasons. NOW he would have made an excellent president, given his mayorial record in New York. He was NOT a slacker like President Obama has proven himself to be. Yes, President Obama is a mistake. He is in WAY over his head and capability it seems! Mr. Giuliani had NO tolerance for the excuse makers, under his mayorial administration, there was workfare. He was a law and order mayor. Although there were some negatives in the administration, the POSITIVES far outweigh the negatives.
"Sadly, American society is becoming an owe me, I can't, help help me, and rescue me society of 2 year old whiners instead of the independent, self-reliant, and responsible America of old. People would rather look for hand outs than to WORK."
No, American society is one where wealth and income are concentrated in the hands of 2 percent of the population. The best manufacturing jobs have gone to China or Bangladesh leaving low paying or minimum wage jobs here. Unemployment remains high and jobs are scarce. The whiners are hedge fund operators, bankers, coal companies, and rich tax payers who when anybody mentions closing tax loopholes cry "redistribution." There has been considerable redistribution from the middle class and poor to the wealthiest Americans.
Education Answer, we grown ups know better. John knows not what he says. IGNORE him........I-G-N-O-R-E. Have a Blessed Day, Education Answer.
"President Obama should have copied the most successful programs in the world, if he really wanted universal healthcare. "
That was a political non-starter." His plan followed what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts which followed a plan developed by the Heritage Foundation.
You want to make this sound like conservatives like the idea of universal healthcare? Name a single conservative who backs Obamacare.
If you come back with the name Mitt Romney, you may be able to hear my laugh from a distance.
Plenty of people are not entirely happy with Obamacare. That's different from supporting the current shutdown of the government, let alone supporting a default on U.S. debt. Plenty of conservatives aren't supporting the shutdown, let alone defaulting on our debt for expenditures already passed and spent. Ted Cruz isn't winning any popularity contest in the Congress.
There will only be a default on the debt if the administration chooses to do so purposefully.
Suggest you read up a bit on your history.
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/ … ns-demise/
The Tea Party is the only "party" who wants a default. They are the ones holding a gun to the country's head.
Is somebody paying you to crawl out from under your rock to troll these forums?
Wow. You managed to pass up John in a single post. Thank you for keeping it classy.
John Holder or John Boner?
A democratic, Constitutional process is available to amend or repeal Obamacare. The Tea Party Republicans are resorting to extortion, threatening to run the train off a cliff if they don't get their way. This is an egregious violation of our historic democratic processes.
As a Republican said today, the debt limit is a fiction. It has been extended 100 times without a crisis like the present one. Default is unthinkable, except by ignorant, mouth breathing Tea Party morons being used by the likes of the Koch brothers and other great malefactors of evil.
I don't support the shutdown.
I don't support Obamacare. Republicans did not get what they wanted in some great compromise I keep hearing about; the Republicans loathe Obamacare.
Could anybody please tell me of a single person in Washington, from either side, who thinks Obamacare is great as it is now? Obamacare was half baked at best. In their haste to take advantage of majority numbers in Congress, Democrats rammed a poor piece of legislation through. Now, we're stuck cleaning up a massive mess. Obamacare, as it stands right now, is a debacle.
A majority vote means much more than a questionable poll.
Shall I provide about five more polls that all come to the same conclusion? Then, would that work for you? Weren't you one of the people who used an NRA poll about gun control to make a point against gun rights? It seems that polls are great until you disagree with them?
It's the law of the land. Suck it up. Go piss up a rope.
You're quite emotional, aren't you? What we need is a massive, government-provided rope program so that everybody who feels that Obamacare is wrong will be able to do as you have commanded.
It's the law of the land. That doesn't mean it's a good law.
It was once the law of the land to own slaves, too. Laws change, they aren't set in stone. The ACA won't last because the majority of Americans don't want it - and it's fiscally unsound.
Totally agree. First of all, people are not going to be railroaded into socialized health care. The better doctors won't stand for this as their pay will be lowered and they will leave. Those who elect to remain will be overworked/understaffed. This and other variables will result in a deterioration in the overall quality of health care received. As more people are enrolled, there will be increased costs as nothing is free. America is already in dire fiscal straits and this health insurance will further exacerbate the financial deficit. America will be in even a deeper fiscal black hole than it is already. Nope, people eventually will see this and it will be good bye to Obama"care".
Yes, laws do change and are not set in stone. Exactly. But if it changes or is done away with, it's after it has been implemented, not because some people, after losing time and time again in there efforts to stop it from becoming law, have a hissy fit.
If the people don't like it or want it after implementation, THEY will VOTE those out who passed it and VOTE people in who will do away with it. That's the process! Not hissy fits!
Btw, slavery was what many who had it wanted and was very much financially sound. Build a whole country for free! What beats that? It doesn't make it right. So those certainly aren't the only measurements to determine what stays or goes.
That legislation was passed in a back room on a Saturday night, Ralph. It was never debated on the floor nor exposed to the American prior to being enacted. Obama promised that would be a tenet of his administration....it never happened.
I repeat, the ACA was passed by a majority of both houses, signed by the president and affirmed as Constitutional by the Supreme Court. It's the law of the land. Suck it up! Make it work! Amend it if necessary. Don't hold the country hostage with a gun to our heads. Gingrich tried that in 1995 and it didn't work. You are destroying the GOP.
+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000-President Obama WANTS what HE wants regardless..........It's HIS way or.......no way! Make room for socialism regarding health and medical care!
The proper procedures to enact such drastic legislation:
The Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.
This procedure was followed for prohibition, what changed?
By the late 1800s, prohibition movements had sprung up across the United States, driven by religious groups who considered alcohol, specifically drunkenness, a threat to the nation. The movement reached its apex in 1920 when Congress ratified the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquors. Prohibition proved difficult to enforce and failed to have the intended effect of eliminating crime and other social problems--to the contrary, it led to a rise in organized crime, as the bootlegging of alcohol became an ever-more lucrative operation. In 1933, widespread public disillusionment led Congress to ratify the 21st Amendment, which repealed Prohibition.
The Republican shut down is good and just. They are rightfully protesting Obama"care". President Obama's goal is to make America a socialist model country with a large, intrusive goverment. President Obama already has derided and denigrated the Constitution. Many people are seeing HIM for who HE actually is...........
...Kratos from God of War?
That would be so badass.
Remind me who introduced the PATRIOT act? The most intrusive piece of legislation ever introduced into a first world country by a long way.
Yep, George Bush owns that one, but President Obama didn't stop it once he was elected. President Obama was all too willing to extend and expand the Patriot Act.
It hardly makes Obama the most intrusive president though does it?
Apparently the bar isn't set very high? Are we measuring how bad he is based on the fact that he might not be the worst? I guess you could argue FDR's policies were more intrusive, but my money is on President Obama.
So tell me what Obama has done that is more intrusive than Bush's patriot act?
He's expanded it. How is that for the tip of the iceberg?
Drones target Americans now. Kill lists contain American citizens' names. Yep, that's worse.
We outsource brutal torture of suspected terrorists. How is that better?
The Patriot Act is in full force and has been expanded. I blame both men, but I put more blame on President Obama, simply because he has done more.
What exactly is it about socialism flavours that you dislike? A socialist government generally holds the needs of the people as more important than the needs of corporate shareholders. You wouldn't lose necessarily any personal freedoms but you might get more tax dollars spent making sure your needs were met.
They've been totally taken in by their capitalist masters and now believe they are much better served by looking after their masters than looking after themselves and each other.
It's ironic, the US was founded on a rejection of the monarchy but with the need for some people to be lead, they've plumped for a much darker and sinister figurehead.
One that cares not a fig for the people who follow and support them.
"Welcome to Ted Cruz's Thunderdrome" by Maureen Dowd
"... The white marble monuments are now covered in ash, Greek tragedy ruins overrun with weeds. Tea Party zombies, thrilled with the dark destruction they have wreaked on the planet, continue to maraud around the Hill, eager to chomp on humanity some more.
Dead cherry blossom trees litter the bleak landscape. Trash blows through L’Enfant’s once beautiful boulevards, now strewn with the detritus of democracy, scraps of the original Constitution, corroded White House ID cards, stacks of worthless bills tumbling out of the Treasury Department.
"The BlackBerrys that were pried from the hands of White House employees in 2013 are now piled up on the Potomac as a flood barrier against the ever-rising tide from melting ice caps. Their owners, unable to check their messages, went insane long ago.
"Because there was no endgame, the capital’s hunger games ended in a gray void. Because there was no clean bill, now there is only a filthy stench. Because there was no wisdom, now there is only rot. The instigators, it turned out, didn’t even know what they were arguing for. Macho thrusts and feints, competing to win while the country lost.
"Thomas Jefferson’s utopia devolved into Ted Cruz’s dystopia...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opini … s&_r=0
"Governing by Blackmail" by Nicholas Kristof
" SUPPOSE President Obama announced:
"Unless Republicans agree to my proposal for gun control, I will use my authority as commander in chief to scuttle one aircraft carrier a week in the bottom of the ocean.
"I invite Republican leaders to come to the White House and negotiate a deal to preserve our military strength. I hope Republicans will work with me to prevent the loss of our carrier fleet.
"If the Republicans refuse to negotiate, I will be compelled to begin by scuttling the U.S.S. George Washington in the Pacific Ocean’s Mariana Trench, with 80 aircraft on board.
'In that situation, we would all agree that Obama had gone nuts. Whatever his beefs with Republicans, it would be an inexcusable betrayal to try to get his way by destroying our national assets. That would be an abuse of power and the worst kind of blackmail.
"And in that kind of situation, I would hope that we as journalists wouldn’t describe the resulting furor as a “political impasse” or “partisan gridlock.” I hope that we wouldn’t settle for quoting politicians on each side as blaming the other. It would be appropriate to point out the obvious: Our president had tumbled over the edge and was endangering the nation...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opini … ef=opinion
But...isn't that what he is doing now?
"Unless you pass the budget I want, I will shut down the country. I will close the WWII memorial. I will violate rental agreements with those leasing public land.
Pass MY budget or I will do this!
(and now I hear that back pay will be given to all those that did not work.)
More like agree to repeal Obamacare or the shutdown will continue not to mention the coming default on our country's debt. Does anybody in his right mind think that Obama or the Democrats in the Senate are going to agree to de-fund Obamacare? Get real. It's a non-starter and is harming the GOP.
Agreed. It is. To provide a budget that does not fund the laws voted into effect is stupid and takes "playing the political game" way too far.
At the same time, the R's did their job, they fulfilled their appointed task. They provided a budget. The D's and Obama didn't like it and shut down the government.
So is actually to blame? All of them, of course, acting like little kids fighting on the playground. But to me at least, the D's are the immediate and major problem; refusing to operate the country on the budget provided, and that will run this country.
In effect, Obama is saying "Give me the budget I want or I'll shut the place down". It's called blackmail in the final analysis.
His holy majesty has ordered the oceans closed. If he does not get his way, the earth may be forced to a standstill!
this will always be a partial shutdown . why? because trust me . congress and the irs and the house . are never gona give up their payday. or their perks packages . they will shut down every national park . and library every monument . but never will they not collect their checks. i say off with their heads. figuratively of course . we really need to fix this. we need to fire our elected officials. and strip them of their entitlements .the national parks? they belong to us. the library's? they belong to us.the monuments? they also are ours. its the ones shutting them down ,that we can do without.
"The Boehner Bunglers" Paul Krugman
"The federal government is shut down, we’re about to hit the debt ceiling (with disastrous economic consequences), and no resolution is in sight. How did this happen?
"...“It’s Even Worse Than It Looks,” the G.O.P. has become “an insurgent outlier — ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic policy regime; scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”
"...Conservative leaders are indeed ideologically extreme, but they’re also deeply incompetent.
"....Early this year, it turns out, some of the usual suspects — the Koch brothers, the political arm of the Heritage Foundation and others — plotted strategy in the wake of Republican electoral defeat. Did they talk about rethinking ideas that voters had soundly rejected? No, they talked extortion, insisting that the threat of a shutdown would induce President Obama to abandon health reform.
"This was crazy talk. After all, health reform is Mr. Obama’s signature domestic achievement. You’d have to be completely clueless to believe that he could be bullied into giving up his entire legacy by a defeated, unpopular G.O.P.
" Even more remarkable, in its way, was the response of House Republican leaders, who didn’t tell the activists they were being foolish. All they did was urge that the extortion attempt be made over the debt ceiling rather than a government shutdown. And as recently as last week Eric Cantor, the majority leader, was in effect assuring his colleagues that the president will, in fact, give in to blackmail. As far as anyone can tell, Republican leaders are just beginning to suspect that Mr. Obama really means what he has been saying all along.
"Many people seem perplexed by the transformation of the G.O.P. into the political equivalent of the Keystone Kops — the Boehner Bunglers? Republican elders, many of whom have been in denial about their party’s radicalization, seem especially startled. But all of this was predictable...."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/07/opini … n&_r=0
Rather stupid, inflammatory and grossly exaggerated comments; comments which almost all apply to both parties.
But what has it to do with the Democrats refusing to apply the budget they were given and shutting down the government in a temper tantrum?
Paul Krugman now spends more time playing politics than he does working in what used to be his field of expertise, economics. He has little to no credibility among many, including many of his colleagues.
Congressman YoYo of Florida: "Default will bring stability to world markets."
70% of Americans disapprove of GOP handling of debt impasse.
What did you say about polls? You questioned the validity of polls, but now you use one in your favor?
In this case I'm merely pointing out that the GOP is shooting itself in the foot.
In my case I was merely pointing out that the majority of people do not support Obamacare. You questioned the validity of polls, but now you use a poll to make a point.
The polls on Obamacare are mixed. Perhaps a majority doesn't support Obamacare, but that result is partly due to a huge propaganda campaign financed by the Koch brothers and others of their ilk.
Moreover, there are normal democratic procedures available, other than blackmail, to amend or even repeal Obamacare. The GOP, in my opinion, is shooting itself in the foot by holding the country hostage via a government shutdown and a debt default.
"... In all, the Constitution provides for a two-step solution. First, the president can point out the simple fact that the House Republicans are threatening to act in violation of the Constitution, which would expose the true character of their assault on the government.
Second, he could pledge that, if worse came to worst, he would, once a default occurred, use his emergency powers to end it and save the nation and the world from catastrophe.
Were the president to act with fortitude, Republicans would continue to lambaste him as the sole cause of the crisis and scream that he is a tyrant — the same epithet hurled at Andrew Jackson, Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Lincoln, who became accustomed to such abuse, had some choice words in 1860 for Southern fire-eaters who charged that he, and not they, would be to blame for secession if he refused to compromise over the extension of slavery: “A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, ‘Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/opini … n&_r=0
It's going to be fun to see the polls on Obamacare now that people are getting letters from their insurance companies telling them how badly their wallets are going to be molested next year.
Health care costs may go up for some people, but they will decrease for many others. And millions of people will be able to get insurance coverage and decent health care for the first time in their lives.
Longer term, the Affordable Care Act will, if it works as planned, decrease the unsustainable rate of increase in health care costs in this country.
Not up for some. Up for the vast majority.
Total costs are going up, and some individual costs are going down. All of that has to be accounted for, and it will be accounted for. Just look at any of the studies, the impact is substantial. 50% increases, 100% increases, 300% increases.
Long term, Obamacare will only do what it was intended to do if the goal was to hurt the healthcare system.
"Up for the vast majority."
Can you document that? From what I've read Obama care may not decrease costs overall but it will cut the rate of increase from what has been happening for the past 30 years or so when heath care cost have been increasing much faster than the cost of living for a variety of reasons--as for profit doctors, hospitals and laboratories, insurance companies whose goal is to maximize premiums and minimize payments, millions of uninsured Americans who get their care at emergency rooms, unnecessary tests and procedures some of which are harmful to patients.
"Just look at any of the studies, the impact is substantial. 50% increases, 100% increases, 300% increases."
For whom? Over what time period? What's your source?
"Long term, Obamacare will only do what it was intended to do if the goal was to hurt the healthcare system."
That is total crapola.
What have the increases been in previous years? 6%, 8%, 5%.
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benef … -2013.aspx
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … for-women/
99% and 62%, and that includes people who get subsidized bringing the costs down. If you only include people who already have insurance, the numbers are in the 100% to 200% range. 30 year-old males will see an average of 260%.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapotheca … le-digits/
The truth is nobody knows for sure what the ultimate effect of Obama care on costs will be. One thing is sure, however, many people heretofore uninsured, will have health insurance coverage. Moreover, the debate over the past several years has focused considerable attention on the quality and cost of health care in this country and why it costs so much more and produces inferior results compared to other advanced countries.
I go every day to a rehabilitation facility affiliated with a major hospital. The care it provides is good, but the staff parking lot is bigger than the patient parking lot, and a lot of staff people are appear to me to be standing around or sitting around doing nothing productive.
Health care providers need to take a look at its systems as Toyota did in the auto industry and apply Deming's and other lean production techniques such as "teamwork to improve the process" and cross training to eliminate over-specialization of occupations and job assignments. Health care is way back where the U.S. auto companies were in the 1940s through 1980s. The saddest thing is that politics prevented the most rational approach which would have been to extend Medicare to cover everyone, thus eliminating the parasitic health care insurance companies which provide no essential health care function.
Listen to the people Ralph. People are getting their insurance letters telling them that their plans are being dropped, or their premiums are going up, or their coverage is going down. Study after study finds the same thing.
And, unless I'm wrong, the CBO estimated that there are still going to be some 30 million uninsured Americans.
Yes, we need to look at the costs of healthcare, but forcing people to buy insurance isn't going to help, forcing insurance companies to offer more with every plan will not help either.
You talked about going lean, but ACA forces insurance companies to offer ME, a single male, maternity coverage. If you want car manufacturers to make cheap cars, would you force them to install GPS, automatic locks and windows, AC, rear-view cameras, DVD systems, bluetooth, etc etc etc on every vehicle?
ACA is only going to hurt. If we want to talk about costs, we need to talk about costs, and that's a huge subject nobody is talking about.
I know what you mean though Ralph, there is a lot of waste. Last time I went to the doctor, after he had finished with the previous patient, I had to wait 15 minutes for him to get ready for me. An assistant spent 5 minutes with me, I waited for 5 more minutes. I spent 5 more minutes with the doctor going over what I had gone over with the assistant. The doctor left, came back.
Then we spent 5 minutes on the actual seeing the patient part. Then he took another 5-10 minutes, then I left.
How much of that is filling out paperwork? How much of that is because of inefficient or unnecessary regulation?
It's not all the market's fault, or a company's fault. I think the majority of it is because of government, in one form or another.
Health care costs have been going up at an unsustainable rate. ACA is designed to bend the health care cost curve downward. We'll have to wait to see whether it succeeds. As it is implemented changes will no doubt be required. Don't hold your breath for it to be repealed. It achieves a goal of Democrats since Harry Truman. It was passed by Congress, signed by the President and approved by the Supreme Court. It is Obama's signal achievement along with ending Bush's foolish, costly war in Iraq and winding down his unnecessary, even more costly war in Afghanistan. There's no way he will cave to Tea Party extortion on this issue.
Published by NYTimes November ? 2007:
To the Editor:
I live across the river from Windsor, Ontario, and for several years I've asked every Canadian I've met whether he or she would trade their health care system for ours. I have yet to get a ''yes'' answer to that question. And, as someone who is covered by Medicare, I completely agree with Paul Krugman's comment that Americans like the program very much.
So it seems to me that since we already have a national, single-payer system called Medicare that works quite well, the most logical approach to health care reform would be to extend this system in gradual increments to the rest of the population, starting with the most vulnerable of our citizens -- children, the long-term unemployed and so forth -- until everyone is covered by the program. Am I missing something?
Birmingham, Mich., Nov. 9, 2007
The ACA doesn't actually do anything to address the fundamental costs of healthcare, so it won't fix anything. It does make a lot of things worse though.
See, nobody wants to talk about why costs are so high. They just say that they are high. Everybody knows that. It's not because of insurance companies. It's not because we don't have enough government rules. It's a much larger problem.
"The ACA doesn't actually do anything to address the fundamental costs of healthcare, so it won't fix anything. It does make a lot of things worse though."
From what I've read switching millions of people who have no insurance and who are now getting emergency room care over to insured care with emphasis on preventive medicine will save a lot of money. Also, there is a whole bunch of money to be saved which is spent on futile end-of-life care. Greater scrutiny of unnecessary tests and procedures will also eventually result in savings.
"It does make a LOT OF THINGS WORSE though."
For example? Seems to me you're are long on unsupported opinions and short on facts.
It's not going to save money. It's just moving money. People can already get assistance, and people with insurance still go to the hospital for non emergencies, and there are still going to be 30 million uninsured after this takes effect.
I've presented a lot of facts in these threads, and nobody who supports ACA has addressed them. Earlier I presented information about the rising costs that you asked for, and you just ignored it. Why should I put in so much effort when it just gets ignored?
Forcing additional coverage that is impossible to apply to somebody, you think that is going to help? Adding taxes to companies is going to help? Doctors are not happy about this, half of them say they are going to try and quit in the next 5 years because of the added costs and regulations, you think that is going to help
"It's not because of insurance companies."
Talk to any doctor about how much time and effort it takes to collect from a bunch of different insurance companies.
Talk to any doctor and insurance rep about the government regulations they both have to work under.
Tons of inefficiencies, if you dig enough, you will find stem from government.
But you have nothing to say about the rest of my post? Again?
You are awfully quick to say that I'm posting crap, but don't show the respect to acknowledge when it's substantiated?
Like I said, you just ignored when I supported a previous assertion, so why should I bother?
The AMA doesn't represent all doctors, only about 15%-25%, and many have left the AMA for its endorsement.
70% of doctors don't support ACA
http://www.jacksoncoker.com/Promos/inte … tation.pdf
60% of doctors think ACA will have a negative impact on healthcare
http://www.thedoctors.com/ecm/groups/pu … 004676.pdf
55% say repeal and replace
http://www.jacksoncoker.com/physician-c … lPoll.aspx
Hate Obamacare, love the ACA!
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinio … 7479.story
Doctors' Groups Applaud Health Care Ruling
The U.S. Supreme Court's Thursday ruling that the Affordable Care Act, , with its individual mandate, is constitutional has elicited a wide range of opinions from across the medical community.
Most major national medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the National Physicians Alliance, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Association of American Medical Colleges -- hail the ruling as a victory. Many of these organizations have been strong supporters of the ACA since Congress passed it in 2010.
"The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy," said Dr. Jeremy Lazarus, president of the American Medical Association.
"At last, the country is moving in a healthy direction on health care," said Dr. Valier Arkoosh, president of the National Physicians Alliance.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-or … d=16673570
Here's what the CEO of University of Michigan's Health System said recently about ACA:
Ora H. Pescovitz, M.D.: Time to stop fighting Affordable Care Act and move on
The debate in the state Capitol over Medicaid expansion was as close to political hand-to-hand combat as you can get. It likely left many feeling battered and bruised, but the outcome is the right one. Now, it is crucial for health care providers and community groups to step up and take responsibility for encouraging Michiganders to take advantage of the new options available to them.
Our University Hospital Emergency Department offers proof of the need for change: We have working poor who are repeat visitors because they have no other option for health care, and they put off getting treatment until they are so sick that they end up in the ER. That’s the wrong place for this care for many reasons, including financial.
It doesn’t make sense for someone with a mild case of the flu to tie up an ER bed, nurse or doctor who needs to focus on urgent cases. The cost of a visit to a doctor’s office usually is dramatically cheaper than the thousands of dollars it costs for an ER visit. Who pays that bill? Often, the hospital providing the treatment and citizens like you.
Hospitals across our state absorbed $1.9 billion in uncompensated medical treatment in 2011. Much of this is care for people who can’t pay the full amount or are unable to pay anything at all. Our hospitals at U-M accounted for about 10% of that total, and the amount has risen 42% in five years. Hospitals can’t absorb all the cost of that care, so the bill gets passed on in higher health insurance premiums and charges. Every one of us who has private insurance helps foot the bill — and so do all taxpayers whose dollars go to federal programs to offset the cost. There’s nothing free about it.
Whatever the cost, health care should start with a primary care physician, not in an ER. It is time to focus on prevention and wellness, as well as ongoing management of chronic and common conditions. Health care reform can lead us down this path.
Getting more citizens health care through Medicaid is an important step in cultivating a society where all citizens have access to important primary and ongoing health care, but already, there is another big change upon us. Next month brings the advent of health care exchanges, an unprecedented effort. With this policy in effect, most Americans must have health insurance or pay a penalty by 2015.
We’re all uncertain about whether this will work. Michiganders will have to buy insurance on a federal exchange, and the details are sketchy at this point. On Oct. 1, enrollment can begin at www.healthcare.gov.
Even though it may seem confusing, we must give this health reform a chance to work. The Affordable Care Act might not be perfect, but it is a start. In science and in medicine, we rarely encounter perfect. You identify a problem, and then develop and trial potential solutions based on existing knowledge, best practices and innovative ideas. Ultimately, you find a treatment, technology or technique that improves upon those currently in use. This is how we need to approach health care reform, as well.
All health care providers bear responsibility to make this work. Our industry needs to take the lead in educating the public and encouraging them to sign up and take part.
There are many unknowns, and there will be failures, as well as successes along the way. When it comes to health reform, it isn’t a question of yes or no. It is a question of how and when. Hopefully, we can finally move forward and work together to discover and establish a health care system that improves health care delivery, equity and access in Michigan and across the nation.
Dr. Ora H. Pescovitz is CEO of the University of Michigan Health System and executive vice president for medical affairs at U-M.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3309160041
Big difference between doctors and the average Joe on the street. Most voters on both sides are uninformed, but doctors tend to be more informed on healthcare changes... cause that's their job.
Edit: ugh, again. John, you said you wanted me to stop replying to you, so why are you replying to me?
Oh i never said I would stop pointing out the flaws in your arguments. That would be stupid and counter productive.
Lol, a comedic show is pointing out 'flaws' in polls of healthcare professionals?
Are you serious? I really think you're trolling, but you don't really think that way do you?
Oh plenty of other flaws to pick up on, like your understanding of the English language.
Think which way? It would help if you spoke English.
by Credence2 5 years ago
I quote from a news source“Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney jumped into the debate over the GOP's future Tuesday night, warning congressional Republicans against forcing a government shutdown in their quest to stop President Barack Obama's signature health care law.”I guess...
by Dan Harmon 5 years ago
One of my family recently posted a link,http://m.townhall.com/columnists/thomas … t-n1716292that, if true, makes it pretty plain that the Republican controlled House voted in a complete budget, enough to operate on, but without provisions for Obamacare. The Senate, infuriated that...
by AnalogousMethod 5 years ago
Due to the government shutdown, we had to pay people to make new websites telling you that we can't afford to run our websites. The new websites are using the same already-paid-for domains and already-paid-for hosting that the old websites were using, but we still can't keep them up because we need...
by Jack Lee 20 months ago
Do you agree or disagree?The American people support the wall yet Congress, especially Democrats are against it.The democrats on the other hand has threaten to shut down the government if funding for Planned Parenthood is taken away...
by Peeples 5 years ago
What are the negatives of shutting down the federal government?What negatives are there if the states run themselves?
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
Read this article from the NY Times. It's about a well planned, highly funded conspiracy to shutdown the government if Obama Care is not defunded. Please share this with everybody you know. The republican extremists are not playing by the rules of democracy and are making a...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|