The problem with health care reform—and Waterloos
Some have said that health care reform is Obama’s Waterloo, or will be soon.
The analogy is far from perfect; for example, Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo was followed by his abdication, surrender, and exile, and it’s hard to believe this will happen to Obama even if the bill fails. But if “Waterloo” is shorthand for a big and important loss, than it would be an apt description for the situation the administration and its allies would face if this bill (or something like it) goes down to defeat.
This is because Obama has already placed so very much emphasis on it. Even though most Americans feel no special sense of urgency about it, this administration has chosen the issue as the linchpin of hope and change, and has talked and acted as though legislation must pass now or something terrible will happen.
But that “something terrible” might just be that the public will catch on to the manifold problems inherent in the proposal before it can be passed. In fact, that is exactly what may have already happened, although it’s still possible that the Democrats will twist enough Blue Dog arms (or would it be legs?) to ram something through anyway, in order to avoid the embarrassment and face loss that would flow from a failure to pass any health care reform bill during the next Congressional session.
As Q and O writes, the Democrats have a dilemma on their hands:
They believe, now that they’ve brought it up and the president has made it one of his signature issues, that unless they pass it (or something they can call “health care reform”) they’ll have set him up for failure. However, they are also coming to realize that passing something now despite a majority of Americans saying slow down and start over could be hazardous to their political health ”“ and majorities.
Whether it leads to Waterloo or ultimate victory, this particular Democrat battle is one of their own making. Napoleon was faced with a coalition army massing against him, and so he had to fight; although he chose to attack sooner rather than later, there was no avoiding the confrontation. But the Democrats have taken this task upon themselves without any outside prompting or pressure other than the fact that it was a vital part of Obama’s campaign rhetoric.
They should have been wary if they had studied history (although not Napoleonic history), because health care reform has been a Waterloo of sorts before. Just remember Bill and Hillary. Like Obama, Bill Clinton had made campaign promises about health care reform, and Congress was similarly heavily Democratic for his first term (although not quite as enormously so as at present).
It seemed that passage should have been easy, but it wasn’t. As Hillary later said [emphasis mine]:
I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done.
Well, Hillary may have learned those lessons. But Obama, Pelosi, and other leading Democrats appear to have playing hooky that day in history class.
They also may have thought that the fact that they had slightly larger Democratic majorities in Congress than the Clintons enjoyed would make their efforts more likely to succeed. But the Clinton effort was a model of transparency and bipartisanship compared to Obamacare; at least they had a coherent bill to defend, and they took a bit of time to try to explain and then sell it to Congress and the American people.
But health care reform wasn’t a problem just for the Clintons. For example, although it couldn’t really be called a Waterloo because George Bush managed to fulfill a campaign promise and get a Medicare prescription bill passed, he was criticized roundly for it by both sides—Democrats because it didn’t go far enough and was thought to unduly reward pharmaceutical companies, and Republicans because it was not fiscally responsible.
Let’s listen once again to Hillary on health care reform. Speaking in 2007, she said [emphasis mine]:
I think that both the process and the plan were flawed. We were trying to do something that was very hard to do, and we made a lot of mistakes.
Perhaps the reason that so many proposals for health care reform go down to either defeat or disappointment, follow the laws of unintended consequences, and/or face the prospect of running out of money (take a look at Medicare today) is that, just as Hillary said, health care reform is “very hard to do” successfully. And despite Democrat rhetoric, that’s not because mean old Republicans get Harry and Louise to tell terrible lies about it, or Angry White Men are racist yahoos who reflexively hate Obama and every proposal that comes out of his mouth. No, it’s inherent in health care reform itself. These are some of the very basic problems with any health care reform bill:
(1) Good health care is extremely expensive, and cutting costs will always mean denial of benefits. And even if the rhetoric says that only the unnecessary fat will be cut, medicine is not a good enough science that we can tell in advance what’s a necessary test or procedure and what is not.
(2) People logically assume that insuring everyone will have to cost more money, and they also know that there’s no magic way to get that money. People are also aware that government estimates of the cost of programs are usually underestimates, sometimes by a large factor.
(3) People are especially wary of government control over this particular aspect of their lives because it is so personal and so vital at the same time.
(4) Government-run enterprises are generally distrusted, and considered inefficient and intrusive. People know that from past and present experience.
(5) In this country there is still a widely-held philosophical strain of belief in personal initiative and responsibility rather than nanny-statism. This is in contrast to the belief system of European populations, and so it’s no surprise that European governments have encountered far less resistance to government involvement in health care than is found in this country.
Therefore it’s no surprise that the US has failed to pass universal health care so far, and especially a public option. And it’s also no surprise that there’s been a great deal lot of opposition to Obamacare, since the basic problems presented by the five points above have been compounded by the fact that the rhetoric of those pushing the bill has been entirely unconvincing in its attempts at reassurance.
In fact, the behavior of Obama and the Democratic Congress around the present proposals have made things far worse. It is statements such as the following (from Obama’s recent Portsmouth appearance) that ring alarm bells for that portion of the public paying attention:
[A]sked…how private insurance companies can compete with the government, the president said the following:
“If the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining — meaning taxpayers aren’t subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do — then I think private insurers should be able to compete.”
Self-sustaining? The public option? What has Obama been doing during those daily 40-minute economic briefings coordinated by uber-economic-adviser, Larry Summers?…
Government programs aren’t self-sustaining by definition. They’re subsidized by the taxpayer. If they were self-financed, we’d be off the hook.
It doesn’t take an economist to know that, either. It’s a basic fact of government life that most people are privy to.
So, what did Obama mean when he said that? I certainly couldn’t say. Once again, the questions appear to be: is he that ignorant? Or is he that much of a liar, and does he think the American public is that ignorant?
And does it really matter which it is at this point?
“Good health care is extremely expensive, and cutting costs will always mean denial of benefits.”
It’s instructive to realize that a major reason for the expense is that health care, unlike so many other industries, cannot be automated at its core.
A large part of delivering health care means the laying on of hands, the discussion with the patient to get at the feelings and the symptoms, the preparation of patients for test or procedures, and the after care. All of these can be enhanced by technology. None can be eliminated or even, in large measure, reduced.
It’s a hands-on field that is, in much of the actual contact between expert and problem, must involve hands. In this measure it is an art and a craft and such procedures are not easily cost-controlled. In fact, the only way to control costs on, say, surgery is to do fewer surgeries.
neo,
“Once again, the questions appear to be: is he that ignorant?”
Answer: yes. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. He’s clearly shown himself to lack that very type of knowledge.
“Or is he that much of a liar,…”
Answer: yes. There are hours of video clearly showing him *crafting* his message to his specific audience – even if the *message* has to be crafted to the point it completely contradicts what he said earlier.
So yes, he’s a liar.
“…and does he think the American public is that ignorant?”
Answer: yes. He has a circle of associates that encourage that viewpoint, so I doubt there is really any reality check going on until the fecal matter hits the reciprocating oscillating device.
Regarding the military references, if this bill goes down in flames it could definitely be a Waterloo event for Obama.
He could survive it politically and come back – he DOES have over 3 years to rehabilitate his administration – but it would be difficult.
If they pass some monstrosity of a bill that really pi$$es off the electorate, instead of Waterloo they may have a Pyrrhic victory on their hands in that they win a battle on behalf of Obama at all costs – only to lose their majorities in Congress as the voters toss em out on their ears.
Either way, they lose.
Oops, one question was left.
“And does it really matter which it is at this point?”
Answer: No.
“They should have been wary if they had studied history (although not Napoleonic history), because health care reform has been a Waterloo of sorts before.”
Umm, Russian winter?
The appropriate questions were asked, and Scottie gave the correct replies, obviously not obvious to most voters.
Which leads me to again wondering if the people who energized the Obama campaign, let alone those legions of educated folks that voted for him, are equally as ignorant as Obama? And why — since so many are “college educated,” indeed Ivy League.
My statistically-unsupportable conclusion, from having taught a number of these folks, interested in “environment,” in the ’79s and ’80s, is that they were fairly bright (particularly after grade inflation), but disdained arithmetic, and were intellectually incurious, indeed lazy. Many of the faculty — who encouraged them in their liberal quests to run the world — were similarly incurious outside their specialty, not infrequently, inside it.
Most germane, though, is that none of my colleagues in the arts, and few in the social sciences, even including economics, had any effective picture of how we get our wealth, what has to happen in the real, physical and technical world to get it, or how critical it is to validate the technical competence of the new entries into the system to continue to create the wealth. Business models are critical, but small part of the operation.
Maybe you are be happy to have an affirmative-action graduate have designed the bridge you are driving over, or to give you that medical exam, but some of us have qualms.
Obama’s folks are incompetent, as might be he.
And does it really matter which it is at this point?
Perhaps not in immediate, pragmatic terms.
But as many bright perceptive folks of a previous generation were Kremlinologists, many now, including myself, are now Obamalogists.
During the Cold War, lack of reliable information about the country forced Western analysts to “read between the lines” and to use the tiniest tidbits, such as the removal of portraits, the rearranging of chairs, positions at the reviewing stand for parades in Red Square, and other indirect signs to try to understand what was happening in internal Soviet politics.
Figuring out Obama’s inner workings is much like deciphering what the Kremlin was up to back in the day. It’s hard, thankless work, but not without the occasional reward. I do hope we haven’t lost neo to this great quest.
Ah, the second italicized quote in m previous post was from wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kremlinology.
Doggone it, Scottie, you beat me. I was going to write a lot, but you have articulated it all better than I could, so I’ll content myself instead with saying, yes, he is that ignorant, and yes, he is that much of a liar, and yes, he does have that much contempt for the American people — who are, however, showing disturbing signs that they’re about to demonstrate just how thoroughly he has misunderestimated them.
As for how much it matters at this point, as long as a critical mass of voters figures out that the answer to any one of the three questions is yes, there is real reason for hope.
Gerard, you are eloquent. My family and I have spent the past few days in profound gratitude for the art, craft, and science of modern medicine, which saved a young friend of ours from death over the weekend. As a result of a few skilled ER and ICU doctors and nurses who laid on their hands to apply modern medical technology in just the right ways at just the right moments, she is still with us. I am sure her care was and will be staggeringly expensive. It is worth every penny. She was fortunate enough to be insured, but — and this is the dirty little secret the Left will not like to admit — if she had not been, she would have received exactly the same care with exactly the same passion and skill that will shortly allow our friend to walk out of that hospital and back into her life. It is public systems that bean-count the value of human beings in pennies. Doing what we do costs more, yes — and is commensurate with the value of the people being cared for.
My fear is that even if we succeed in beating back this socialist-utopian nightmare, the monster will arise again in a few years. And it will continue a generation after we wrest education back from the Left, and (sadly) from the Boomers and their legacy, unless some greater and more damaging folly replaces it.
Soon…. the baby boomers with their BMW’s and Audi’s and Mercedes and Lexi will be retired….
…. and expect the nation to cover them in Social Security and Medicare.
I’m fine with that. I just hope they are fine with the rationing they will receive. 🙂
BTW, I generalize about the baby boomers on purpose. Their savings rate is abysmal. They’ve spent it all over the years mostly.
As a generation x’er at the ripe age of 39, there are years I’ve put 20% away for retirement. Though divorce wiped a lot out 🙁
There are lots of people who believe that if the government does something, it is free. I once had an undergraduate ask me why the government didn’t give everybody food stamps so food would be free.
I think the Dems will settle for a pyrrhic victory if they can get it. Anything that satisfies the appetite will do.
Actually, it’s best to imagine that you are confronting small children with little compunction to deny their basic appetites when reviewing the behavior of our governing class after the Obama victory. Imagine children camped outside a candy store for thriteen long years, denied the ability to gorge themselves on the orange slices and chocolate bars. They couldn’t have candy, cause mean old Mr. W. made them spend the money on medicine for gramps and his dumb old war. See Nancy and Barney greedily shoving gummy bears into their faces until they can can consume no more. See them look you straight in the eye and say “not me” when you ask you ate all the candy and left the wrappers all over the floor. Watch them point at you when you ask them who threw up in the corner.
It’s basically about that simple. They can do this because they won. They finally, really won. Now it’s all about making it last forever.
Don’t bring your reality to this party, Mr. W and all Mr. W’s friends. You lost.
But consider the appallingly inept politics involved here. Obama and the Dems have nailed their colors to the mast on a notoriously thorny issue that has so many ways to go south, as pointed out above. If they don’t pass a substantive healthcare bill, Obama will be a lame duck a year into his term. If they do, and it is unpopular, same thing, and the Dems will have a bloodbath in 2010. There are so many ways to lose, and only one way to win: come up with a plan that is above criticism.
And the thing is, they weren’t forced to do this. They could have chosen a more tractable issue — say Iraq, now that the heavy lifting is done, and which is apparently well on its way to coming right – and try to get in front of , and thereby take credit for, the success. Or it could have been energy initiatives, or something like that, where the man in the street wouldn’t really know whether they were successful or not, and so the Obama spinmeisters could take over.
But on this issue everyone will have firsthand knowledge, and therefore an opinion, of whether or not it works. Furthermore, healthcare, much like cafeteria food, is something on which everyone tends to be critical whether justifiably or not.
He could survive it politically and come back – he DOES have over 3 years to rehabilitate his administration – but it would be difficult.
Clinton did it. But Obama ain’t Clinton.
Weren’t Napoleon and his troops slowed or weakened by dysentery?
I’ll leave to to others to draw the analogies.
was followed by his abdication, surrender, and exile, and it’s hard to believe this will happen to Obama even if the bill fails
Neo — are you suggesting that there might be grounds for Obama’s exile? Or should be? Is there precedence for?
OlderandWheezier,
Is this a back handed way of suggesting they are full of $#1t?
nyomythus: that would be a rather creative solution. But no, I’m not suggesting either grounds or precedence for exile.
nyomythus,
If Obama turns out to be as miserable a failure as many of us here believe he will be – meaning he makes Carter actually look good(!) – then at the very least he will find himself in political exile.
Former presidents still retain something of a bully pulpit. I’m not necessarily happy about that, I’d much rather they just go away after they are out of office since constitutionally they have no power, but they still retain some measure of influence.
As such, you see the likes of B. Clinton and Bush the Elder travelling the globe together on various good will efforts.
If Obama fails as badly as I think he will, then you won’t be seeing much of the same from him as an ex-president, and any democrat left standing after 2012 may run from being connected to him in any way.
So yes, you do have something of an *internal* political exile at work even though there is no force of law behind it.
Scottie nailed it, I think it is as much about the people he is surrounding himself with as it is about Obama the man.
What tends to pass for credentials in the white house today is very curious, cant think of any of them that have accomplished a lot, saw a run down the other day of the czars, I think those positions were created out of thin air for two reasons.
1. He could not get any of them past the confirmation process into an actual cabinet or official position of authority.
2. They would have an unaccountable position of influence. Seriously look up some of these guys, they range from pretty shady to self admitted communists.
3. Cronyism (added)
So, on the topic, yes they think we are all ignorant as was demonstrated by the election in most voters swallowing an entire line of bullsh*t. The other 47% obviously were just racists to them. Arrogance, Hubris and Ignorance.
“…and does he think the American public is that ignorant?”
He ran as a moderate and convinced a large majority to vote for him. So yes he does think the American public is that ignorant. His problem now is, many of those who voted for him are now saying; you screwed me once, I won’t believe you again.
I guess my main point that I intended above is that they don’t know what they are doing, and they don’t know that we know it.
John great point, would add one word:
“you screwed me once, I won’t believe you again” EVER.
I do point out that Machiavelli held that a good way to evaluate a ruler is to gauge the people that surround him.
In this case, enlightening, no?
I started out at the beginning of this nationwide healthcare debate believing there was a problem of healthcare in our society that needed to be addressed and I still believe there is a problem. I don’t believe now that the problem is as large or as urgent as I originally thought but I believe there IS a problem that the government could ease if not eliminate.
A person can work hard all their life, save a sizeable nest-egg for their elderly years, provide for their retirement and pay premiums for what is generally considered a ‘good’ health insurance policy and STILL be wiped out financially by one illness. If a citizen in this great nation does all the right things and is rewarded by bankruptcy it doesn’t seem fair or right; it seems a repudiation of the ‘American Dream.’
Understand: I am NOT referring to the “uninsured poor,” which is a Left-wing, social engineering issue.
BUT, and this is a BIG ‘but,’ no problem can be alleviated by creating a larger problem and calling it a “solution.” I have read different opinions; I have educated myself on this issue and I have come to the conclusion that the best thing now would be to do nothing.
There are some commonsense things that COULD be done — such as tort reform to get the doctors out from under the high premiums for malpractice insurance, allowing health insurance to be marketed across state lines and standardizing insurance administrative forms and terminology.
However, any bill that MIGHT contain these provisions would probably also contain the “poison pills” of de facto across-the-board rationing, denial of treatment and procedures by government panels and the death, either fast or slow, of the present private insurance system, thereby inexorably forcing the public into a government system.
My hope is that Obama and the Progressives will fail to pass any bill because any bill, no matter how seemingly innocuous at present, can be changed and amended over time into the totalitarian instrument that was originally intended.
What should be the punishment for a president who corrupts the census? That’s one thing coming up that everyone should keep their eyes on. As should the press, but I’m not holding my breath.
Obama’s efforts to politicize the census are very disturbing. It’s exactly the kind of obscure, in-the-background way of undermining the open political process that someone trying to get away with something would love. How many people will you be able to get to come out at a town hall and protest manipulation of the census? Not many. And yet, it could be very important. It may be another front in the Left’s long term “march through the institutions” strategy. They totally took over colleges when no one was looking.
What made Waterloo decisive was the moral collapse of Napoleon’s army, including indecision approaching cowardice on the part of Marechal Ney (“the bravest of the brave”) and the headlong flight of the Old Guard after they had been totally committed and engaged. The approach of Blucher’s Prussians behind their right flank reduced the entire French army to panic, and the collapse of their confidence in Bonaparte.
Napoleon ran, too. Paul Johnson points out that Napoleon always deserted his armies to save himself. You might say that at Waterloo, the Old Guard realized that he was deserting them and leaving them to die.
By analogy, we should be working to induce Obama to commit and expose even more of his Old Guard into the fray. We don’t want Obama to retreat or hide. We want him to redouble his efforts, as he and Waxman, Pelosi, Reid, and Frank seem to be doing. We want these four to pay the price politically. We want them to be the face of the Democratic Party in every Blue Dog district and in every Senate race.
I suspect that the thing that will ultimately separate Obama from his independents is his reflexive anti-Americanism. Time to turn his flank on foreign policy. Iraq is starting to burn, as the malcontents realize they are dealing with a weakling. Afghanistan is headed for a crisis. no amount of apologizing and retreating is going to cover up his weakness in this arena.
Neo – are you suggesting that there might be grounds for Obama’s exile? Or should be? Is there precedence for?
Yes, yes, and yes. It’s called “Lame Duck”.
It’s a tradition in American politics and typically refers to a president’s last two years of a second term.
However, if a congress can “lame duck” a president earlier if they don’t trust his ‘vision thing’–like Bush the Senior….
If we can elect more stupid Republicans, He’ll be exiled to the White House. He, and his angry wife, will be allowed to play golf, jog, show up at veterans events, Light the Christmas Tree and host the Ramadan feast while we all congratulate ourselves for our racial tolerance and enlightenmnet until we run the clock out on him and he goes the fuck away!
For America to succeed, Obama must fail.
Since Neo linked to QandO for this blog I will link to another piece they have up.
Dale Franks says what healthcare reform needs is a real free market.
Straight Talk on Health Care
http://www.qando.net/index.php?paged=3
kcom Says:
August 19th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
The takeover of the census in his first week in office should have set off alarm bells in the head of every sentient being. I can only think of three possible reasons for that:
1. To increase the number of Democrat seats in the House;
2. To increase the number of electoral votes in Democrat states;
3. To increase the amount of taxpayer dollars going to Democrat districts, i.e., buying votes.
There is no possible way to explain Obama’s takeover of the census other than rigging elections.
no amount of apologizing and retreating is going to cover up his weakness in [foreign policy].
Not to mention the possibility of a non-linear event that by definition we are not expecting.
I’m planning on fooling everyone and denying medical care. I’m not going to claw out the last crappy months of my life pissing and raving, and I’m not going to snuff myself either….
I was in the room with my grampa when the doc started telling him all the treatments they could do for his stomach and liver cancer. Grampa had an old-fashioned top-notch plan from Sohio after his 37 years there….
My Grampa looked dumbfounded and said: “What the hell do I want all that for?! I’m 85?! I’ve had a good life. Bunky here is a good boy, he’ll do fine without me….” (winks at me)
The doc looked at him stunned and said: “Really? You don’t want any of this? What do you want?”
My grampa said: “Just keep me comfortable. I don’t need to hurt. I want to watch some football here….”
Doc: “We’ll do that. You are a remarkable man, Mr. [redacted]…..
Grampa: “And you’re a good doc. I’ll put a in good word for ya with Satan when I see him.”
Doc: “!” (actually, it was almost a comic “flip-take”.)
That’s how a man dies. I want to live up to that.
Some have said that health care reform is Obama’s Waterloo, or will be soon.
The analogy is far from perfect; for example, Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo was followed by his abdication, surrender, and exile
Oh please please please
grackle Says:
“pay premiums for what is generally considered a ‘good’ health insurance policy and STILL be wiped out financially by one illness.”
You sure? Most ‘good’ plans have yearly out of pocket maximums. Even some of those scary sounding 90/10 plans will only make you pay $5k a year. Just sayin… if you go out of your way to stay insured (even working at Radio Shack or something… for the insurance)… I think it is hard to be wiped out.
Gray: Your grandpa was a lucky man. He had his faculties and was not struggling for more oxygen. His lungs were not full of fluid. He had not suddenly had a stroke that paralyzed his dominant side and made it impossible to express himself.
For most of us that will not occur.
We do not get to choose our final ante-mortem events from a nice menu. Multiple bad things happen successively and incrementally to the near-dead, any one of which might prove fatal. Intervention prevents death from one cause, only to be followed in days, weeks, or months by another. So when does one say “No” to something possibly reversible in order to go quietly into that good night?
Since the advent of Social Security, about 30 years have been added to the life expectancy of the average male. Refusing potentially useful care at age 85 is very different than at 65. Or were your grandpa’s last 20 years a crock?
Since the advent of Social Security, about 30 years have been added to the life expectancy of the average male. Refusing potentially useful care at age 85 is very different than at 65. Or were your grandpa’s last 20 years a crock?
Oh… You’re a boomer.
Snuff yourself early then.
Gray, I understand your sentiments. I want to die peaceful in my sleep, just like my Grandfather. Not screaming and yelling like those other three people in the car.
🙂
John, that’s always been one of my favorite jokes.
When I listen to what Obama says, I find that he either makes no sense, recites platitudes quite well, or indicates that something really bad is about to happen.
Additionally, from around the time of the revelation of his noble “community organizer” past, I’ve seen Obama, enc., basically as a bunch of Communist thugs. So I’m afraid it’s going to get much worse before it gets better. The Commies do have their special ways – and they’re so much more advanced than those of most infants!
But maybe the Congressional Democrats will stop him out of their own instinct for self-preservation? I think by now, it’s actually their call. Otherwise, “gird your loins”, guys.
I said earlier: A person can work hard all their life, save a sizeable nest-egg for their elderly years, provide for their retirement and pay premiums for what is generally considered a ‘good’ health insurance policy and STILL be wiped out financially by one illness.
Thomass replied: You sure? Most ‘good’ plans have yearly out of pocket maximums. Even some of those scary sounding 90/10 plans will only make you pay $5k a year. Just sayin… if you go out of your way to stay insured (even working at Radio Shack or something… for the insurance)… I think it is hard to be wiped out.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure. What if Radio Shack doesn’t want to hire you? Getting hired somewhere can be tricky — what if you are just not lucky enough or an attractive enough applicant to be hired by a company that offers group insurance? The bulk of jobs are at small employers, many of which do not offer group insurance. That means all those people won’t have insurance unless they can purchase individual coverage.
Go to the link below, which is a record of a hearing held by the Committee On Energy And Commerce on June 16, 2009. Download the pdf entitled, “Preliminary Transcript.” Then open the pdf and start reading on page 49. It is the testimony of witnesses who had their insurance rescinded by their insurance companies.
http://tinyurl.com/l5fta3
They all went “out of” their “way to stay insured” yet had their claims disallowed, sometimes after paying premiums for years. One of the witnesses, Wittney Horton, is the lead plaintiff of 6,000 individuals in a class action lawsuit against Blue Cross. Once you’ve been rescinded by any insurance company no other insurance company will sell you individual coverage.
I do not direct the readers to this testimony in order to make a case against insurance companies. My point is simply that there are a variety ways that an individual can end up wiped out financially because of illness even though they have sought out insurance and faithfully paid premiums — having your insurance rescinded by the insurance company is only one of those ways.
There are other pitfalls: You may not pass the physical. You may fill out the paperwork incorrectly; much of the required paperwork is confusing and filled with special terminology. You may contract an illness that happens to not be covered by your policy. Just sayin …
“Waterloo, ” although it provided a great new nickname for a toilet, isn’t the proper word here.
The proper, most deliciously descriptive, word is comeuppance, one of my mother’s favorite words, and one of mine too. Moreso now that it has claimed another victim.
And, as for Blue Dogs, the proper appendage is tail.
Tort reform would put a lot of trial lawyers on the street. Bush 41 made some waves about lawyers being a problem running against Clinton. He went south fast right after that. Anyone paying attention to the read my lips statements knows the dems set him up so that taxes had to be raised, then pounced on him for it.
Those attempting to keep their places honestly don’t care what it costs “we the people” at the end of the day.
That’s what infuriates me so. Because that never, ever, changes.
I have very good (considering) private health insurance. But major illnesses have managed to wipe me out, as was touched on above. I make a very good wage, but still live from paycheck to pay check, re-paying medical bills for years to come. Via expensive but excellent health care, I am still alive. Plan all you want, but ca-ca can occur. We all play the hand we were dealt in many instances in life. But in most instances, we make our own beds and simply must lay in them. That is the best America can offer a citizen. Any individual has the same 24 hours in a day as another. What we do with those 24 hours, for the most part, determines our fate. Those who will not accept that, or have no idea how to change their own lives, are the ones who voted for Obama and the like. They can’t improve their own lot in life, so they want to steal part of mine. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
The French have a word for what we are in right now with this administration.
It speaks eloquently to the situation, and interestingly enough ALSO has a Waterloo connection.
I discovered that connection several decades ago in high school french class when I asked the teacher to translate a word I’d run across while reading the history of the Battle of Waterloo.
After blushing a shade that matched her red hair, she quietly whispered the answer so as not to inform the entire class.
The word of the day, my friends, is “merde”…..
br549 hits on the sobering point. It’s not just that illness can wipe you out financially despite years of good decision-making. A single accident can cripple you after years of good driving. A money-hemmorhaging branch of your company can bring down many good workers. Life is fraught with terrible risks, and we do not control everything.
Teaching people to expect that the government is going to make everything fair, as in health care, is teaching them to live in a world of illusion. You can see reality in partial eclipse in Europe already.
Mezzrow – very funny.
Teaching people to expect that the government is going to make everything fair, as in health care, is teaching them to live in a world of illusion. You can see reality in partial eclipse in Europe already.
I don’t think it is quite as simple as unattainable fairness vs. illusion vs. reality. There was a time in this country when children worked in factories under horrible conditions, a time not so long ago when lynching took place and folks were shot for going on strike.
All that unfairness changed because we the people demanded that our government change it. While I don’t expect the government to make every aspect of my individual life “fair,” I DO expect the government to correct glaring social injustices.
Agreed
A few of more awful provisions–like “end of life counseling” and “Quality of Life Years” calculations–of the various health care bills being worked on in Congress have been the center of attention so far, but these bills are chocked full of such totalitarian, society transforming gems.
For instance, it appears that little attention has been given so far to the direct intrusions into our privacy and decision making by things like provisions for home visits by agents of the government to new mothers/mothers with young children, to advise them of the government’s approved child raising regime and it’s preferences as to education of their children too; no doubt this will provide the ideal time for a little snooping as well.
Now, comes information about a proposal in one of the House bills, already passed by the House Education and Labor Committee, to have each person’s health monitored as to weight, habits, exercise, tobacco and alcohol use and diet–under the rubric, no doubt, of preventative medicine but also of course, to set those people up who refuse to get with the program for rejection if, in the future, they come down with an illness that the government judges to be the result of bad habits; such refusals are already taking place in the UK, where those who smoke are denied some treatments for lung cancer and overweight people sometimes rejected for hip and knee replacements, because of their bad lifestyle choices.
Under this program money will be given to “a national network of community based organizations” to carry out this monitoring “to promote healthy living and to remove disparities,” and when asked if this was code for ACORN, the always honest and truthful Senator Dodd responded that “he didn’t know.”
The more these weasels in Congress are exposed on the Internet–much wider exposure, I am sure, than they have ever had before–it becomes increasingly clear that they consider themselves an elite, ruling class–above and superior to the law–and that they view ordinary citizens as just subjects/serfs who should shut up and just pay whatever taxes and live their lives under whatever rules the ruling class decrees for them.
Grackle,
As long as the “social injustices” you noted are addressed using the powers delegated to the federal government and dealing with issues over which that entity has authority, I have no problem.
There is after all the 14th Amendment that extended acknowledgement of the rights recognized at the federal level to force the states to likewise recognize those same rights.
However, try as I might, I can’t find any reference to health care and insurance being federal domains under our constitution.
The only hook they have is the interstate commerce clause, which should be dealing with commerce – not deciding whether or not Granny is worthy of an operation.
And what does Hillary think now, I imagine? Is she secretly gleeful about the myriad blunders of this Rookie President? Does she look to stage a return in 2016? Even she would be preferable to this Chicago thug.
Hong,
I kind of hope Hillary does run against him in 2016.
Obama is so bad already that I actually miss ol Bill C. being in the oval office.
At least when Bill was pi$$ing me off, he was doing it competently by implementing policies I disagreed with instead of out of shear ignorance and stupidity!
I’ll take competence any day.
However, try as I might, I can’t find any reference to health care and insurance being federal domains under our constitution.
Scottie, you may be right — I’m no constitutional scholar, although I think of myself as a constitutional constructionist. Having a stance, however, is not the same as being an expert(on constitutional issues). But here’s some thoughts and a constitutional expert might laugh, but:
Although the federal government may not have certain powers — what about the states? Can the states defer certain powers to the federal government? Not that all states would do that, of course. I can see Massachusetts perhaps deferring but not Texas.
We have labor laws, which I favor in the abstract, although I probably do not favor every labor law. All the same, I would rather not turn the clock back to when children were exploited by predatory employers. Yet I see nothing in my copy of the Constitution that expressly addresses child labor, or lynching, or shooting strikers. It seems to me that a constitution that expressly addressed every discreet possibility would make a stack of documents that would reach to the moon. It follows then that the provisions in any constitution must necessarily be general in nature which means much of it is open to interpretation by future generations.
The only hook they have is the interstate commerce clause, which should be dealing with commerce – not deciding whether or not Granny is worthy of an operation.
It seems to me that treatment of illnesses is certainly “commerce,” because there is payment for services. Wouldn’t it be more of a question of “interstate,” instead of “commerce?”
I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?
grackle,
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Not if you enforce the 9th and 10th Amendments. Go study those two Amendments and I think you’ll find the answers to the questions you had regarding separation of power.
Keep in mind, prior to the formation of the federal government, ALL power was vested in the states and the people.
The power the federal government originally had, via the charter between the states/people and the federal government (AKA, Constitution of the US), consisted solely of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government via that charter.
The concern was that this new federal/centralized government would become too intrusive on the rights of the states, so you have the final two amendments to the Bill of Rights added before the states would ratify the charter.
So, as originally envisioned, the federal government could only operate within these limited roles as delegated, with all other responsibilities and authority being retained by the states and the people.
Regarding the “general welfare”, which is what you are hitting at regarding child labor laws and such, I would defer to what the Founding Fathers noted themselves.
Basically, the general welfare clause was to be advanced by the federal government only within the powers delegated to them via the Constitution.
Regarding child labor laws, I distinctly remember working on a farm from the age of about 10 or so, on up into my teenage years. I seemed to survive alright, and have plenty of incentive to do better in life so I never ever have to work that way again.
It tended to build a pretty good work ethic.
Nowadays, kids seem to go straight from high school into college, and they are graduates before they ever hold their first real job.
They are kind of missing out IMO on some fundamental character building along the way as the government “protects” them from “exploitation”.
I seemed to survive alright, and have plenty of incentive to do better in life so I never ever have to work that way again.
I grew up in a tourist town and the usual work for teens not plugged into Dad’s network was busing tables and washing dishes. In a busy restaurant that’s hard work. Later, in my early twenties, I did construction and union jobs. So I came to know what the real world of work is like for the majority of Americans.
One of my pet peeves with Obama is that, as far as I know, he never worked a sh*t job or did blue collar labor, yet he talks so high and mighty about how he understands working-class Americans. Feh.
A democrat staffer sent this to me in response to my statement that support for the public option has tanked.
Public Option approval at 77% in a poll released today.
I’d say (the public option) its definitely on the table.
http://www.surveyusa…b8-62b9d1ba8693
John: I’m curious to look at the poll, but the link doesn’t work. I suspect the three-dot elipse in the middle needs to be filled in.
I said earlier: I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?
Scottie replies: Not if you enforce the 9th and 10th Amendments. Go study those two Amendments and I think you’ll find the answers to the questions you had regarding separation of power.
Keep in mind, prior to the formation of the federal government, ALL power was vested in the states and the people.
The power the federal government originally had, via the charter between the states/people and the federal government (AKA, Constitution of the US), consisted solely of the powers expressly delegated to the federal government via that charter.
The concern was that this new federal/centralized government would become too intrusive on the rights of the states, so you have the final two amendments to the Bill of Rights added before the states would ratify the charter.
So, as originally envisioned, the federal government could only operate within these limited roles as delegated, with all other responsibilities and authority being retained by the states and the people.
Regarding the “general welfare”, which is what you are hitting at regarding child labor laws and such, I would defer to what the Founding Fathers noted themselves.
Basically, the general welfare clause was to be advanced by the federal government only within the powers delegated to them via the Constitution.
Thanks, Scottie, for the material on the Constitution and the history of the formation of our government but none of the above, to my mind, refutes my observation that the Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and that the voters allow it to do. Stating that Congress could not do something IF certain amendments were enforced may be true but only serves to prove my point.
Regarding child labor laws, I distinctly remember working on a farm from the age of about 10 or so, on up into my teenage years. I seemed to survive alright, and have plenty of incentive to do better in life so I never ever have to work that way again. It tended to build a pretty good work ethic. Nowadays, kids seem to go straight from high school into college, and they are graduates before they ever hold their first real job. They are kind of missing out IMO on some fundamental character building along the way as the government “protects” them from “exploitation”.
Scottie, I’m certain you worked very hard from age 10 on up to today; I’ll bet your work ethic is second to none and I agree that some youths are loosing out on a valuable life experience if they never work before they graduate from college but by noting your personal history are you taking the view that child labor laws were not needed? That the nation would have been better off without them?
Ah, this must be John’s link: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
Currently DailyKos and most other left sites are trumpeting this poll and complaining about polls that undercut support for the public option.
The difference hinges, as as is often the case in polls, on how the question is asked. For instance:
(1) “In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance?
(2) “Would you favor or oppose creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies?”
(See http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7335.)
Seems to me that (1) is a sort of “How important is it for everyone to have lollipops?” versus (2) “How important is it for everyone to have lollipops that must be paid for?”
Personally I’m all for the public option myself as long as it has no repercussions and incurs no additional expenses.
That’s the option that Obama is trying to sell but few believe that option is available in the real world and most conclude that Obama knows this, but keeps saying so anyway.
And to those paying more attention … what is Obamacare once the “one tiny sliver” of public option is removed?
Sorry about that.
Try this:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5ba17aa2-f1b9-4445-a6b8-62b9d1ba8693
I think Scottie is noting the fact that doing hard work while young makes one understand the need for discipline and a good work ethic.
I too had several difficult jobs when I was young and am forever grateful that I actually know what labor actually entails. Obama doesn’t seem to have any actual work in his experience. Just a lot of blather and conning people.
Re this health care “emergency”? What exactly is the emergency? That some people can’t afford any insurance at all? That too many people can’t get insurance because of pre-existing conditions?
I’d like to see the powers-that-be discuss what the actual emergency is. Then some of their proposals may or may not make sense. Surely health care issues can be discussed in a rational way.
Promethea replies for Scottie: I think Scottie is noting the fact that doing hard work while young makes one understand the need for discipline and a good work ethic.
Thank you, Promethea, for trying to clarify Scottie’s viewpoint and I agree with you and Scottie on the idea that work experience while young can imbue good values later in life but I’m still left without answers to a couple of specific questions I asked of Scottie, which are: Is he taking the view that child labor laws were not needed? That the nation would have been better off without them?
I vill let history talk for me today…
“everybody has to meet his waterloo”
Stonewall Jackson Waterloo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJ6C8LMhcWQ
But i guess the libs see it this way
Abba Waterloo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVGSKVkkyhc
but healthcare is not waterloo, there is no wellington, unless its beef on the menu.
right now he is starting to look a bit like this
“Galloping Gertie”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-zczJXSxnw
however sadly, i hope its not like Czechoslovakias “democratic national revolution” and the promises then in 1948 when Gottwald’s popularity declined. (Chavez kind of copied it)
if you know those histories, you would know why so many laws and no one is reading them. why read them if you didnt write them and the point is to get as many in as possible to suddenly accelerate the process? and his dumb gifts and things result in fragmentation of the unity of the capitalist countries?
i will leave you with a quote from history:
“If we can impose on the U.S.A. the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the American economy, the working and the lower middle classes will suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed them. They will be ready for revolution”. Konstantin Katushev
and an article out of history (note the date)..
World Bank Under Cyber Siege in ‘Unprecedented Crisis’
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,435681,00.html
The World Bank Group’s computer network – one of the largest repositories of sensitive data about the economies of every nation – has been raided repeatedly by outsiders for more than a year, FOX News has learned.
and some points to ponder…
“The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us then ten-thousand truths.” Sasha Pushkin
“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted” Dostoyevsky
To the size of the state there is a limit, as there is to plants, animals and implements, for none of these retain their facility when they are too large. Aristotle
The people never give up their liberties, but under some delusion. Edmund Burke
A hand from Washington will be stretched out and placed upon every man’s business; the eye of the federal inspector will be in every man’s counting house…. The law will of necessity have inquisical features, it will provide penalties, it will create complicated machinery. Under it, men will be hauled into courts distant from their homes. Heavy fines imposed by distant and unfamiliar tribunals will constantly menace the taxpayer. An army of federal inspectors, spies, and detectives will descend upon the state. – Byrd
and lastly
All bad precedents began as justifiable measures.
Gaius Julius Caesar
Men decide far more problems by hate, love, lust, rage, sorrow, joy, hope, fear, illusion, or some other inward emotion, than by reality, authority, any legal standard, judicial precedent, or statute. cicero
its not like any of this is actually new…
but to the incurious…well, everything is a wonder…
Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.
Marcus Tullius Cicero
The better analogy is Borodino: a phyric victory that evolves into a burnt out capital and a devastating retreat.
grackle,
“Is he taking the view that child labor laws were not needed?”
No, I’m not. Far from it actually – so you can toss that straw man out now.
Acquaint yourself with exactly what a 19th century sweatshop consisted of and compare it to pretty much any industry in the US today and there is a world of difference.
I AM saying that a good thing can be taken too far, and I think an overreaching government forever in search of additional ways to “save the children” will always find some way to promote to do just that – whether it’s ultimately in the child’s best interests or not.
Over time, would you not agree that diminishing the work ethic is a bad thing?
You seem to equate working hard with sweatshop work.
I can assure you from personal experience that hard work generally is not going to kill or maim anyone – and to the contrary can instill life lessons that won’t be learned in any other fashion.
Or are you, on the other hand, taking the position that a “child” should have attained the age of 18, 19, or 20 before they ever actually work and discover what a paycheck is?
Your next question:
“That the nation would have been better off without them?”
Refer to my previous initial answer, which is no. But again, a good thing can be taken too far – and it’s usually for the sake of “the children” that such occurs.
I’ve come to realize that when someone uses the “sake of children” as a means of defending their position, it’s usually because they don’t have much to buttress their argument.
Take the recent elimination of lead in toys, for instance, that the government is mandating.
One of the toys that IS affected are bicycles.
Why, you may ask?
It’s not because of paint or anything like that, it’s because tire manufacturers use a small amount of lead in I believe it’s the valve stem of the tire.
The government apparently feels the child will try sucking on the inner tube!
Would you not agree, grackle, that this is becoming ludicrous?
I wondered earlier if the commentor’s viewpoint was that child labor laws were not needed.
No, I’m not. Far from it actually – so you can toss that straw man out now.
A “straw man” argument is when someone misrepresents another person’s position. I asked a couple of questions in order to find out what the commentor’s position was. I think I need to point out to the readers who may be unfamiliar with the concept that the commentor asserting that my attempting to ascertain his viewpoint is a “straw man” argument is in itself a “straw man” argument.
Acquaint yourself with exactly what a 19th century sweatshop consisted of and compare it to pretty much any industry in the US today and there is a world of difference.
But that “difference” exists only because laws were passed to create that “difference.”
I AM saying that a good thing can be taken too far, and I think an overreaching government forever in search of additional ways to “save the children” will always find some way to promote to do just that – whether it’s ultimately in the child’s best interests or not.
I am not a fan of the “nanny state” myself. However I DO believe in the desirability of laws that prevent the exploitation of children in the workplace.
Over time, would you not agree that diminishing the work ethic is a bad thing?
Of course, I’ve already said as much a couple of different times in this thread.
You seem to equate working hard with sweatshop work.
I see nothing wrong with folks “working hard,” to the contrary: I believe productivity gives meaning to life. But “working hard” and “sweatshop work” are vague, undefined terms.
I can assure you from personal experience that hard work generally is not going to kill or maim anyone – and to the contrary can instill life lessons that won’t be learned in any other fashion.
Here again — I have never disagreed with the idea that youthful employment can be valuable in the formation of values. I feel I must point out to the readers that child labor laws don’t prevent youths from working — no more than traffic laws prevent folks from driving; child labor laws are designed only to prevent employers from exploiting children in the workplace.
Or are you, on the other hand, taking the position that a “child” should have attained the age of 18, 19, or 20 before they ever actually work and discover what a paycheck is?
No. I’m pretty well satisfied with the Child Labor Laws currently in force which, by the way, allow for the employment of youths below the age of 18. .
Your next question:
“That the nation would have been better off without them[child labor laws]?”
Refer to my previous initial answer, which is no. But again, a good thing can be taken too far – and it’s usually for the sake of “the children” that such occurs.
Sure, a good thing can be taken too far, I suppose. What I am trying to find out is if the commentor believes that child labor law violates the Constitution because the Constitution does not expressly address child labor. The commentor originally asserted that:
However, try as I might, I can’t find any reference to health care and insurance being federal domains under our constitution.
I then came up with some examples, child labor laws among them, of things not mentioned in the Constitution that I believe are probably “constitutional”(although I don’t claim to be a constitutional expert) and also good for society. The commentor then began arguing that hard work was good for children which led me to entertain the notion that he might not actually be in favor of child labor laws. In order to verify his actual viewpoint I asked a couple of simple, direct questions that would have cleared that up for us. And he started off in the beginning of this latest reply pretty clear-cut but some of his statements above, such as …
… hard work generally is not going to kill or maim anyone … a good thing can be taken too far – and it’s usually for the sake of “the children” that such occurs.
… only muddies the water again. Is he for or against child labor laws? On the one hand he says he is but then he turns around and implies he isn’t.
I’ve come to realize that when someone uses the “sake of children” as a means of defending their position, it’s usually because they don’t have much to buttress their argument.
I guess the above is a denigration of my viewpoint, which is that child labor law was and is a good thing for society, even though the subject of child labor is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.
Take the recent elimination of lead in toys, for instance, that the government is mandating. One of the toys that IS affected are bicycles. Why, you may ask? It’s not because of paint or anything like that, it’s because tire manufacturers use a small amount of lead in I believe it’s the valve stem of the tire. The government apparently feels the child will try sucking on the inner tube! Would you not agree, grackle, that this is becoming ludicrous?
No, actually I don’t think “the government apparently feels the child will try sucking on the inner tube.” In this instance the concern was with “hand-to-mouth contact,” which is a common behavior in children. The child contacts the valve stem with the fingers, lead from the valve stem is transferred to the fingers, the fingers are brought to the mouth and lead is absorbed through the mouth into the body. Below is a link to the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s report:
http://tiny.cc/BYCtP
I found this column in the Wall Street Journal a couple of days ago. It is short and easily understandable, and thus perfect for forwarding to friends and relatives.
The Panel: What death by bureaucratic fiat might look like.
Nice try grackle, but that was kind of an epic….
For instance, in defending the lead elimination issue you offer the suggestion that the child would place their hands in their mouths after handling the valve stem of an inner tube.
Unfortunately for your example, the lead I was referring to is *within* the valve stem – not external where it would come into contact with the fingers.
It’s not even pure *lead* itself that’s the issue, it’s the fact lead is used in making brass components and there is a residual amount left after the process.
Even the parties involved admit it’s not about the reason you cite – but rather that the law is so absolute.
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/2612.html
Enlightening quote from the above link:
“The BPSA filed an exclusion petition January 28, which supplied the CPSA with sound toxicology indicating a child riding a bicycle with recycled materials would ingest less lead than when he or she drinks water from a tap or eats hard candy.”
And just to put this into perspective, there is even residual lead in the brass castings that are the guts of your average kitchen faucet.
The rest of your comments are about as far off the mark.
Elsewhere, you want to create linkage between child labor laws and sweatshops – something I didn’t bring up yet you insist I should defend?
I suggested you study the history of 19th century sweatshops to understand what the conditions actually were, and you claim:
“…that “difference” exists only because laws were passed to create that “difference.” ”
Yet, later in the same post you go on about how ““working hard” and “sweatshop work” are vague, undefined terms.
You want to use sweatshops as an example of evil “exploitation” of children that child labor laws stopped, yet then state that “sweatshop work” is a “vague” term.
Please read your history.
19th century sweatshops were NOT eliminated by Child Labor Laws – the first of those did not become law until well into the Great Depression only a couple of years before WWII, and interestingly enough it appears the intent may not have been so much to protect children as it was to prevent adults for working at child wages since everyone was so desperate for a job.
The sweatshop era came along much earlier and were the result of industry being so starved for workers they were even hiring children.
Quite the opposite situation than the Great Depression….
As for the “straw man” argument, yes you are attempting to create one. You don’t do it in a single, precise, clear paragraph – but you ARE attempting to do it by such following statements:
“The commentor then began arguing that hard work was good for children which led me to entertain the notion that he might not actually be in favor of child labor laws.”
That statement following AFTER I had already stated clearly that I was NOT against such laws. Why continue on that path if not to attempt a straw man argument and misrepresent my position to anyone without the patience to go through these long posts?
I was explicitly clear.
You could try to claim you were simply clarifying your original statement, except you make subsequent statements like:
“What I am trying to find out is if the commentor believes that child labor law violates the Constitution because the Constitution does not expressly address child labor.”
Again, I had already stated support for such laws – yet you insinuate I do not and are “trying to find out” if I am opposed to such laws.
Again, this after I had already stated support for those laws.
More:
“… only muddies the water again. Is he for or against child labor laws? On the one hand he says he is but then he turns around and implies he isn’t.”
Again, what part of *I don’t oppose child labor laws* are you not getting? When you claim “implies he isn’t”, that is again part of a straw man argument.
Epic. Failure.
Now, let’s get back to YOUR assertion (which you did manage to walk away from for a while with this little sidetrip):
“That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Exactly how do YOU defend this statement? What precisely do you think the job – or at least one of the jobs – of the USSC is if not to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress?
The power of the Supreme Court to strike down laws as unconstitutional that are passed by Congress, for instance, pretty much destroys your assertion of an omnipotent legislative branch.
Then there is the power of the executive branch to veto legislation passed by the legislative branch.
So, care to return to the original discussion and attempt to defend what you actually said, as opposed to what you would like to insinuate I said on a completely unrelated topic that you brought up?
Pingback:Random Thoughts » God’s partner in matters of life and death
The commentor: Nice try grackle, but that was kind of an epic….
For instance, in defending the lead elimination issue you offer the suggestion that the child would place their hands in their mouths after handling the valve stem of an inner tube.
The commentor is quoting from an article entitled, “Industry Awaits CPSA Response” and dated 04/20/2009. I was not offering a “suggestion” in my last post; I was citing the actual report, dated the month after the article, which was the “response” of the government to the manufacturer’s appeal to be exempted from the law and allowed to import an inner tube with a lead-contaminated valve stem.
The report clearly states the reason for the ruling was because of possible hand-to-mouth lead contamination, hand-to-mouth behavior being extremely common in children. The commentor is welcome to dispute the agency’s reason for the ruling but NOT to erroneously characterize it as a “suggestion” cooked up by me.
I’m wondering if the commentor read the report to which I provided a link, because in that “response” the government made it clear that the government’s concern was not that “… the child will try sucking on the inner tube,” as asserted by the commentor, but that the concern of the government and the reason for the ruling was actually because of hand-to-mouth lead contamination.
Unfortunately for your example, the lead I was referring to is *within* the valve stem – not external where it would come into contact with the fingers.
Whatever lead the commentor was “referring to,” the government’s stated concern in the report was clearly NOT with lead “within” the valve stem but from lead contamination from the outside, threaded part of the valve stem.
It’s not even pure *lead* itself that’s the issue, it’s the fact lead is used in making brass components and there is a residual amount left after the process.
The above made me smile; it’s rather like that old saying, “It’s not the fall that hurts; it’s when you hit the ground.”
Even the parties involved admit it’s not about the reason you cite – but rather that the law is so absolute.
If, by “parties involved,” the commentor means a disappointed bicycle manufacturer who was hoping to import a component of its product, the above statement is true enough. But another party “involved,” the agency directed to administer a law legislated by Congress, made no such admission at all.
http://www.bicycleretailer.com/news/newsDetail/2612.html
Enlightening quote from the above link:
“The BPSA filed an exclusion petition January 28, which supplied the CPSA with sound toxicology indicating a child riding a bicycle with recycled materials would ingest less lead than when he or she drinks water from a tap or eats hard candy.”
But it wasn’t a child “riding a bicycle” that concerned the government, as the government’s report clearly states. It was hand-to-mouth lead contamination from a inner tube valve stem.
And just to put this into perspective, there is even residual lead in the brass castings that are the guts of your average kitchen faucet.
I guess the “perspective” of the commentor is that if poison is already present in the environment that more poison should be allowed to be put into the environment. Myself, I don’t find such a “perspective” very appealing. To each his own.
The rest of your comments are about as far off the mark.
Elsewhere, you want to create linkage between child labor laws and sweatshops – something I didn’t bring up yet you insist I should defend?
I suggested you study the history of 19th century sweatshops to understand what the conditions actually were, and you claim:
“…that “difference” exists only because laws were passed to create that “difference.”
For the readers here are the actual quotes in full:
First, the commentor: Acquaint yourself with exactly what a 19th century sweatshop consisted of and compare it to pretty much any industry in the US today and there is a world of difference.
And then my response: But that “difference” exists only because laws were passed to create that “difference.”
Do you see any reference at all to child labor laws in my response, dear readers?
Yet, later in the same post you go on about how ““working hard” and “sweatshop work” are vague, undefined terms.
Yes, I DID mildly protest the commentor’s use of those words, yet the commentor tries to assert elsewhere that it was ME that was using the “sweatshop” word. Amusing, is it not?
You want to use sweatshops as an example of evil “exploitation” of children that child labor laws stopped, yet then state that “sweatshop work” is a “vague” term.
No, untrue! I do NOT “want to use sweatshops as an example of evil ‘exploitation’ of children that child labor laws stopped.” I NEVER used the word, “sweatshop,” except to quote the commentor and NEVER in conjunction with child labor laws.
Please read your history.
19th century sweatshops were NOT eliminated by Child Labor Laws – the first of those did not become law until well into the Great Depression only a couple of years before WWII, and interestingly enough it appears the intent may not have been so much to protect children as it was to prevent adults for working at child wages since everyone was so desperate for a job.
The sweatshop era came along much earlier and were the result of industry being so starved for workers they were even hiring children.
Quite the opposite situation than the Great Depression….
Well, SOMEBODY bought up sweatshops and it sure wasn’t me. I invite the readers if they have the time to peruse previous posts by the commentor and myself to see for themselves who began using the word first. If that is done it will be seen that I used the word, “sweatshop,” ONLY when quoting the commentor, NEVER any other time.
My contention was and is that child labor laws are probably constitutional even though child labor is not mentioned in the constitution and that child labor laws are a good thing for society because they prevent the exploitation of children in the workplace. I NEVER linked the word, “sweatshop,” to child labor laws or exploitation of children in the workplace; for the commentor to claim I did is PURE fantasy.
As for the “straw man” argument, yes you are attempting to create one. You don’t do it in a single, precise, clear paragraph – but you ARE attempting to do it by such following statements:
“The commentor then began arguing that hard work was good for children which led me to entertain the notion that he might not actually be in favor of child labor laws.”
That statement following AFTER I had already stated clearly that I was NOT against such laws. Why continue on that path if not to attempt a straw man argument and misrepresent my position to anyone without the patience to go through these long posts?
I was explicitly clear.
You could try to claim you were simply clarifying your original statement, except you make subsequent statements like:
“What I am trying to find out is if the commentor believes that child labor law violates the Constitution because the Constitution does not expressly address child labor.”
Again, I had already stated support for such laws – yet you insinuate I do not and are “trying to find out” if I am opposed to such laws.
Again, this after I had already stated support for those laws.
More:
“… only muddies the water again. Is he for or against child labor laws? On the one hand he says he is but then he turns around and implies he isn’t.”
Again, what part of *I don’t oppose child labor laws* are you not getting? When you claim “implies he isn’t”, that is again part of a straw man argument.
Epic. Failure.
Below, other than protestations that he is ‘for’ child labor laws, is ALL of what the commentor has so far stated in regards to child labor excerpted and placed together in the order they were posted:
Regarding child labor laws, I distinctly remember working on a farm from the age of about 10 or so, on up into my teenage years. I seemed to survive alright, and have plenty of incentive to do better in life so I never ever have to work that way again. It tended to build a pretty good work ethic. Nowadays, kids seem to go straight from high school into college, and they are graduates before they ever hold their first real job. They are kind of missing out IMO on some fundamental character building along the way as the government “protects” them from “exploitation”
I AM saying that a good thing can be taken too far, and I think an overreaching government forever in search of additional ways to “save the children” will always find some way to promote to do just that – whether it’s ultimately in the child’s best interests or not.
Over time, would you not agree that diminishing the work ethic is a bad thing?
You seem to equate working hard with sweatshop work.
I can assure you from personal experience that hard work generally is not going to kill or maim anyone – and to the contrary can instill life lessons that won’t be learned in any other fashion.
Or are you, on the other hand, taking the position that a “child” should have attained the age of 18, 19, or 20 before they ever actually work and discover what a paycheck is?
But again, a good thing[child labor laws] can be taken too far – and it’s usually for the sake of “the children” that such occurs.
I’ve come to realize that when someone uses the “sake of children” as a means of defending their position, it’s usually because they don’t have much to buttress their argument.
I invite the readers to browse though the commentors own statements and judge for themselves however much affection the commentor may have for child labor laws.
Now, let’s get back to YOUR assertion (which you did manage to walk away from for a while with this little sidetrip):
“That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Exactly how do YOU defend this statement? What precisely do you think the job – or at least one of the jobs – of the USSC is if not to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed by congress?
The power of the Supreme Court to strike down laws as unconstitutional that are passed by Congress, for instance, pretty much destroys your assertion of an omnipotent legislative branch.
I didn’t assert that Congress was “omnipotent.” After all, the voters ultimately control Congress through election. And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress “unconstitutional” but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely. In fact the SCOTUS is reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.
I will make a prediction: Any law concerning healthcare as is currently being debated and if passed by Congress in whatever form it takes will NEVER be declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. I doubt that the SCOTUS would even deign to give a hearing to a challenge to a national healthcare law.
When the SCOTUS does declare Congressional legislation unconstitutional the Congress is free to turn around and pass another law with similar provisions, as Congress did with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. As I stated before, Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.
Then there is the power of the executive branch to veto legislation passed by the legislative branch.
Any veto can be overturned by Congress.
So, care to return to the original discussion and attempt to defend what you actually said, as opposed to what you would like to insinuate I said on a completely unrelated topic that you brought up?
I won’t attempt to answer the above since I am not sure of the commentor’s meaning.
The above comment was very long, but it’s instructive in a way.
The difference between the above commenter’s long comment and Artfldgr’s long comments is that Artfldgr usually has some very important points to make, rather than wallowing in nitpicking trivia.
grackle,
Again, more epic failure. Honestly, your post is I now longer than the host’s original article!
You waddled through that entire bit of drivel, and yet never really disproved a thing except you won’t admit to being mistaken.
You even contort the report, as I’ll point out now.
Here is a relevant quote from the report you, yourself, submitted to the argument – with a helpful breakdown that perhaps will make it easy enough for even someone like you to understand just how asinine this law is.
“However, the CPSIA establishes the standard by which the staff evaluates the materials submitted with a request for exclusions.”
Simple enough, the law in question establishes the standard.
Let’s read further and see exactly WHAT standards were set by the congress critter geniuses, and what you’d have to do to have an exemption.
“The law states that an exclusion may be granted if lead in such product or material will neither: (a) result in the absorption of any lead into the human body, taking into account normal and reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of such product by a child’, including swallowing, mouthing, breaking, or other children’s activities, and the aging ofthe product; nor (b) have any other adverse impact on public health or safety.”
So, we can see that the law states explicity that NO absorption can take place, AND it would have to be a product that cannot have any adverse impact on “public health or safety”.
The manufacturer has to meet not just one or the other standard – but BOTH – to be able to obtain the exemption.
Since lead is now verboten(!), and considered to have an adverse impact on “public health and safety” regardless of circumstances, with allowable limits set even LESS than background levels of the same material or what one would be exposed to in literally drinking water or eating candy – this agency was required to deny the exemption.
“Because the requestor’s report indicated that children’s use of bicycles and related products could result in intake of lead, and therefore absorption, however small the absorbed amount, the staffs initial recommendation to the Commission is to not grant the request to exclude metal alloys used in bicycles and related products on the grounds that the statutory standard has notbeen met.”
Notice those words “statutory standard”.
Absorption of ANY amount of lead basically requires them UNDER THIS LAW to reject the exemption that was requested, even if such levels are easily within safe limits and the body would easily be able to relieve itself of the small amount of lead that could POTENTIALLY be absorbed.
Also, the relevent problem was not apparently the valve stem – you know, the example I provided.
The problem was more so the brake levers. A fact that you seem to have completely missed as you argued on about the valve stem example I was referring to.
Yes, your arguing over that instead of brake levers left me a bit perplexed – especially since you referenced the article to begin with!
Did YOU actually read the thing?
But it gets better! Read on:
“Prior to enactment of the CPSIA, the staffs assessments of lead-containing children’s products,under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), were based on estimates of lead intake and the subsequent effects of the exposure on blood lead level, considering the toxicology of lead and the demonstrated health effects associated with increasing blood lead levels. Regulation of a consumer product as a “hazardous substance” under the FHSA requires assessment of exposureand risk from reasonably foreseeable use and abuse of the product. In this case, given the assessment provided by the requestor, the staff likely would have concluded that the estimated exposure to lead from children’s use of bicycles would have little impact on the blood lead level.
Accordingly, based on the staffs assessment, the staff would have recommended that the Commission not consider the product to be a hazardous substance to be regulated under theFHSA”
So, EVEN THIS AGENCY would normally have considered the facts of the matter and arrived at a reasonable conclusion and allowed the exemption as in the past EXCEPT for the fact the law is written such that they are REQUIRED to rule this way.
Their hands are tied in the matter by this congressional law.
Even the agency charged with enforcing this provision seems to be indicating it’s an asinine standard!
What has not sunk into the congress critters lil brains is that the only way to completely eliminate all potential hazardous substances is to go live in the vacuum of space.
I’d be happy to see you go try that!
As can be plainly seen, the law as written is quite stupid.
You can glorify it with “saving the children”.
You can arrogantly put out that you are more concerned about children than others and intolerant of ANY level of lead.
However, as the report noted they themselves would have normally allowed this exemption except the law is not written in a way that would permit them to do so.
I guess you know better than they do though, right? Why you must be a chemical engineer in real life!
As I pointed out before, I consider “for the children” a cop out when you’re out of intellectual firepower.
Now that I’ve hopefully lifted the scales from your eyes on THAT extensive side trip into lala land, let’s get back to your assertion regarding Congressional powers.
No, I have no intention of turning it loose no matter how hard you try to sidetrack the issue!
You state: “I won’t attempt to answer the above since I am not sure of the commentor’s meaning.”
Why am I not surprised?
I once again refer you back to your assertion that Congress can do anything it wants – and note how easily it was to disprove your assertion.
No where in your last response did I actually see you note that you were wrong.
You either can’t, are unable – or more likely refuse – to believe that you, someone with your obvious fragile sense of superiority to others, could ever possibly, even remotely – be wrong.
You hem and haw, obfuscate, attempt to modify what you actually said – but never really are intellectually capable of admitting you were wrong.
It’s quite childish, actually.
But it gets even funnier when you simply assert what you believe as fact – for instance when you claim:
“And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress “unconstitutional” but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely. In fact the SCOTUS is reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional. ”
You seem completely ignorant – and I do mean ignorant – of the fact that the US Supreme Court between 1994 and 2002 struck down all or part of at least 32 federal laws. Those are old numbers, I know there are other laws that have been striken down since then, but we’ll go with that for the time being.
Taking into account the shear volume of laws congress passes in any given year (2009 looks to produce a bumper crop!), then given the fact that the Supreme Court is quite selective in which cases they agree to hear and that there will often be years after a law is passed before it’s challenged, and the proper channels navigated to make it to the Supreme Court are quite complicated – I’d say 32 cases going against the government in a period of only 8 years is actually pretty impressive!
So, are you FINALLY ready to admit you were wrong on Congressional powers, that they can do “anything” they want – ie, omnipotent?
And yes, I’d like that in clear language. I’d like to see you simply state something to the effect:
“Yes, I was wrong. Congress can not do anything it wants.”
I’ll check back to see what kind of side trip or obfuscation you attempt this time.
Again, more epic failure. Honestly, your post is I now longer than the host’s original article!
Well, finally something I can agree on with the commentor. Even though I have tried to save space these replies ARE too long. I’ll do my best to condense my replies from now on.
The commentor is upset that I cannot understand a particular paragraph at the end of his last comment enough to reply to it. I think any reader can see my point — the paragraph is just vague references, unexplained phrases and mysterious concoctions embedded in jumbled, incoherent syntax unrelieved by any concrete references or quoted material. I just have to have more to go on before responding.
The commentor is also angry that I have not admitted to being wrong. With the readers’ indulgence I’m going to try to put it in the simplest way I know how: I did not note that I was wrong because I was not wrong.
The commentor has misread the CPSIA report and still seems to be misreading the report. The report disallows the an exemption applied for by a bicycle manufacturer for several reasons. One reason was that the manufacturer hired a firm(Gradient Corporation) to present an evaluation on lead contamination to the CPSIA and the CPSIA found the Gradient Corporation’s evaluation to be largely irrelevant since the firm’s evaluation used material about jewelry and plumbing fixtures in the firm’s assessment of lead contamination instead of bicycles. The firm apparently did not perform original research but cobbled together previous material on jewelry and plumbing fixtures.
The commentor seems to have belatedly realized that he was wrong about the contamination path that concerned the CPSIA. The CPSIA was never concerned about direct bicycle-to-mouth contamination but was concerned about hand-to-mouth contamination.
The report disallows exemption of a variety of parts but it was only necessary for me to mention one part, valve stems, in order to refute the commentor’s original assertion that the exemption was denied on the basis that the government thought that “a child will try sucking on the inner tube.” In fact the commentor devotes a great deal of space arguing about aspects of his opinion about the report that I never challenged. I did not “contort” the reports findings.
The commentor keeps erroneously claiming that I have described the Congress as “omnipotent” and that I have written that the Congress “can do anything” that Congress wants to do. Below is my actual quote in full:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
There’s no claim that the Congress is “omnipotent” or that Congress can do “anything” Congress wants to do.
While it is obviously true that some laws legislated by Congress are struck down by the SCOTUS, I stand by my assertion that the SCOTUS is reluctant to do so. I don’t see that the commentor’s example of 32 SCOTUS decisions over an 8 year period effectively refutes my point.
The above comment was very long, but it’s instructive in a way. The difference between the above commenter’s long comment and Artfldgr’s long comments is that Artfldgr usually has some very important points to make, rather than wallowing in nitpicking trivia.
I guess such things depend somewhat on viewpoint. Myself, I think it is important to be factual. Everyone has a right to their own opinion but no one has a right to invent facts to bolster their opinion. One person’s nitpicking of trivia is another person’s concern for accuracy. To each his own.
grackle @ 10:04 AM
Regarding the report you referenced on the lead – it states exactly what I said it does.
I even quote at length from your own source material the references that show the concern was not hand-to-mouth transmission from the valve stem, but rather that the total residual trace lead in the brass stem exceeded the absolute limit placed by congress.
I also pointed out that even the regulatory agency noted they would have considered this rationally in an earlier era and ruled in favor of the manufacturer!
You don’t have to go back to the report to look it up, I quoted it earlier for my amusement.
Regarding your assertion – without a shred of evidence – that 32 laws being completely or partially struck down as unconstitutional over 8 years is not evidence of willingness on the part of the supreme court to go against the will of congress is ludicrous.
Between 2007 and 2008, there were over 18,200 Petitions for Writ of Certiorari submitted to the US Supreme Court.
The court does not agree to hear every case.
To keep it simple so you can keep up, the court will actually hear only about 100 or fewer cases a year.
Most of these cases are fairly simply and will be ruled on without controversy, and simply affirm that some action is within the bounds of what the constitution allows.
If there were 100 cases that went against the government every year, then that would indicate a deeper problem!
The court will use these cases as a way of setting precedent, thereby providing direction to lower courts to prevent these same issues from coming up again, or being ruled on inconsistently within the various federal districts.
The court has to do it this way, as they cannot simply keep passing down directives reading “you will rule this way” for every conceivable situation someone can imagine before that situation arises.
They have to do it via precedent using actual court cases.
You are very welcome for the civics lesson, btw. It is my pleasure to educate you.
But back to the congressional powers issue, for which you are still receiving a flunking grade at this point:
You state:
“The commentor is upset that I cannot understand a particular paragraph at the end of his last comment enough to reply to it. I think any reader can see my point — the paragraph is just vague references, unexplained phrases and mysterious concoctions embedded in jumbled, incoherent syntax unrelieved by any concrete references or quoted material. I just have to have more to go on before responding.”
No, not upset at all – I actually enjoy a battle of wits with the unarmed!
I also think it’s funny that you now seem to be appealing to any third party viewer for support.
It’s hilarious that you describe my responses as “incoherent” – yet have spent vast amounts of time going back and forth in this thread responding to what I say!
Gee, you must have comprehended SOMETHING!
It’s hard to believe the question I directed to you is difficult for you to comprehend – but given how you have dodged and weaved so far to avoid admitting your mistakes, I guess it’s not difficult to believe at all at this point.
You state:
““I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
There’s no claim that the Congress is “omnipotent” or that Congress can do “anything” Congress wants to do.””
Yes, you were claiming congress could do as it pleased. You can qualify any way you want – but the basic premise remains that congress is not restricted in it’s authority.
Allow me to explain this in the simplest terms that even you may be able to understand.
Being able to do anything one wants is to be omnipotent – at least within one’s area of authority.
I pointed out extensively that there are limits to congressional power – and those limits apply regardless of popular support by the public.
If congress decides that a great money saving tactic is to quarter troops in people’s homes, and if by some massive loss of sanity within the general public it’s popularly supported, it doesn’t matter because congress is specifically restricted from being able to do that.
That’s why this nation is a Republic – not a Democracy.
Congress, supported by the popular will of the public, simply cannot do anything it wants.
Suppose congress, with a majority of the public support, decides imprisoning every member of some minority group is a good idea and decides they can pass a law to that effect.
They can’t.
They don’t have the power.
They are restricted in their authority from doing “pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
Your epic failures are realling piling up here.
I will repeat the question I posted earlier, as I just don’t feel like letting it go at this point.
I’ll even quote myself just so you can’t say I have rephrased the question:
“So, are you FINALLY ready to admit you were wrong on Congressional powers, that they can do “anything” they want – ie, omnipotent?”
The commentor says: Regarding the report you referenced on the lead – it states exactly what I said it does. I even quote at length from your own source material the references that show the concern was not hand-to-mouth transmission from the valve stem, but rather that the total residual trace lead in the brass stem exceeded the absolute limit placed by congress.
Readers, I never claimed that lead contamination was not the main issue of the report. What I challenged was this statement by the commentor:
The government apparently feels the child will try sucking on the inner tube!
Such a statement looked like hyperbole to me so I looked up the report by the government and found that the government’s concern was about hand-to-mouth transmission of lead — not sucking on inner tubes. To illustrate the commentor’s error, below are portions of the report with the pertinent words bolded:
Page 9, on the disallowance of bicycle parts:
Children 3 and 4 years of age are still engaging in some hand-to-mouth behavior and so it can be expected that some of these children will bring their hands to their mouths after touching the metal parts of the handle bar and frame on their bicycle. While children 5 years and older do not typically engage in hand-to-mouth behavior, it is not unreasonable to assume they may wipe their mouth or face with their hands while using or right after using their bicycle.
Pages 4 and 10 of the report also speak of hand-to-mouth concerns but are not included here for the sake of brevity.
http://tiny.cc/BYCtP
The commentor says that 32 cases struck down by the SCOTUS over an 8 year period proves that the SCOTUS is not reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.
Considering that the SCOTUS, using the commentor’s own figures, will deliberate on over 800 cases in a typical 8 year period I must interpret such a low number(.04%) as, indeed, a reluctance on the part of the SCOTUS to strike down laws passed by Congress — especially when it is considered that a goodly portion of those 32 may have been laws NOT passed by Congress, but laws passed by the legislative bodies of cities, counties and states — on which the SCOTUS also deliberates.
I must also point out to the readers that the commentor continues to withhold the source for his figures, providing no link that we readers can use to check his accuracy.
The commentor goes on:
But back to the congressional powers issue, for which you are still receiving a flunking grade at this point: Being able to do anything one wants is to be omnipotent – at least within one’s area of authority. Yes, you were claiming congress could do as it pleased. You can qualify any way you want – but the basic premise remains that congress is not restricted in it’s authority. You state:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Readers, clearly the phrase “pretty much” is NOT all inclusive and allows exceptions(such as rulings by the SCOTUS). If my statement had not contained the phrase “pretty much” the commentor would have me dead to rights but since it does his bullet fizzles out before reaching the target. We can even have some fun with all this:
She pretty much married the guy. The bandit pretty much robbed the bank. The Marine pretty much shot the insurgent. He jumped off the cliff and pretty much died. They pretty much flew to Hawaii for their honeymoon.
Such constructions make sense only in that they are strangely funny. Take “pretty much” out of them and they make perfect sense.
The commentor’s attitude toward language seems to be one of reading into words what he wants the words to mean instead of what the words actually mean.
I think what may have happened is that the commentor saw my statement, saw meaning that was not there, something that could happen to anyone of us, and too quickly pounced on the statement.
Later on he must have seen his mistake but apparently being the type of fellow that finds it hard to back off from an error he appears to have decided to stick to the misinterpretation to the bitter end. That may be why he keeps desperately using the word, “omnipotent,” as if the word was actually used by me.
The commentor also made a mistake when he claimed earlier that I was the first to bring up the word, “sweatshop,” and that I had linked the word to child labor laws. In fact the commentor used the word, “sweatshop,” first and did the linking himself. I NEVER used the word except to quote him. The fact that such an error is easily detected by any casual reader has apparently led to the abandonment of that particular fixation.
grackle,
You are such a disappointment.
So much explanation as usual with plenty of sidetracked discussions – yet you are still not acknowledging that Congress can NOT “do pretty much” as it wants to.
To be blunt, you want to discuss everything BUT the question posed directly to you!
I’ve already shot holes through your various attempts to sidetrack the discussion – at least what there was of it.
So why don’t you go ahead and admit it.
You were wrong.
Congress can NOT do “pretty much as it wants.
Or, to reiterate once more the question I’ve asked at least 3 times now, and you have yet to address and answer directly while preferring instead these side trips into la la land:
“So, are you FINALLY ready to admit you were wrong on Congressional powers, that they can do “anything” they want – ie, omnipotent?”
It’s always disappointing when things don’t work out the way we want them to. Or when words don’t mean what we want them to.
It’s also fairly annoying when folks point out other things we were wrong about in order to illustrate our propensity for error, our tendency to misread, our penchant for hyperbole.
And when our opposition uses our own figures to support their arguments, well, it’s enough to make our blood boil.
We are apt to label such things as “side trips.”
I know, because over a long period of debating on the blogs I’ve had all these things happen to me. Sometimes it’s just best to admit we were wrong before we get in too deep — even if only to ourselves, smile ruefully, allow the idea to enter our minds that we have learned something even though the lesson hurt and rest up for the next skirmish. Which is what I did on those occasions when I have acted a bit unwisely, a bit impulsively and a bit too angrily.
I stand firmly behind my statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I don’t think Congress is “omnipotent;” I just think Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.
grackle,
Still have your head stuck in the sand and refusing – in a very childish manner – to admit to being wrong I see.
You still didn’t respond to either of the specific examples I offered up for consideration.
Does this mean you take the position then that if congress decides a minority group should simply be imprisoned, for no other reason than public support of the idea, then they have the power to do so?
That’s a very scary world you live in. Fortunately, you seem to live there by yourself.
grackle,
Ya know, I’ve been thinking. I may have been too harsh in my examples offered for your consideration.
Perhaps I should have been more reasonable, so I’ll focus on just one example.
Just one.
Instead of imprisoning all members of a specific minority group (this IS kind of extreme, right?), how about the idea that Congress can simply pass a law and mandate they have some sort of identifying emblem or something, just so the rest of society can readily identify them?
According to you it’s not like an overwhelmingly popular idea will be reversed by the US Supreme Court.
You have already stated that the USSC is “reluctant” to overturn Congress, so under your position this is all acceptable since the public – under this hypothetical – would be supportive.
What’s not to like?
And it’s not like you’re now talking about imprisoning people, you’re just talking about identifying them.
That’s far more reasonable, right?
If the general public supports such a measure, then in your view Congress has the power to pass a law mandating it, right?
That’s what you’ve been insisting throughout this conversation.
And if the president doesn’t like it, why Congress can simply override his veto.
That’ll teach him!
Annnnnyyyyythinggggg that the public supports, Congress can do.
That’s your repeatedly stated position, just so there is no confusion here.
So, for this example let’s keep the identifying emblem simple.
Nothing complicated required. Maybe a single color, like yellow.
And since a color alone may be confused with various gang symbology or easily missed in today’s fast paced fashion conscious world, let’s make sure – absolutely sure – that it can’t be confused with anything else by also mandating a specific shape or symbol for our hypothetical.
I think a star would work for this example.
But ya know, stars are widely used symbols in American culture. Check out a used car dealership to see what I mean.
So this star, for purposes of our example, should be something different.
I know – we’ll say it’s a 6-pointed star!
That’s distinctive, right?
And again, Congress can do as it pleases as long as the public supports it – which is what you have argued for all through this conversation.
But a 6-pointed star is kind of difficult to draw if you do it like a 5- pointed star, so we need to simplify things for our example even further.
How’s about we say the star is simply 2 triangular shapes, inverted from each other, and intertwined?
Yeah, that’s quite distinctive, and I don’t think it will be mistaken for a gang sign.
So, for purposes of discussion we now have the symbol clearly defined.
Per your repeated insistence, Congress – if supported by the public – could mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public.
But you KNOW, some Congress critter will just have to add their own little twist to the bill, just so they can go back to their constituents and point out their contribution to the law.
Perhaps the Congress critter could offer an amendment to the bill to mandate that the word “Jude” be present on the emblem as well.
If Congress could make a law going this far, what’s the matter with adding a little extra word in there for added emphasis?
Ya know, just so there’s no mistaking it for anything else.
But hey, in your world this is within the power of Congress – as long as there is popular public support…..
Near the beginning of this debate the commentor offered the opinion that:
However, try as I might, I can’t find any reference to health care and insurance being federal domains under our constitution.
While I sympathize with such a position I find the viewpoint on the constitutionality of federally mandated healthcare impractical since I don’t believe the SCOTUS would even consider the case of a national heath care law, much less strike it down.
I then offered an example of something not mentioned in the Constitution, child labor, that federal law has been passed to regulate, that I happen to consider beneficial to society and which is not considered unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.
Later on I offered this rhetorical question, in the form of a complaint:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
The commentor apparently misread the sentence and thought it meant that Congress was “omnipotent,” although it clearly does not because of the phrases, “pretty much,” and “allowed to do by the voters.”
The commentor has since spent considerable time and energy vehemently declaring that the sentence means that Congress can do “anything” and is “omnipotent,” this latest far-fetched post being the most recent example.
As I pointed out earlier, the commentor’s approach to language seems to be that words must mean what he wants them to mean instead of what they actually mean.
When such a person fixates to this degree they are unlikely to deviate once they have passed a certain point. Once they have invested a certain amount of their credibility in an incorrect assertion they feel they have no choice but to hew to that position no matter what. They don’t realize that they only damage their credibility further by such behavior.
But I don’t mind, dear readers. As may have been guessed by now I enjoy writing, it’s one of my favorite things to do and I welcome just about any opportunity to improve my admittedly rudimentary skills.
To reiterate: I don’t think Congress is “omnipotent;” I don’t think Congress can do “anything;” I don’t think Congress has some kind of immunity from the SCOTUS; I just think Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.
grackle,
You’re contradicting yourself now.
You stated earlier “…Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”
Then in your last post you say “I don’t think Congress can do “anything;”… ”
But then you follow it with “Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
Intellectually bi-polar / schizophrenic, are you?
The example I provided is clearly within the bounds you espoused throughout this conversation.
It’s fascinating that you chose NOT to respond to that example at all, and in fact ignored it entirely preferring to sidetrack into some pop culture analysis without addressing really anything in the example in the last post directly.
That would be attempting to side track the issue once again, btw.
It’s a clear indication you know you are in trouble here.
You appeal to “dear readers” instead of responding directly, with yet another variation of the explanation that what you said means other than…well, what you said.
You seem to be under the delusion that you have a fan club of “dear readers” who agree with you.
So, since you enjoy writing, I look forward to you response addressing the specific example I provided regarding Congress passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear visible identification.
Unfortunately, I don’t hold out much hope that you will actually be clear in your response…..nor admit just how mistaken you have been this entire time.
grackle,
I decided to toss some more meat on the grill.
Earlier you stated “I don’t think Congress has some kind of immunity from the SCOTUS”, apparently agreeing finally that the USSC DOES have some pull over Congressional actions.
Has it occurred to you that the court likewise is deriving it’s power from somewhere? Have you considered exactly HOW it can rule that Congress cannot do something?
It’s not like they can just say, “We don’t like this law, so you can’t do it.”
Hmmm, it’s like there’s some sort of guiding document they are bound by and following, and that this document is where they are deriving their power from to rule that congress critters can’t simply do as they please….
I mean, it’s almost like there’s limits or something Congress has to stay within, and the USSC has the power to call them on it.
But how can that be? Per your repeated assertions, Congress can do what it wants to do. Especially if it has public support.
Yeah, I’m picking on you now….
The commentor: You’re contradicting yourself now. You stated earlier “…Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters” Then in your last post you say “I don’t think Congress can do “anything;”… ” But then you follow it with “Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”. Intellectually bi-polar / schizophrenic, are you?
The commentor still doesn’t realize(or cannot bring himself to admit) that “pretty much what it[Congress]wants to do” doesn’t mean that Congress can do “anything” it wants to do. It means mostly what Congress wants to do, an awful lot of what Congress wants to do, many things that Congress wants to do, but it doesn’t mean Congress can do “anything” it wants to do.
He also doesn’t seem to realize when I’m quoting him, which is what I was doing with the word, “anything,” in my last comment. As a matter of fact I have NEVER used the word, “anything,” in conjunction with Congress and the SCOTUS except to quote the commentor.
He made the same mistake earlier with the word, “sweatshop.” He used the word, “sweatshop,” then I quoted him, as I have done with the word, “anything,” and he totally forgot that he was the only one who had actually used the word and treated it as originating with me. This latest blunder is as easy as previous one to demonstrate; the commentor first used the word, “anything,” in his comment on August 21, @ 9:03pm on this thread, when he erroneously claimed that I had used it:
I once again refer you back to your assertion that Congress can do anything it wants – and note how easily it was to disprove your assertion.
I, of course, NEVER said any such thing.
The commentor: Earlier you stated “I don’t think Congress has some kind of immunity from the SCOTUS”, apparently agreeing finally that the USSC DOES have some pull over Congressional actions.
Far from “apparently agreeing finally” that the SCOTUS has the power to declare laws as unconstitutional I have all along conceded that the SCOTUS has this power. Below is a previous comment by myself:
“And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress ‘unconstitutional’ but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely.”
Dear readers, at this point I think we have on our hands someone who has a propensity for many things but accuracy is not among them. That, and the fact that the debate has lasted for several days and when your judgement is clouded by annoyance laced with desperation it is difficult to keep in mind exactly who said what. You tend to start wasting ammo, wildly firing from the hip and not hitting the target. I know, because as I said before, I’ve been there myself.
grackle,
My, my. Parsing words rather than simply responding intelligently to what I have said are we?
What’s the matter?
Are you uncomfortable with the idea that your position that congress can do as it pleases – as long as it has the blessing of public opinion – could allow the scenario described to occur?
Or, to quote your specific statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I disagreed, insisting there were limitations on congressional authority, and offered the following example of why this is such a flawed approach:
“Per your repeated insistence, Congress – if supported by the public – could mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public.”
Under your assertion, and later insistence that the presidential veto can be overridden and USSC is “reluctant” to overturn congressional actions, the scenario I described is entirely plausible.
So – ready to admit how wrong your statement was now?
I can go on forever if you like.
My, my. Parsing words rather than simply responding intelligently to what I have said are we? What’s the matter? Are you uncomfortable with the idea that your position that congress can do as it pleases – as long as it has the blessing of public opinion – could allow the scenario described to occur?
A far-fetched hypothetical such as proposed by the commentor — that Jews would be mandated by Congress to wear Star of David patches — are meaningless. If elephants had wings they might be able to fly, but they don’t so they can’t.
Or, to quote your specific statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I disagreed, insisting there were limitations on congressional authority, and offered the following example of why this is such a flawed approach …
But I NEVER said there weren’t “limitations on congressional authority.” The commentor continues to disagree with a position I NEVER took. My sentence claims only that Congress can do “pretty much” what it wants to do — not “anything” it wants to do and the sentence in no way claims that Congress is “omnipotent,” as the commentor has previously tried to claim.
God is “omnipotent.” Yet we do not say that God can do “pretty much” what God wants to do because that would mean we thought that there were “limitations” on God.
“Per your repeated insistence, Congress – if supported by the public – could mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public.”
Notice how the commentor puts quotes around the above sentence as if it was something I said. He tried this same flimflam technique with the words, “sweatshop,” “omnipotent,” and “anything,” behavior which I have heretofore thought of as unintentional — but now I’m beginning to wonder. Four instances of the same thing does seem to comprise a pattern. But does the commentor really think the readers won’t see through such obvious attempts at deceit?
Under your assertion, and later insistence that the presidential veto can be overridden and USSC is “reluctant” to overturn congressional actions, the scenario I described is entirely plausible.
It find it strange that the commentor would characterize the Constitutional provision for Congress to override Presidential veto as an “assertion” and “insistence” on my part. These words(used only by the commentor — not by myself) are usually used when there is an issue open to debate but I think even the commentor would have to agree that Congress has the power to override Presidential veto.
And of course I stand squarely behind my opinion that the SCOTUS is reluctant to declare law passed by Congress as “unconstitutional,” especially since the commentor’s own data supports that opinion.
So – ready to admit how wrong your statement was now?
Of course not. I will NEVER admit error unless I have actually made a mistake.
grackle,
“Of course not. I will NEVER admit error unless I have actually made a mistake.”
In this case, you’re being intellectually immature.
You made an assertion that I called you on, and you have since bounced all over the place attempting to say it doesn’t really mean what your words plainly state.
It would have been better to have simply responded, when challenged on the matter, that you may have exagerrated or miss-spoke slightly, perhaps didn’t articulate as you intended, or didn’t really intend to leave the impression that you felt Congress could do as it pleased as long as it had public support, and admitted/agreed readily that there WERE in fact limitations on congressional power regardless of public opinion/support.
Your first opportunity would easily have been when I noted that both the executive as well as judicial branches of government are restraints on congressional authority – but no, you instead sought to argue against those very impediments by deriding both as either easily overridden or reluctantly imposed.
You can claim otherwise now, but any casual reader of what you were writing at that point would draw the conclusion that you were being dismissive any such *restraints* on congressional power.
Even now you act as if you readily admitted those restraints – which is simply a case of your position *evolving* or *shifting* over the course of this discussion as you found yourself in a deeper and deeper hole.
Had you simply acknowledged a miss-statement at the beginning, and re-stated to clarify, that would have been the end of it.
Instead, you have some strange need to *prove* you are right, and continued arguing even though the weight of evidence against your position was sinking your little boat.
You have gone on for days now trying to wiggle all over the landscape, and say your words mean something other than what you plainly stated.
Since you are oh so sensitive about getting quotes precisely right – here once more are your exact words:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
After going all over la la land with you – I finally responded with a hypothetical scenario that fit into the view you were espousing:
“Per your repeated insistence, Congress – if supported by the public – could mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public.”
After repeatedly demanding that you respond to the hypothetical – and after you were studiously ignoring it for a while – you have finally responded with this:
“A far-fetched hypothetical such as proposed by the commentor — that Jews would be mandated by Congress to wear Star of David patches — are meaningless. If elephants had wings they might be able to fly, but they don’t so they can’t.”
“far-fetched hypothetical” huh? “meaningless”? “elephants had wings”?
As typical, you simply dismiss the hypothetical without any reason given by you as to why it’s “far-fetched” or “meaningless”.
You do realize that this “far-fetched hypothetical”
– occurred in a modern democracy
– occurred under democratically elected officials
– occurred using democratic government agencies to implement policies that elevated a little Austrian to the highest position in Germany, and that this little Austrian and his party never had support from more than about 37% (give or take) of the public
– occurred during a time of dire economic circumstances?
“far-fetched” indeed…..
Of course, to admit that there is a reason Congress couldn’t do such a thing in the US would be to admit that Congress can’t “do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
Which would of course require you to admit you were wrong.
The Commentor: You made an assertion that I called you on, and you have since bounced all over the place attempting to say it doesn’t really mean what your words plainly state. It would have been better to have simply responded … that there WERE in fact limitations on congressional power regardless of public opinion/support.
I NEVER said that there were no “limitations” on Congressional power, NEVER said that Congress was “omnipotent” or that Congress could do “anything” it wants — all of which are words out of the commentors own mind, all of which are words that have been previously used by the commentor to mischaracterize the below sentence. I have NEVER “bounced all over the place.” I have always stood firmly behind what I said, which I quote below once again:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
The commentor must be hoping that if he repeats the falsehoods often enough that they will somehow magically come true.
… you instead sought to argue against those very impediments[to Congressional powers] by deriding both as either easily overridden or reluctantly imposed.
Here we go again with the falsehoods. “Easily overridden” is a phrase out of the commentors own mind. I NEVER claimed that anything was “easily overridden.”
Even now you act as if you readily admitted those restraints – which is simply a case of your position *evolving* or *shifting* over the course of this discussion as you found yourself in a deeper and deeper hole.
My position has never evolved nor has it shifted and there is hardly a need to deny something that I never claimed in the first place, although some of my subsequent statements, such as the one I quote below make it perfectly clear about my position on restraints on Congress:
“And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress ‘unconstitutional’ but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely.”
As typical, you simply dismiss the hypothetical without any reason given by you as to why it’s “far-fetched” or “meaningless”.
The commentor’s hypothetical is meaningless because it is based upon a false premise, the false premise that my position is that Congress is “omnipotent,” with no “limitations,” and that Congress can do “anything” it wants to do. To debate such a hypothetical would be to admit to a position I have never held.
grackle,
I just love to watch when someone blows their gasket – it’s a hobby of mine.
But enough ridicule, let’s recap.
Here is your quote:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
That was a very bold statement, asserted by you without any qualifications whatsoever in the form of a question, and I anwered and disagreed and gave valid reasons as to why that statement was incorrect.
Instead of clarifying or backing off in any way, you defended that position and it’s wording beyond all rational or reasonable thought, never offering additional explanation or clarification yourself and choosing instead to respond to what I noted and attempt to minimize the impact on congressional authority of any of the restrictions that I listed in subsequent responses. You went on about how the presidential veto can be overridden, and the supreme court is “reluctant”.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement by you of the separation of powers between equal branches of government.
The clear picture you were presenting and attempting so failingly to defend was that “Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters” in spite of the restrictions I listed.
The only mitigating factors on congressional power – which I find humorous that you now feel like quoting – were originally suggested by me!
If you are now agreeing those limitations restrict congressional power, then it would have been constructive for you to have done so days ago, restated your position, and admit that Congress can NOT “do pretty much what it wants to do” rather than play this game as you have.
Instead, it’s a fact that you were quite dismissive of those restrictions at the time, explaining them off in vacuous ways that left the clear understanding that you did not consider them viable restrictions on congressional power – and then went back to quoting your statement as if it meant something other than what the words plainly mean.
Based upon that original statement, I eventually provided a hypothetical that fit within the bounds that your statement described, as a way of showing exactly how wrong headed such a view of congressional power was:
“Per your repeated insistence, Congress – if supported by the public – could mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public.”
Instead of explaining WHY your description of congressional power would NOT allow such a hypothetical to occur, you came up with non-responses like “far-fetched hypothetical”, “meaningless”, and references to if “elephants had wings”.
In short, you could not explain away and could not figure out how to talk your way out of the corner you had painted yourself into.
You provided neither facts nor explanation validating why your statement could not lead to just such a situation.
So, please explain to me why, if
– “Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”,
and chooses to
– “mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public”,
what’s to prevent Congress from doing just such a thing if
-“Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
I’ll sit back and watch you run in circles now….
The commentor: Here is your quote:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
That was a very bold statement, asserted by you without any qualifications whatsoever in the form of a question, and I answered and disagreed and gave valid reasons as to why that statement was incorrect.
You went on about how the presidential veto can be overridden, and the supreme court is “reluctant”.
And I will continue to assert that Presidential veto can be overridden and that the SCOTUS is reluctant to declare law passed by Congress as unconstitutional. Why? Because both assertions are true, dear readers.
The clear picture you were presenting and attempting so failingly to defend was that “Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters” in spite of the restrictions I listed.
But what were those “restrictions” listed by the commentor? It’s difficult to know exactly to what restrictions he refers since he does not list them in the above paragraph – I suppose one of them was the SCOTUS’s power to declare law unconstitutional. That power of the SCOTUS over Congress was implied in my original sentence by the inclusion of the qualifying phrase, “pretty much” and stated outright later on:
“And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress ‘unconstitutional’ but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely.”
I’m guessing that another restriction may be this:
Then there is the power of the executive branch to veto legislation passed by the legislative branch.
To which I replied …
“Any veto can be overturned by Congress.” This obviously true statement seems to upset the commentor.
If you are now agreeing those limitations restrict congressional power, then it would have been constructive for you to have done so days ago, restated your position, and admit that Congress can NOT “do pretty much what it wants to do” rather than play this game as you have.
Despite the commentor’s implication in the above paragraph to the contrary, I NEVER disagreed that Congressional power is restricted, nor did I claim that Congress is “omnipotent,” that Congress could do “anything” it wants or that there were no “limitations” on Congress. All falsely ascribed to me by the commentor previously, in quotes as if quoting me, and ALL invented by the commentor.
So, please explain to me why, [etc., etc., ad absurdum]
I refuse to address a hypothetical that is based on a false premise, the premise being the commentor’s continual mischaracterization of my position, which is that the sentence below …
“That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.”
… means that Congress has unrestricted power. It doesn’t and as long as the commentor claims it does the hypothetical will remain unaddressed.
grackle,
Re-writing history, are we?
Your statement ““That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.” IS a wide open assertion.
That assertion was made without qualification.
That assertion is made without anything other than opinion to back it up.
It seemed to represent more a political point of view than a firm grasp of the balance of powers at the federal level.
It is clearly an incorrect assertion.
You adamently defended that assertion for quite a while without any attempt to clarify it, leaving your original statement standing as it was for a long time before attempting to *evolve* your position to accomodate the problems you were having defending that original statement.
I am still laughing at the fact that you are now reduced to desperately quoting those very limitations I originally noted in criticizing your statement – even though at the time I made them you went to great lengths to insist they were not much of a limitation on congressional power at all.
Now you have seen the light – hallelujah….
One need only go back and read your own words to see just how dismissive you were at the time.
It would have been oh so simple had you just admitted you miss-spoke, and restated your position somehow to something more reasonable.
That would not have been admitting a mistake really, so much as it would have been admitting that you did not articulate your thoughts clearly and that additional clarification was in order to express yourself properly.
Perhaps something along the lines of *Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.*
THAT would have been a perfectly reasonable statement that nobody could possibly have found reason to quibble with.
We would have all gone our merry ways and that would have been the end of it.
However, perhaps something in your psyche just can’t admit you made a mistake?
Pride, perhaps? Arrogance?
Instead, in the vernacular popular in DC today, you *doubled down* and continued at length to insist that the words did not mean what they plainly do.
After dismissing those limitations I noted, you continued to repeat your assertion that Congress could “do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
Interestingly enough, at one point – I guess when you realized you were in over your head – you began to note that there were balancing powers from the other branches of the government, but then went right back and repeated your original assertion that Congress could “do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters” as if there were no contradiction.
That would be the *evolution* I noted earlier, btw, even though it was contradicting itself.
I finally decided to present you with a hypothetical that showed just how silly and misguided the notion embodied in your original statement was.
Now you want to get your panties wedged up into a body crevice? LOL….
Oh well, as I said, I love watching people blow their gasket.
You see, you and I both know that the only way you can walk away from your own original words, when placed in the context of the hypothetical I presented as illustration of the error of those words, is to admit you were wrong.
As I noted earlier, there is a reason Congress can’t require a minority to wear a yellow Star of David, and that reason is there are measures built into place that prevents Congress from doing “pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
But to admit that Congress doesn’t have the power presented under the hypothetical scenario would, of course, require you to admit you were wrong.
The Commentor: Your statement ““That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.” IS a wide open assertion. That assertion was made without qualification.
Despite the commentor’s mischaracterization it is self-evident that two “qualifications” are in the sentence, “pretty much what it wants to do,” and, “allowed to do by the voters.” Indeed, these qualifications comprise 2/3 of the sentence.
That assertion is made without anything other than opinion to back it up.
That’s not correct. The sentence itself is opinion, but facts were used to back that opinion up.
It seemed to represent more a political point of view than a firm grasp of the balance of powers at the federal level.
The commentor is entitled to his opinion. Myself, I think the sentence represents reality.
It is clearly an incorrect assertion.
I think the sentence is clearly correct.
You adamantly defended that assertion for quite a while without any attempt to clarify it, leaving your original statement standing as it was for a long time before attempting to *evolve* your position to accommodate the problems you were having defending that original statement.
I have NEVER evolved my position. I have NEVER had any problems defending my original statement. The sentence has been easy to defend, the commentor himself unwittingly providing some of the defense.
I am still laughing at the fact that you are now reduced to desperately quoting those very limitations I originally noted in criticizing your statement – even though at the time I made them you went to great lengths to insist they were not much of a limitation on congressional power at all.
I’m having problems knowing what the commentor means by “those very limitations I originally noted.”
Now you have seen the light – hallelujah….
The above is impossible to interpret. So much of what the commentor puts forth is vague.
One need only go back and read your own words to see just how dismissive you were at the time.
Again — who knows what the commentor means by these vague statements?
It would have been oh so simple had you just admitted you miss-spoke, and restated your position somehow to something more reasonable.
My original sentence is perfectly reasonable, as is my “position.”
That would not have been admitting a mistake really, so much as it would have been admitting that you did not articulate your thoughts clearly and that additional clarification was in order to express yourself properly.
I think my thoughts are clear. I’ll leave to the readers judgement on who has the high ground on clarity.
Perhaps something along the lines of *Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.*
I ask the readers to note carefully the commentor’s paraphrase above. The commentor is NOT saying here that my original sentence is wrong. All he is doing is adding more detail. IF he had wanted more detail I would have provided it but he attacked the sentence on the basis of accuracy, NOT that it wasn’t detailed enough. BTW, I’m perfectly willing to accede to the accuracy of the above paraphrase.
But such a paraphrase, if it had originated from me instead of from the commentor, would surely be falsely characterized as an evolution of my position by the commentor — a tactic he has frequently employed heretofore.
THAT would have been a perfectly reasonable statement that nobody could possibly have found reason to quibble with. We would have all gone our merry ways and that would have been the end of it. However, perhaps something in your psyche just can’t admit you made a mistake?
WHAT mistake? The commentor has, perhaps without knowing it, already verified the veracity of my position with the above paraphrase.
Pride, perhaps? Arrogance?
It is not pride or arrogance to defend a position that you feel to be true. This is ad hominem nonsense.
Instead, in the vernacular popular in DC today, you *doubled down* and continued at length to insist that the words did not mean what they plainly do.
But my words DID mean what they plainly meant. I NEVER claimed they meant anything other than what they plainly meant.
After dismissing those limitations I noted, you continued to repeat your assertion that Congress could “do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
It’s difficult to know after all this time exactly what the commentor means by “limitations” he “noted.” Certainly, I continue to stand by my original sentence since I believe it to be true.
Interestingly enough, at one point – I guess when you realized you were in over your head – you began to note that there were balancing powers from the other branches of the government, but then went right back and repeated your original assertion that Congress could “do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters” as if there were no contradiction.
But there is NO contradictions in my original sentence, which does NOT claim there are no “balancing powers.” The commentor continues to mischaracterize the meaning of the sentence, even after he offers the fairly accurate paraphrase above.
That would be the *evolution* I noted earlier, btw, even though it was contradicting itself.
ANY “evolution” is strictly in the mind of the commentor. My position has NOT evolved.
I finally decided to present you with a hypothetical that showed just how silly and misguided the notion embodied in your original statement was.
The hypothetical is flawed in that it assumes I have taken a position I have NOT taken.
Now you want to get your panties wedged up into a body crevice? LOL….
More ad hominem nonsense. I guess he can’t help himself.
Oh well, as I said, I love watching people blow their gasket.
Dear readers, My “gasket” is still firmly in place.
You see, you and I both know that the only way you can walk away from your own original words, when placed in the context of the hypothetical I presented as illustration of the error of those words, is to admit you were wrong.
But I don’t WANT to “walk away” from anything I’ve said. The hypothetical is asking me to affirm the commentor’s incorrect characterization of my position.
As I noted earlier, there is a reason Congress can’t require a minority to wear a yellow Star of David, and that reason is there are measures built into place that prevents Congress from doing “pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.
I’ve NEVER claimed, as the commentor implies above, that Congress has no limitations on its powers. I’ve merely implored that Congress is not kept more in check.
But to admit that Congress doesn’t have the power presented under the hypothetical scenario would, of course, require you to admit you were wrong.
The hypothetical requires that I buy into the commentor’s false characterization of my position. I cannot do that and remain faithful to the truth.
Well grackle, I see you are still blowing gaskets…lol. I think the length of your response has set a new record of sorts!
I went back to check, and yep – the original assertion you made was at the very end of your comment.
Once again, your assertion was:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Contrary to your assertion, no facts followed immediately after your statement, btw.
I’m not surprised you would obfuscate that lil point.
The qualifications I referred to on congressional authority, and the basis of my criticism of your statement, was clearly in the context of where did congress get the authority to do “what it wants to do”, regardless of whether public sentiment demanded or supported any action or not.
I take the view that there are plenty of restraints on congressional power, and that those restraints trump public opinion.
You have been dismissive of those restraints I noted – which is again funny when I see you quoting those very restraints I first mentioned, barely able to admit they DO restrain the Congress when you address them at all.
You are then following it up later by saying those restraints don’t actually undermine your original statement that Congress can do as it wants do as long as it abides by public opinion.
The hypothetical I provided falls cleanly into the scenario your statement makes – which I guess is why you are so studiously trying to find a way to dodge it.
At this point, I’m not surprised…
As I noted before, that’s contradictory. To repeat what I directly asked you earlier:
“…..please explain to me why, if
– “Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”,
and chooses to
– “mandate a specific minority would be required to wear a yellow, 6-pointed star just so they can be readily identified by the rest of the public”,
what’s to prevent Congress from doing just such a thing if
-”Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters”.”
I believe your “dear readers” would like to see you answer the question, rather than dodge it yet again.
I certainly don’t mind repeating it until you decide to answer the question.
Well grackle, I see you are still blowing gaskets…lol. I think the length of your response has set a new record of sorts!
Well, my last response included some lengthy quotes of the commentor — still in all it was shorter than some of the commentor’s past comments. New record? I think not. And all my “gaskets’’ are undisturbed.
I went back to check, and yep – the original assertion you made was at the very end of your comment. Once again, your assertion was:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Contrary to your assertion, no facts followed immediately after your statement, btw.
I NEVER asserted “facts followed immediately,” which is yet another example of the commentor’s many misreadings, or straw man arguments — take your pick. What I DID post is:
“That’s not correct. The sentence itself is opinion, but facts were used to back that opinion up.”
See ANYTHING, dear readers, where I asserted that the “facts followed immediately?” See “immediately” ANYWHERE in the sentence?
I’m not surprised you would obfuscate that lil point.
The only obfuscation going on is by the commentor.
The qualifications I referred to on congressional authority, and the basis of my criticism of your statement, was clearly in the context of where did congress get the authority to do “what it wants to do”, regardless of whether public sentiment demanded or supported any action or not.
But I NEVER said Congress can do “what it wants to do,” which I believe the commentor knows full well by now, having had that fact pointed out to him many times. What I said was:
“Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters.”
Those two words make a major difference in the meaning of the sentence and leaving them out of the quote constitutes the very obfuscation of which the commentor accuses me.
I take the view that there are plenty of restraints on congressional power, and that those restraints trump public opinion.
The commentor is welcome to his view. I note, however, that he does not list those “restraints.”
You have been dismissive of those restraints I noted – which is again funny when I see you quoting those very restraints I first mentioned, barely able to admit they DO restrain the Congress when you address them at all.
I find it difficult to know what the commentor is talking about with all this mention of his “restraints” when he doesn’t let us know what those restraints are.
You are then following it up later by saying those restraints don’t actually undermine your original statement that Congress can do as it wants do as long as it abides by public opinion.
Again — we can’t be certain what the commentor means by “restraints.”
The hypothetical I provided falls cleanly into the scenario your statement makes – which I guess is why you are so studiously trying to find a way to dodge it. At this point, I’m not surprised … [etc., etc., blah, blah, blah, ad absurdum]
As I said before: The hypothetical is flawed in that it assumes I have taken a position I have NOT taken, namely, that there are no restraints on Congress. That is not and has not EVER been my position. The hypothetical requires that I accede to the commentor’s false characterization of my position. I cannot do that and remain faithful to the truth.
grackle,
Oh my, more gaskets…there goes another one! 😀
You love trying to sidetrack into something OTHER than your original statement, don’t you?
That’s ok, I don’t mind shooting down what you say – but I’m ALWAYS going to keep coming back to your original statement and the hypothetical that proves your statement was mistaken.
At this point I’ve come to EXPECT you to try to sidetrack the subject!
The “restraints” I noted, and that you’re very much aware of, were the restraints imposed by equal branches of government on the legislative branch and consisted of things like the presidential veto and the supreme court’s ability to strike down unconstitutional laws.
These are not the only restraints I could think of, but those were the restraints I brought into the conversation by way of example, and these are the restraints that YOU were dismissive of.
Your responses at the time were pretty clear on just what you thought of those *restraints*.
This is why I found it so funny when you referred to those very restraints in later posts.
You were doing so while at the same time claiming no contradiction between a system that incorporates such restraints, and your original statement that congress can do as it pleases.
You now have the gall to turn around in your latest missive and claim I never listed any restraints.
This AFTER you actually referenced them yourself!
Hilarious….dishonest yes, yet still hilarious to watch you attempt the obfuscation.
But to get off of this side track (you must love taking the scenic route!) and back the core issue that I disagree with you on, which is your original statement….
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
You want to dodge around and claim that “pretty much” gets you off the hook.
It doesn’t.
Take those two words “pretty much” out of the sentence and read it without them included and…well…it “pretty much” means the same thing.
To put it simpler:
*Susie is wearing a red blouse today*.
Take out the “red”, and Susie is still wearing a blouse.
It doesn’t change the basic statement.
Yes, I’m picking on you again.
After days of back and forth, I’ve provided you with a hypothetical that “pretty much” fits into your statement as a way of showing just how “pretty much” misguided such a view is.
That hypothetical is this:
If congress can do as it pleases, what is to prevent it from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?
The hypothetical addresses the two main issues you listed in your statement – namely that congress has powers to do as it pleases as long as the public supports it’s actions, and that the public is supportive of whatever action congress is enacting.
Yes, one is dependent upon the other – but the interdependence is present in the hypothetical as stated.
So, please enlighten me – oh, and those “dear readers” you are so enamored of – exactly why your statement does not fit into that hypothetical, as you claim it doesn’t, and why congress could not do such a thing if it chooses – provided the public supports such action.
If you wish, after days of going back and forth, to restate your original comment in a different form, complete with *conditional issues* as I noted and suggested wayyyy earlier, then please by all means do so.
I’d love to see exactly how you revise your original statement so as to not look as silly!
Of course, to restate your position as such would mean to accede that you were wrong in how you stated your position earlier, and silly to have so vehemently defended it as it was originally stated – but hey, sometimes you gotta suffer if you’re going to be intellectually honest….
But then again, I really don’t mind watching you suffer.
The commentor: The “restraints” I noted, and that you’re very much aware of, were the restraints imposed by equal branches of government on the legislative branch and consisted of things like the presidential veto and the supreme court’s ability to strike down unconstitutional laws.
Any Presidential veto may be overridden by Congress. And while it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress “unconstitutional,” in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely.
These are not the only restraints I could think of, but those were the restraints I brought into the conversation by way of example, and these are the restraints that YOU were dismissive of. Your responses at the time were pretty clear on just what you thought of those *restraints*. This is why I found it so funny when you referred to those very restraints in later posts.
The commentor equates me defending my position as “dismissive” of his. I find such an interpretation peculiar.
You were doing so[defending my position] while at the same time claiming no contradiction between a system that incorporates such restraints, and your original statement that congress can do as it pleases.
I have NEVER claimed Congress “can do as it pleases.” Such a claim is a fabrication from the mind of the commentor.
You now have the gall to turn around in your latest missive and claim I never listed any restraints.
I never claimed the commentor has not listed restraints somewhere during these many exchanges. But the commentor mentioned “restraints” several times in a long, rambling comment without specifying which restraints he had in mind. We can’t be expected to pore through 18 to 20 of the commentor’s scattered comments over a several-day period to try to figure out which parts of his many declarations he may be talking about. Now that the commentor has remedied the situation by specifying what restraints he meant I am delighted to debate his specifics — as I have above.
This AFTER you actually referenced them yourself!
I’m not understanding the point here. I have “referenced” many things in my comments. Are we supposed to guess at the commentor’s meaning?
My original sentence:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
You want to dodge around and claim that “pretty much” gets you off the hook. It doesn’t. Take those two words “pretty much” out of the sentence and read it without them included and…well…it “pretty much” means the same thing. To put it simpler:
*Susie is wearing a red blouse today*.
Take out the “red”, and Susie is still wearing a blouse. It doesn’t change the basic statement.
The above is a flawed analogy. Take, for instance, the below sentence:
Suzy is pretty much wearing a red blouse.
Suzy can’t be pretty much wearing an item of clothing. She is either wearing a blouse or not wearing a blouse. On the other hand, Suzy could decide that she “pretty much” prefers the color red, which allows her to wear blouses that are blue. Just as Congress can do “pretty much” what it wants, which allows for the fact that Congress does have some restraints.
After days of back and forth, I’ve provided you with a hypothetical that “pretty much” fits into your statement as a way of showing just how “pretty much” misguided such a view is.
It is gratifying to me to have the commentor finally unwittingly admit his hypothetical could be flawed and that my viewpoint could be something other than misguided. This is progress of sorts.
The hypothetical addresses the two main issues you listed in your statement – namely that congress has powers to do as it pleases as long as the public supports it’s actions, and that the public is supportive of whatever action congress is enacting.
I NEVER said that “congress has powers to do as it pleases.” Such a mischaracterization is another figment of the commentor’s imagination.
That hypothetical is this:
If congress can do as it pleases … [blah, blah, blah, ad absurdum]
As I said before: The hypothetical is flawed in that it assumes I have taken a position I have NOT taken, namely, that Congress “can do as it pleases.” That is not and has not EVER been my position. The hypothetical requires that I accede to the commentor’s false characterization of my position. I cannot do that and remain faithful to the truth.
Ah, good times.
“Suzy can’t be pretty much wearing an item of clothing. She is either wearing a blouse or not wearing a blouse.”
My point exactly. For someone who is supposedly agreeing, you are certainly dodging and weaving pretty hard.
But to apply the example to your phrasing, either congress can do as it pleases, or it can’t – as with Susie’s example the “pretty much” neither adds or no detracts from intent.
She’s still wearing a blouse.
Your attempt at defending the phrasing continuously falls flat. Whether Susie prefers a red or blue blouse doesn’t matter as to whether or not she actually chooses to wear a blouse.
Perhaps Suzie can loan you her blouse? After all, you desperately need something in the way of CYA in this conversation.
(again, picking on you – but hey, everyone has to have a hobby!)
You state:
“I have NEVER claimed Congress “can do as it pleases.” Such a claim is a fabrication from the mind of the commentor.”
Here is the quote:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
It’s known as paraphrasing, grackle, and yes I do interpret that statement to mean you are saying congress “can do as it pleases as long as the voters are supportive”.
BTW, you seem to have left out the part I noted specifically about the will of the public being supportive of congress’ actions.
It’s almost like you selectively edited my statement.
IF I were to take your approach, I’d start screaming that you were mischaracterizing my statement….but hey, I’ve come to the conclusion you are way in over your head at this point anyway, and why attribute to deceit what can be explained by incompetence?
Anyway, pretty much most reasonable people will pretty much arrive at the same conclusion as I did…pretty much…
When you are reduced to arguing semantics, it’s a sure sign of desperation.
I stated:
“After days of back and forth, I’ve provided you with a hypothetical that “pretty much” fits into your statement as a way of showing just how “pretty much” misguided such a view is.”
You stated:
“It is gratifying to me to have the commentor finally unwittingly admit his hypothetical could be flawed and that my viewpoint could be something other than misguided. This is progress of sorts. ”
No “unwittingly” about it – it is sheer sarcasm, and yes it was….ahem….”pretty much” at your expense….
Surely you picked up on that?
Then again…?
But enough picking on you, back to the core issue.
I provided an accurate hypothetical.
I’ve provided detailed explanation as to why the hypothetical fits your statement.
I’ve demanded a direct response as to how you can assert the hypothetical doesn’t fit.
All you’ve been able to come up with is a whine about how this is not your position.
Next, I guess you’ll tell me the dog ate your homework.
Anyway, if it’s the case that your position is mischaracterized, then it should be very simple for you to explain exactly WHY the hypothetical is not accurate, and explain exactly HOW the hypothetical doesn’t fit your statement, and explain exactly HOW your statement is mischaracterized.
Simply screeching over and over again that this is not your position and you have been mischaracterized doesn’t count.
It kind of comes off as whining.
So, here we go again. Here is your exact quote:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
Following is the hypothetical that fits your statement.
Heck, I’ll even take out the “pleases” part – it doesn’t matter as you still have the same problem with the hypothetical vs your statement:
*What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?*
Your “dear readers” await your answer.
The commentor: For someone who is supposedly agreeing, you are certainly dodging and weaving pretty hard.
The commentor calls my defense of my position as “dodging and weaving,” as “whining,” as “screeching,” as “silly,” and various other belittling terms. Apparently he resides in some sort of environment where no one is allowed to question his pontifications.
In the last exchange I stated:
“I have NEVER claimed Congress “can do as it pleases.” Such a claim is a fabrication from the mind of the commentor.”
The commentor has once again tried to ascribe false meaning to my words. Here is the actual quote:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
The commentor responds: It’s known as paraphrasing, grackle, and yes I do interpret that statement to mean you are saying congress “can do as it pleases as long as the voters are supportive”.
Paraphrases are fine as long as they are accurate but the commentor’s paraphrasing continues to ignore the meaning of my original words.
The commentor’s case depends upon the meaning of the phrase, “pretty much.” He wants to say that it is all-inclusive — which it clearly is not. That’s why he continues to desperately substitute all-inclusive words and phrases in it’s place, words such as “omnipotent,” and phrases such as “congress has powers to do as it pleases.”
Dear readers, if someone says, “The leaves are pretty much brown at this time of year,” such a phrasing obviously allows for the fact that some leaves will not be brown. The commentor would have it otherwise but logic and semantics dictate meaning in language, not the mischaracterizations and wishful interpretations of the commentor.
Furthermore, the speaker is not required to say, “The leaves are pretty much brown at this time of year, except for the gold ones, the red ones, the yellow ones, the orange ones and the green ones,” because those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”
When you are reduced to arguing semantics, it’s a sure sign of desperation.
The commentor seems to be blissfully unaware that most of our exchanges have been “arguing semantics.”
The commentor stated earlier:
After days of back and forth, I’ve provided you with a hypothetical that “pretty much” fits into your statement as a way of showing just how “pretty much” misguided such a view is.
To which I responded:
“It is gratifying to me to have the commentor finally unwittingly admit his hypothetical could be flawed and that my viewpoint could be something other than misguided. This is progress of sorts. ”
No “unwittingly” about it – it is sheer sarcasm, and yes it was….ahem….”pretty much” at your expense…. Surely you picked up on that?
Of course, I “picked up on that.” That’s why I thought it ironical and amusing that while the commentor was attempting sarcasm, albeit poorly, he unwittingly confirmed my position. And my response was sarcasm — that’s why I termed his awkward effort as “progress of sorts,” instead of real progress.
The commentor’s latest variation on the hypothetical:
What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?
The commentor continues to monotonously beg me to argue against a hypothetical that does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary. The hypothetical requires that I accede to the commentor’s false characterization of my position. I cannot do that and remain faithful to the truth.
“I cannot do that and remain faithful to the truth.”
At this point, grackle, you would deny the truth even if it ran over you with a truck.
You know you are painted into a corner, so you just squat there shaking your head in denial.
Kind of a funny image, actually!
In my last comment, I invited you to explain EXACTLY why the hypothetical I offered is an inaccurate example and within the bounds of your original statement.
The best you have managed to come up with is a lot of hand wringing and whining that I am mischaracterizing what you said.
You didn’t exactly explain WHY it was inaccurate, however.
So, just to refresh our memories, here is your original statement”
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I have provided the following hypothetical example that fits precisely into your statement:
*What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?*
I noted earlier, and will repeat again, that this hypothetical fits your statement for the following reasons:
1) The congress, under your statement, is given free rein to do as it pleases as long as it abides by public opinion.
2) The public opinion, in the hypothetical, is supportive of congress taking action against the specific minority.
3) Per your statement, since congress is limited by public opinion, and public opinion is supportive of the congressional action assumed in the hypothetical, then congress can pass just such a law and still be within the limits of the statement you originally made.
4) The law in question would mandate a specific minority wear a yellow Star of David so the general public can identify them on sight.
Let’s see if you can actually analyze your own statement, as well as the hypothetical I provided, and give a point by point explanation as to why the statement is inaccurate.
As I noted before, you can’t explain it away without substantially changing your original statement, but I do love to watch you swing in the wind.
Try not to descend to handwringing hysterics this time….
The commentor: In my last comment, I invited you to explain EXACTLY why the hypothetical I offered is an inaccurate example and within the bounds of your original statement. The best you have managed to come up with is a lot of hand wringing and whining that I am mischaracterizing what you said. You didn’t exactly explain WHY it was inaccurate, however.
For the readers, here is why the hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.
So, just to refresh our memories, here is your original statement
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I noted earlier, and will repeat again, that this hypothetical fits your statement for the following reasons:
1) The congress, under your statement, is given free rein to do as it pleases as long as it abides by public opinion.
Untrue. I have explained why this characterization of my original sentence is false several times already. I have NEVER claimed that Congress has a “free rein to do as it pleases as long as it abides by public opinion.” Such a claim comes only from the imagination of the commentor; it is nowhere in my comments. The remainder of the commentor’s numbered “reasons” contain the same error.
Dear readers, if someone says, “The leaves are pretty much brown at this time of year,” such a phrasing obviously allows for the fact that some leaves will not be brown. The commentor would have it otherwise but logic and semantics dictate meaning in language, not the mischaracterizations and wishful interpretations of the commentor.
Furthermore, the speaker is not required to say, “The leaves are pretty much brown at this time of year, except for the gold ones, the red ones, the yellow ones, the orange ones and the green ones,” because those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.” All this is obvious except to the commentor.
grackle,
Yet again, your defense falls down to basically squealing “mischaracterization”.
Since intellectually you can’t provide a point by point analysis of where the error is in my hypothetical, and why – in your opinion alone, apparently – it doesn’t fit with your original statement, I invite you to therefore paraphrase your original statement in the hopes that perhaps you can find a way to express yourself more clearly.
Perhaps you can find words that approximate what you think “pretty much” defines, and I’m look forward to seeing how you change your original statement in such a way that does not completely change the original meaning as stated – or change it to agree with what I have stated earlier in that congress cannot do as it pleases and is restricted in it’s authority.
You’ve attempted to dodge everything else, let’s see if you are up to this particular challenge…or have the intellectual honesty to do so in a way that shows just how incorrect your original assertion was.
Yet again, your defense falls down to basically squealing “mischaracterization”. Since intellectually you can’t provide a point by point analysis of where the error is in my hypothetical …
For the readers, here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.
… and why – in your opinion alone, apparently – it doesn’t fit with your original statement, I invite you to therefore paraphrase your original statement in the hopes that perhaps you can find a way to express yourself more clearly.
I’ve already paraphrased, and been accused by the commentor of changing my position for my trouble. I’ve even accepted a paraphrase offered by the commentor himself:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
It’s a bit redundant and a bit more detailed than it needs to be but it is accurate enough.
Perhaps you can find words that approximate what you think “pretty much” defines …
I’m not sure what the commentor means by “what you think ‘pretty much’ defines.” But I am satisfied that most folks will know what the phrase “pretty much” means.
… and I’m look forward to seeing how you change your original statement in such a way that does not completely change the original meaning as stated – or change it to agree with what I have stated earlier in that congress cannot do as it pleases and is restricted in it’s authority.
I’ve NEVER claimed that Congress has no restrictions or that it can “do as it pleases.” Such a claim comes only from the commentor’s imagination.
You’ve attempted to dodge everything else, let’s see if you are up to this particular challenge…or have the intellectual honesty to do so in a way that shows just how incorrect your original assertion was.
I haven’t dodged anything. I firmly believe my original sentence: “That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters,” is accurate.
grackle,
Nice try. No cigar.
You quoted a suggested paraphrase I made earlier as if you agreed with me, rather than offering up a fresh take and attempt at paraphrasing.
I offered that statement for your consideration quite a while ago, so it’s funny that you dug back that far to find some twig to cling to.
At any rate, I went back and checked and – nope – you never really “accepted a paraphrase offered” by me, choosing instead at the time to continue to claim no difference between MY suggested revised statement – repeated here:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
And YOUR original statement – noted here:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
My suggestion clearly is more descriptive of reality, notes that there ARE limitations to congress, and was made with the clear understanding that it was NOT saying the same thing you originally claimed.
Any casual reader will draw completely different conclusions as to congressional authority from each statement.
In response to my suggestion that you provide an analysis of exactly why in your opinion the hypothetical is inaccurate, you go back to whining about me supposedly mischaracterizing your position:
“For the readers, here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position.”
Not exactly the point by point analysis that undermines the hypothetical I offered, is it grackle?
I analyze, list and even number the reasons the hypothetical is appropriate and fits your statement.
The best you can do is cry about how it “does not reflect an antithesis to my position”.
You made no attempt to explain away the points I made.
Then again, since they WERE accurate you WOULD have a difficult time accomplishing such a thing…lol.
Again, it amounts to whining, is intellectually equivalent to claiming the dog ate your homework, and in no way refutes the hypothetical.
But I think I have finally figured out why you are so terrible at debating. This quote is the clue:
“I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits…..”
(Again, this referring back to when I originally suggested there WERE restraints on congress, and it’s quite clear at the time that you were dismissive of those restraints….you know, those restraints that only a few posts ago you were claiming complete ignorance of….)
“….and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.”
You must never have had to debate positions you didn’t agree with at any level of your education then.
It’s a critical ability if you are ever to enter a debate with someone holding an opposing position. You have to actually understand other viewpoints than your own if you are to pick them apart.
Your poor performance in this conversation is clear evidence of just how critical this ability should be considered.
You appear to be only able to argue from your own lil ivory tower and your own version of reality, and when that reality is challenged revert to covering your ears and whining.
I have no problem educating you though, so let’s leave this sidetrack yet again and go back to your original statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
And my hypothetical that shows exactly how inaccurate this statement is:
*What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?*
(Interestingly, the hypothetical could NOT fit into the paraphrase I offered, and which you are now erroneously claiming to have agreed with.)
Once again I look forward to seeing your analysis, and hopefully you’ll have a better response as to why the hypothetical doesn’t fit your original statement you have spent days defending than shrill claims of *mischaracterizing*.
Point.
By.
Point.
Analysis.
Or, you can simply agree that you initially mis-spoke and admit your error, and actually – explicitly – agree that my own paraphrase is accurate and your original statement is not.
The commentor: You quoted a suggested paraphrase I made earlier as if you agreed with me, rather than offering up a fresh take and attempt at paraphrasing. I offered that statement for your consideration quite a while ago, so it’s funny that you dug back that far to find some twig to cling to. At any rate, I went back and checked and – nope – you never really “accepted a paraphrase offered” by me …
Yet another example of the commentor’s dissembling. The commentor now claims I never accepted a paraphrase offered by him. Below is the exchange; the readers can come take a look at it and come to their own conclusion:
The commentor: Perhaps something along the lines of *Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.
My acceptance: “I ask the readers to note carefully the commentor’s paraphrase above. The commentor is NOT saying here that my original sentence is wrong. All he is doing is adding more detail. IF he had wanted more detail I would have provided it but he attacked the sentence on the basis of accuracy, NOT that it wasn’t detailed enough. BTW, I’m perfectly willing to accede to the accuracy of the above paraphrase.”
And when I have previously attempted to paraphrase, before the commentor decided to start suggesting it himself, the commentor has immediately accused me of “evolving or shifting” my position, of “contradicting” myself, of being “intellectually bi-polar / schizophrenic,” of “parsing words,” of wiggling “all over the landscape,” of walking “away” from my “own original words,” etc.
… choosing instead at the time to continue to claim no difference between MY suggested revised statement – repeated here:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
And YOUR original statement – noted here:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
My suggestion clearly is more descriptive of reality, notes that there ARE limitations to congress, and was made with the clear understanding that it was NOT saying the same thing you originally claimed.
I accept that the commentor’s paraphrase is more detailed than my original sentence but that acceptance does not mean that my original sentence is inaccurate. Compare the 2 statements:
A bee just stung me.
A bee, with yellow and black stripes, approaching from the east, buzzing around my head several times, just stung me.
The second statement is more detailed but the first statement is accurate nonetheless.
Any casual reader will draw completely different conclusions as to congressional authority from each statement.
The casual reader, perhaps — the careful reader, unlikely.
In response to my suggestion that you provide an analysis of exactly why in your opinion the hypothetical is inaccurate, you go back to whining about me supposedly mischaracterizing your position:
“For the readers, here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position.”
Not exactly the point by point analysis that undermines the hypothetical I offered, is it grackle?
All the “points” of the hypothetical depend on the basic false assumption that my position is that Congress has no limitations beyond the voters. If the basic assumption is false all the “points” are meaningless. The hypothetical does not reflect an antithesis to my position, therefore to argue against my own position would be nonsensical.
I analyze, list and even number the reasons the hypothetical is appropriate and fits your statement. The best you can do is cry about how it “does not reflect an antithesis to my position”. You made no attempt to explain away the points I made. Again, it amounts to whining, is intellectually equivalent to claiming the dog ate your homework, and in no way refutes the hypothetical. But I think I have finally figured out why you are so terrible at debating. This quote is the clue:
“I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.”
(Again, this referring back to when I originally suggested there WERE restraints on congress, and it’s quite clear at the time that you were dismissive of those restraints….you know, those restraints that only a few posts ago you were claiming complete ignorance of….)
Perhaps if the commentor could list the “restraints” and quote me being “dismissive” of them and of me “claiming complete ignorance” we could all know what in the hell he is talking about. Until then all we have is a mish-mash of vague assertions.
You must never have had to debate positions you didn’t agree with at any level of your education then. It’s a critical ability if you are ever to enter a debate with someone holding an opposing position. You have to actually understand other viewpoints than your own if you are to pick them apart. Your poor performance in this conversation is clear evidence of just how critical this ability should be considered.
I choose to limit my debate with the commentor from a position I actually hold, especially since in this case the commentor is falsely claiming I do not hold such a position. To accede to his false assumption would do damage to the truth.
You appear to be only able to argue from your own lil ivory tower and your own version of reality, and when that reality is challenged revert to covering your ears and whining.
Note readers, how the commentor continually describes me defending my position with deprecatory phases and words such as “your own lil ivory tower” and “covering your ears and whining.” Ad hominem attack seems to be his stock in trade.
I have no problem educating you though, so let’s leave this sidetrack yet again and go back to your original statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
And my hypothetical that shows exactly how inaccurate this statement is:
What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?
For the readers, here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed: It does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.
As long as the commentor monotonously begs me to debate for a position I do not hold all I can do is monotonously refuse.
LOL…I am not BEGGING for anything – other than an intelligent response from you.
Your so-called “acceptance” of the original paraphrase is disingenuous.
You claim “acceptance”, yet at the same time insist your original statement is still accurate.
This is illogical.
The alternative I suggested is based upon the fact your original comment is inaccurate.
Of course as badly as you have been whacked over the head with those *restraints* I noted earlier, you really have no choice but to acknowledge them in some way.
I guess claiming two different statements mean the same thing is one way to at least try to get yourself out of that hole you’ve dug.
At any rate, as I noted earlier, my statement, if placed into the hypothetical, remains accurate whereas yours does not.
This is a huge problem for you to digest, I know, but take small bites.
The crow will be easier for you to swallow that way….
Unless, of course, you can figure out how to make your statement fit the hypothetical in a positive manner that limits congress.
OH – but if you do, then you change your original statement….
My, but you have a deep hole to dig out of….
The commentor: LOL…I am not BEGGING for anything – other than an intelligent response from you.
The commentor keeps asking for me to do the same thing over and over. At some point such behavior ceases being a request and becomes begging. I leave it to the readers as to who holds the high ground on “intelligent response.”
Your so-called “acceptance” of the original paraphrase is disingenuous. You claim “acceptance”, yet at the same time insist your original statement is still accurate. This is illogical. The alternative I suggested is based upon the fact your original comment is inaccurate.
I don’t simply “claim” acceptance — I illustrate acceptance by quoting the commentor and my response and allow the readers to decide. And the “fact” is that my original comment is accurate.
Of course as badly as you have been whacked over the head with those *restraints* I noted earlier, you really have no choice but to acknowledge them in some way.
The commentor has in no way “noted” any “restraints” as mentioned in his last post. Mere general mention of “restraints” without specifically listing them is nothing but vagueness. Furthermore, the commentor asserted in his last post that that I was “dismissive” of those mysterious, unlisted “restraints” and that I have claimed “complete ignorance” without quoting anything I’ve posted to illustrate either assertion. Now he says I have been “whacked over the head” by these phantom restraints. I will perhaps “acknowledge” restraints as soon as the commentor lets us know what he is talking about.
I guess claiming two different statements mean the same thing is one way to at least try to get yourself out of that hole you’ve dug.
The commentor, now deserting his brief championing of paraphrase, reverts to his earlier tactic of negatively characterizing paraphrase as “two different statements.” As we have seen time and time again the commentor is VERY flexible in his stances and tactics.
At any rate, as I noted earlier, my statement, if placed into the hypothetical, remains accurate whereas yours does not.
I’m not sure what the commentor means here and so will withhold response until such time as the commentor can be more clear.
This is a huge problem for you to digest, I know, but take small bites. The crow will be easier for you to swallow that way…. Unless, of course, you can figure out how to make your statement fit the hypothetical in a positive manner that limits congress. OH – but if you do, then you change your original statement…. My, but you have a deep hole to dig out of….
Here again I am not sure what the commentor is trying to say and will withhold response until the commentor is able to bring more clarity to his thoughts.
grackle,
Ah, more ramblings….but I expect little else from you.
I’ve already corrected you on your mischaracterization of the entire issue regarding the *restraints* being listed.
Simply go back to my comments posted August 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am where I knocked you on your a$$ regarding that specific deceit that you’ve decided to repeat here.
OK, I guess it’s not ramblings. At some point, it’s simply called lying.
Anyway, for someone with such an inflated sense of their own intelligence, you certainly have a hard time with the english language – and general honesty.
This whole thing goes back to how you originally phrased your statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I disagreed, provided specifics as to why I disagreed, and eventually – as one method of many now – offered up the following alternative as a means of illustrating why the statement was in error:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
You erroneously claimed it means the same, and further claim that both statements are accurate.
Again, I disagree.
Here’s a good way to juxtapose the same situation using a different example.
*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day.*
Nothing wrong with that.
As a matter of fact lil Johnny sounds like a fine upstanding student.
Right?
Of course, if you add more detail – you know, that stuff you were also dismissive of earlier as irrelevant as to whether your statement was accurate or not…you may end up with something like this:
*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.*
The two sentences ARE completely different, and cast lil Johnny as a completely different person when you add the additional detail.
I’m sure any principal in the country would be far more reactive to the second statement than the first.
Clearly, the two statements are not the same thing and are not conveying the same idea.
THIS is just one of the basic problems with your original statement.
It’s clear in your original statement regarding congressional power you were incredibly sloppy and lazy in how you commented.
When called on it, you have stuck your head in the sand and claimed confusion and the intellectual equivalent that up is down, left is right, and right is wrong for days now.
As I said, you look very silly – and dishonest.
At this point, you have zero credibility.
The commentor: Ah, more ramblings….but I expect little else from you. I’ve already corrected you on your mischaracterization of the entire issue regarding the *restraints* being listed. Simply go back to my comments posted August 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am where I knocked you on your a$$ regarding that specific deceit that you’ve decided to repeat here.
It shouldn’t be too difficult for the commentor when he mentions “restraints” that he go ahead and actually list for the readers some “restraints” so the readers will know to what he is referring. Mere general mention of “restraints” without specifically listing them is nothing but vagueness.
Furthermore, the commentor asserted that that I was “dismissive” of those mysterious, unlisted “restraints” and that I have claimed “complete ignorance” without quoting anything I’ve posted to illustrate either assertion.
He went on to write that I have been “whacked over the head” by these phantom restraints and that I would “have no choice but to acknowledge them in some way.” I might perhaps be happy to “acknowledge” these restraints if only he would let us all know what in the devil he is talking about!
Directing us to one of his lengthy comments to pore over his circumlocutory missives to attempt to tease some meaning out of these murky references is an inadequate response to a simple request.
OK, I guess it’s not ramblings. At some point, it’s simply called lying.
Oh, so I’m a liar. I want to know and the readers to know exactly what the commentor means by “restraints” that I was in some way in the commentor’s mind “dismissive” of and that request means to the commentor that I am “lying.” I make a request which should take all of a minute and a couple of short sentences to honor and for this I am labeled a liar and this after we are treated to a lengthy, complicated discourse that never satisfactorily explains why the commentor cannot comply with such a simple request.
Anyway, for someone with such an inflated sense of their own intelligence, you certainly have a hard time with the english language – and general honesty.
More insults. I can’t say I’m surprised. After all, ad hominem attacks by the commentor have been appearing with more frequency as time has gone on.
This whole thing goes back to how you originally phrased your statement:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I disagreed, provided specifics as to why I disagreed, and eventually – as one method of many now – offered up the following alternative as a means of illustrating why the statement was in error:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
You erroneously claimed it means the same, and further claim that both statements are accurate. Again, I disagree. Here’s a good way to juxtapose the same situation using a different example.
*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day.*
Nothing wrong with that. As a matter of fact lil Johnny sounds like a fine upstanding student. Right? Of course, if you add more detail – you know, that stuff you were also dismissive of earlier as irrelevant as to whether your statement was accurate or not…you may end up with something like this:
*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.*
The two sentences ARE completely different, and cast lil Johnny as a completely different person when you add the additional detail. I’m sure any principal in the country would be far more reactive to the second statement than the first. Clearly, the two statements are not the same thing and are not conveying the same idea. THIS is just one of the basic problems with your original statement. It’s clear in your original statement regarding congressional power you were incredibly sloppy and lazy in how you commented. When called on it, you have stuck your head in the sand and claimed confusion and the intellectual equivalent that up is down, left is right, and right is wrong for days now. As I said, you look very silly – and dishonest. At this point, you have zero credibility.
Well, of course if detail is added to the effect that Johnny is a criminal the meaning is somewhat changed.
Notice, readers, that the commentor still prefers vagueness over precision — continuing the cryptic references to “stuff” of which I supposedly have been “dismissive.”
I’ve always found that vagueness is one of the hallmarks of a debater with a weak case — they want to be able to assert without having the assertions analyzed.
As for credibility, the readers will be the judge of that, not the commentor. But, back to examples: Dear readers, contemplate the following sentence.
“Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school.”
It is clear from the qualifying phrase, “pretty much,” that Johnny’s attendance is not perfect but that in fact there are some days when Johnny does not attend.
Furthermore, it is not ordinarily required of the speaker to say, “Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school, except for days when he is ill with the flu, or has the mumps, or the chicken pox, or sprained his ankle in gym class, or has to recover from a hernia operation, or there is a family emergency, or when the family car has a flat on the way to taking him to school,” because all those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”
This may seem like a simple concept, dear readers; I include this illustration not to belabor a point with you but only because it seems to be an idea that is too subtle for the commentor to grasp, although I’ve already provided examples several times.
“I’ve always found that vagueness is one of the hallmarks of a debater with a weak case — they want to be able to assert without having the assertions analyzed.”
This after you have been arguing for days on end about the specificity of “pretty much”.
Irony, meet grackle…..
Of course you WOULD continue to cling to those two tattered words as a fig leaf to cover your inability to defend yourself in any other way, as you can claim those two words mean ANYTHING you want at the moment.
Not a convincing argument at all. Really lame, actually.
It’s interesting you continue to refer to “dear readers”, and yet the only one I’ve noticed respond actually disparaged you!
Regarding any demeaning remarks, well, it’s not really ad hominem, as that would be an attempt to diminish the strength – or lack thereof – of your argument by casting aspersions upon you personally.
This is not the case.
It’s actually because I think you are appearing a fool, are not too intelligent, and am expressing as much.
No *ad hominem* attack is required.
Of course, it doesn’t surprise me that you would not understand that distinction either….besides, I rather enjoy insulting you.
It’s become something of a hobby.
Anyway, regarding the “restraint’ issue, rather than continuously repeat quotes over and over again that create extremely long comments (such as you seem to enjoy doing – or are perhaps you are incapable of anything more complicated than cut and paste), I’ve decided I will simply refer back to where I blew holes through the same assertion previously.
It makes the response much simpler and shorter, and any of the “dear readers” probably appreciative instead of having to wade through the drivel you substitute for debate skills – which seem to consist of massive cut and paste jobs.
I’m even considering number coding the responses so that when you repeat some lie again, I can just respond with “#1″, #2, #3”, etc., rather than repeat entire debunks of your assertions over and over and over…all the while you continue to NOT respond to the point in question.
Yes, you have gotten that predictable.
So, herewith, any time you trot out the debunked assertion regarding me not providing examples of “restraints” on congress, THAT will be responded to with “Response #1”.
Simply reference my comment made August 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am for further details of “Response #1”.
Other number codes will follow as needed.
But back to lil Johnny, it’s interesting that instead of explaining WHY such an example is inaccurate from your viewpoint, you re-word it to better fit your attempt at a defense, and then argue against THAT phrasing rather than what was actually provided for discussion.
Loser.
Every time you attempt to defend your statement, you fail miserably.
For instance, the hypothetical regarding congress passing any law as long as the public supports it, and that hypothetical fitting your original statement to a “T”.
Or perhaps when I illustrated the differences between the suggested alternative phrasing and your own.
But back to lil Johnny, do try again. Your last attempt at sidestepping fell flat.
The analogy fits. Try to explain again how the two statements are not different.
I look forward to watching you torture the english language….
I’ve been specific and not depended upon vagueness to attempt to make assertions that are(like the commentor’s) too vague, either through purposeful intent or unwitting effect, to allow challenge. Hiding behind vagueness is easier than debating on the merits but it doesn’t advance the debate.
Whenever I’ve referred to it I’ve always specified the phrase, “pretty much,” as I do here. I don’t expect the reader to refer to a long comment posted several days back in order to figure out what I might mean.
Rather than simply list a couple of those phantom “restraints” and quote me being “dismissive” of them the commentor goes through lengthy and tortured passages trying to explain why he doesn’t simply list his “restraints.” As for “irony,” irony is the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning; Irony would be if I praised the commentor for the preciseness of his comments.
I have NEVER claimed that the phrase, “pretty much,” meant “anything” I want, which is yet another figment of the commentor’s imagination. Note, readers, that he never quotes me in these instances — perhaps in this instance because it was the commentor himself who tried to link the meaning of the word, “anything,” to the meaning of the phrase, “pretty much.”
I think there are many more readers of most any blog than actually post comments. I’m also sure any reader would notice the commentor’s penchant for ad hominem attack and easy insult and might decide angering him isn’t worth the abuse they might receive. Forewarned is forearmed.
Dictionary.com: Ad hominem: attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.
And under Dictionary.com’s usage notes: The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one’s opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.
The commentor denies ad hominem in the same breath as he uses it, labeling me as “a fool,” and as “not too intelligent,” blissfully confessing that he enjoys insulting me, calling it a “hobby.” Indeed, the commentor seems as unaware of the definition of “ad hominem” as he is of “irony.” But he accuses me of not understanding a “distinction.”
The commentor then continues with these unnecessarily complex explanations of why he doesn’t merely list a couple of those unfathomable “restraints” he is so fond of mentioning and declines again to quote me being “dismissive” of them and even goes so far as to dictate instructions on how the readers may comprehend his vague references by assiduously studying his past comments – but in his view I am the one who needlessly creates “extremely long comments.” Oh my.
Next the commentor threatens to use numbers in lieu of arguing issues. Indeed, I think the commentor would be better off substituting numbers for his ineffectual debate. That way he doesn’t have to go through the stress of arguing his case on its merits. A good idea(for him) that I hope he demonstrates.
As for “Johnny” I will simply repeat my previous illustration:
“Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school.”
It is clear from the qualifying phrase, “pretty much,” that Johnny’s attendance is not perfect but that in fact there are some days when Johnny does not attend.
Furthermore, it is not ordinarily required of the speaker to say, “Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school, except for days when he is ill with the flu, or has the mumps, or the chicken pox, or sprained his ankle in gym class, or has to recover from a hernia operation, or there is a family emergency, or when the family car has a flat on the way to taking him to school,” because all those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”
This may seem like a simple concept, dear readers; I include this illustration not to belabor a point with you but only because it seems to be an idea that is too subtle for the commentor to grasp, although I’ve already provided examples several times.
My, I take a few days off for the holiday and you are still striking the same off key notes as before.
But in all honesty, after taking a few days away from the internet, I find myself with the perspective that this is really a waste of my time and energy.
I have so many other more worthwhile things to do than argue repetitively over the same things, and getting the same dodging and weaving from you in response.
I kind of feel like I’ve been wrestling with a pig.
So I’m going for closure here.
I’m going to lay out in detail one last time all of these issues that have been piled on, then I’m done with this thread and moving on.
I’m sure you’ll just HAVE to have the last word, and it will be just more of the same dodging and weaving, but so be it. I have better things to do than waste more time on you on this subject.
If any of the “dear readers” want both sides, then it will be easy enough to read and understand this post and see just how far off base you are.
I’m sure you’ll come back with some claims that I’m vague or that there is no difference in what I’m saying, or that I’m misquoting you and what you are more lately claiming, but we both know how full of $hit you are on those claims, as well as your propensity for lying.
So, herewith are the issues:
———————————————–
1) *Ad Hominem Attack*
Since you want to play the definition game, here’s another definition of ad hominem:
“In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack.
However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
In other words, according to this definition, a personal attack is not by itself an ad hominem attack.
You have to actually be using that insult as a means to further an argument against the opposition.
This definition is consistent with the definition I learned many decades ago.
Ironically, your very claim of being a *victim* of an ad hominem attack is in itself a variation of an ad hominem attack.
You seek to lead any of the “dear readers” to the conclusion that since I insult you (plea for sympathy?), and you erroneously claim it’s an ad hominem attack, then I must be wrong and have a “weak” argument.
Sucker…..or rather hypocrit.
—————————————-
2) * Your ORIGINAL statement*
You stated:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
This was at the end of a comment, with no other qualifying statements.
I disagreed.
To me, what the statement describes is a democracy in the purist sense of the word. I hold the view that this nation is instead a republic.
I did not go into detail in the argument at that time, thinking instead I could lead you to this conclusion on your own.
I grossly overestimated your intellectual abilities.
In a pure democracy, majority rules.
Period.
If the majority decides to confiscate every penny and every scrap of clothing from a man, leaving him with nothing, then decides to execute him, a democracy by simple majority rule can do such a thing.
I was alluding to this very ability of a democratic government to be abusive in later examples I provided, which will be listed in subsequent sections.
Since in my view this nation is a republic, there ARE *restraints* built into place guaranteeing the individual rights of each citizen – and ensuring that such abusive events as provided for examples are prevented from happening.
Before you go claiming this is a democracy, here are a couple of choice quotes from the guys who would know.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Thomas Jefferson
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like your original statement, grackle, and reinforces the point I have been making for over a week now!
“Democracy… while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams
Prescient man….especially in light of the following example.
Though he wasn’t a member of the Founding Fathers, he CERTAINLY knew – and participated in – a *democratic* type of government, the very kind of government that John Adams warned against.
“Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country.”
Maximilien Robespierre
Research “Maximilien Robespierre”, the “French Revolution”, the “Committee for Public Safety”, and “The Reign of Terror” for more.
I’m sure HE would have agreed entirely with your viewpoint, grackle.
But back to the issue of the restraints.
Those *restraints* are built into the system up to the very highest levels of the federal government.
I noted at least 2 of those *restraints* on congressional power.
One was the presidential veto.
Your response was that a veto was easily overrided by Congress.
Clearly, you were inferring that this was not really a *restraint* on congressional authority.
How could it be, if it was easily overridden?
To you, this was not a *restraint* on Congress, and you argued as much.
The other *restraint* I listed was the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional.
Your response was that they were “reluctant” to do so, and did so “rarely”.
Again, you were inferring that this was not really a *restraint* on Congress either, and were arguing that this did not contradict your original statement.
I noted the number of cases in which the Supreme Court had struck down a law passed by Congress within a recent time frame, as evidence that when the occasion called for it, the Supreme Court would in fact strike down a law when it needed to.
You claimed, since out of the vast majority of laws passed that only a relatively few had been struck down, that this was supportive of your case that it was not a real *restraint* on Congress.
Contradictorily enough, you later claim to embrace these *restraints* even though you were arguing against them!
You claimed that because the Supreme Court did not strike down vast numbers of laws passed by Congress, this was evidence in support of your position that the Supreme Court was *reluctant* to strike down laws and did so “rarely”, and were therefore inferring that it likewise was not a real *restraint* on what actions Congress chose to take.
It was apparently beyond your intellectual ability to realize that the small number of overturned laws in relation to the vast number of laws passed would actually indicate that Congress more often than not DID attempt to craft laws that stayed within the *restraints* imposed by the Constitution on their authority.
In other words, Congress was doing their job right the majority of the time – at least in the sense that they were staying within their designated areas of authority, so there was little reason for the Supreme Court to strike down very many of the laws in question.
In your latest missives you claim I never listed any *restraints*.
Again, I note the number of restraints above that were discussed back and forth – and to which you were a party in the discussion.
You were lying and knew you were lying when you repeatedly made the claim that I had never listed any *restraints*.
Regarding the endless scatalogical material you shoveled out regarding the meaning of “pretty much”, I hold to the fact that it neither adds nor detracts any information from your statement, and you have since attempted to use this small fig leaf as cover for anything you want it to mean.
You didn’t qualify those two little words at the time you made them, and to later claim they mean so many different things is clearly disingenous.
About the only thing you DIDN’T do, is go into a lengthy discussion regarding what the definition of he word “is”, is….
———————————————
3) *The ALTERNATIVE statement*
In yet another attempt to expose the error in your original statement, I offered up the following alternative statement for consideration:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
Again, I’m looking at it from the standpoint of a democratic vs a republican form of government.
*Democratic*, in this sense, being the classical form of the word as understood by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was written.
Ludicrously, you claimed your original statement was the same and still accurate.
You claimed agreement with that statement while at the same time admitting no contradiction between the two statements!
I noted this contradiction, and you never adequately explained it away.
I later provided the following example as way of showing just how wrong your statement was, and why your position was contradictory.
*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day.*
This is analogous to your original statement.
*Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.*
This is analogous to my suggested alternative statement.
As I noted at the time, any school principal in the country will react MUCH differently to the second statement than the first, and contrary to your repeated assertions will not consider the two statements to be the same except for additional detail.
The two statements are providing VASTLY different views of *lil Johnny*.
If two statements provoke a different response, then it’s logical and reasonable to assume that the two statements are imparting a perception that is vastly different.
That makes the statements different, btw….
————————————————
4) *The HYPOTHETICAL*
Your original statement, noted in #2 above, was:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
I provided the following hypothetical that shows exactly how dangerous this type of thinking is, and why I feel the Founding Fathers imposed *restraints* on Congress as well as the rest of the government, regardless of what public opinion would countenance.
*What is to prevent Congress from passing a law mandating that a specific minority be required to wear a yellow Star of David so the public can recognize them on sight IF the public supports this action?*
As I noted at the time, the hypothetical could NOT fit into the paraphrase I offered, and reviewed in the preceeding section.
This also, by the way, further clarifies that the two statements juxtiposed in section #2 above DO in fact constitute two very different ideas.
You subject the two statements to a common test, and if you get a different result then obviously there is a difference in the two statements!
Anyway, you never, EVER, provided an adequate response to the hypothetical.
The best you could ever come up with was that *this was not what you said* kind of a whining complaint.
So, I provided a point by point analysis showing precisely why the hypothetical DOES fit your statement.
I provided this analysis on August 29, 2009 @ 4:50 PM:
“1) The congress, under your statement, is given free rein to do as it pleases as long as it abides by public opinion.
2) The public opinion, in the hypothetical, is supportive of congress taking action against the specific minority.
3) Per your statement, since congress is limited by public opinion, and public opinion is supportive of the congressional action assumed in the hypothetical, then congress can pass just such a law and still be within the limits of the statement you originally made.
4) The law in question would mandate a specific minority wear a yellow Star of David so the general public can identify them on sight.”
I noted that this hypothetical COULD NOT occur under the alternative statement I suggested, and have since reviewed in item #3 above.
This only further clarifies that your original statement is different than the alternative provided for consideration.
As you whined that I was misrepresenting your statement, I suggested you provide a point by point analysis disproving my assertion.
You did not provide such an analysis. Your defense is basically *I didn’t say that*, and then repeating it over and over and over….then you provide this little gem:
“A far-fetched hypothetical such as proposed by the commentor — that Jews would be mandated by Congress to wear Star of David patches — are meaningless. If elephants had wings they might be able to fly, but they don’t so they can’t.”
Not really a logical, rational, reasonable refutation of the hypothetical, is it grackle?
So, I felt obliged to give you a history lesson on August 26th, 2009 at 8:15 am.
Namely, that just such an event:
“- occurred in a modern democracy
– occurred under democratically elected officials
– occurred using democratic government agencies to implement policies that elevated a little Austrian to the highest position in Germany, and that this little Austrian and his party never had support from more than about 37% (give or take) of the public
– occurred during a time of dire economic circumstances”
Please note, grackle, the number of times I mentioned variants of the word *democracy*.
————————————————-
*Summation*
For the sake of those “dear readers” whose opinions you seem so sensitive over, I believe at this time I’ve made several points.
– Your statement is inaccurately describing the nature of Congressional authority.
– Your statement has been shown defective on a number of counts that you have not been able to explain away.
– You have been repeatedly shown to be a liar.
That about sums it up.
I’m sure you will respond with some lengthy and misleading drivel, but until you can address the issues listed above you are accomplishing nothing, and any of your “dear readers” can see for themselves just how short you are falling in your responses.
Now, I have a life to get back to that is far more enjoyable and rewarding than dealing with a child who keeps their hands clamped firmly over their ears and screams the same thing over and over again as their arguments lay in tattered heaps around them.
I kind of feel like I’ve been wrestling with a pig. Since you want to play the definition game, here’s another definition of ad hominem:
“In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack.
However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.”
In other words, according to this definition, a personal attack is not by itself an ad hominem attack. You have to actually be using that insult as a means to further an argument against the opposition.
In all fairness to the commentor, who has misread the above material, logic-chopping can be difficult for even the intelligent reader. Insulting Ad hominem, for example, can never used “as a means to further an argument against the opposition;” because one’s own argument can only be furthered by logic and fact. Ad hominem has nothing to do with one’s own argument, only with an opponent’s argument. These are admittedly subtle distinctions that Wiki makes. A little later on Wiki clarifies:
“In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed …”
In other words, ad hominem cannot prove anyone is incorrect. What the commentor was doing and continues to do is what Wiki defines as “Ad hominem abusive.”
“Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
[In]Your ORIGINAL statement … You stated:
“I think it’s pretty complicated but doesn’t it actually come down to this: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?”
To me, what the statement describes is a democracy in the purist sense of the word. I hold the view that this nation is instead a republic.
The commentor continues to read meaning in my original sentence that is not there. Democracy? Republic? There is nothing in my sentence about either, explicit or implied.
In a pure democracy, majority rules. Period.
The above statement is puzzling in that we readers cannot know what it has to do with my sentence.
Since in my view this nation is a republic, there ARE restraints built into place guaranteeing the individual rights of each citizen – and ensuring that such abusive events as provided for examples are prevented from happening.
Here we go again with the commentor vehemently arguing for a position I have never opposed. I have NEVER said that the USA is not a republic.
“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like your original statement, grackle, and reinforces the point I have been making for over a week now!
Apparently the above quote of Jefferson sounds to the commentor like: That Congress can do pretty much what it wants to do and is allowed to do by the voters?” It might be somewhat similar if the phrase, “pretty much,” was not there but even then it would be a stretch.
But back to the issue of the restraints. Those *restraints* are built into the system up to the very highest levels of the federal government. I noted at least 2 of those *restraints* on congressional power. One was the presidential veto. Your response was that a veto was easily overrided by Congress.[emphasis mine]
Untrue. Here’s my original words: “Any veto can be overturned by Congress.” See the word, “easily,” anywhere in the sentence, dear readers?
Clearly, you were inferring that this was not really a restraint on congressional authority. How could it be, if it was easily overridden? To you, this was not a restraint on Congress, and you argued as much.
No, I NEVER argued that Presidential veto was not a restraint. I simply stated a fact: “Any veto can be overturned by Congress.” This elementary distinction is apparently beyond the commentor:
Stating something can be done does NOT mean it is “easily” done. I can put 6 shots within a 4 inch grouping on a target at 20 yards with one of my pistols. I’ve done it a couple of times. But it might take me a long time to duplicate this difficult task.
The other restraint I listed was the Supreme Court’s ability to strike down a law as unconstitutional. Your response was that they were “reluctant” to do so, and did so “rarely”. Again, you were inferring that this was not really a restraint on Congress either, and were arguing that this did not contradict your original statement.
I never stated or inferred that the Supreme Court was not “really” a “restraint” on Congress. Those are the commentor’s words, not mine. I stand by my original position:
“And it is true that the SCOTUS may declare any law passed by Congress ‘unconstitutional’ but in fact it does that sort of thing only rarely. In fact the SCOTUS is reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.”
I used the commentor’s own figures to illustrate the truth of the above statement:
The commentor said that 32 cases struck down by the SCOTUS over an 8 year period proved that the SCOTUS is not reluctant to declare laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional.
Considering that the SCOTUS, using the commentor’s own figures, will deliberate on over 800 cases in a typical 8 year period I must interpret such a low number(.04%) as, indeed, a reluctance on the part of the SCOTUS to strike down laws passed by Congress — especially when it is considered that a goodly portion of those 32 may have been laws NOT passed by Congress, but laws passed by the legislative bodies of cities, counties and states — on which the SCOTUS also deliberates.
In your latest missives you claim I never listed any restraints.
Untrue. The commentor mentioned “restraints” several times without noting what those restraints were. I asked him to list the restraints so that we could all know to what restraints he was referring and he used a great deal of space trying to explain why he could NOT list the restraints and referring the readers to search a long comment posted days back in order to figure out his meaning.
I offered the opinion that it would be easier on the readers to simply list the restraints and this observation excited him greatly, causing even more tortured explanations which only got the same request from me. Finally, he has come out with the restraints which could have been revealed in a couple of short sentences.
Again, I note the number of restraints above that were discussed back and forth – and to which you were a party in the discussion. You were lying and knew you were lying when you repeatedly made the claim that I had never listed any restraints.
I knew full well that sometime in the days past that the commentor had wrote about restraints and have never claimed he NEVER wrote of restraints. My request for him to list the restraints was so we could know for sure what he was talking about. I have learned to always wait until the commentor is explicit before engaging in debate. The commentor apparently believes that not stating the patently obvious(that he had written of some restraints in the past) is some form of lying. How were we to know whether his latest vague reference to restraints were the same as restraints he had previously written about? If he again vaguely writes of “restraints” days from now I will again forgo debate until he lists some specific restraints. It’s best not to assume ANYTHING when debating the commentor.
You didn’t qualify those two little words[“pretty much”] at the time you made them, and to later claim they mean so many different things is clearly disingenuous.
The commentor doesn’t seem to realize that to “qualify” a phrase which is already a qualification is redundant. No wonder he didn’t understand the Wiki material on ad hominem. I have NEVER claimed the phrase, “pretty much,” has meant anything but what it does mean.
In yet another attempt to expose the error in your original statement, I offered up the following alternative statement for consideration:
”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”
Ludicrously, you claimed your original statement was the same and still accurate.
Untrue. What I wrote was, “BTW, I’m perfectly willing to accede to the accuracy of the above paraphrase.” That’s not to say the commentor’s paraphrase was the “same” as my sentence. Some words in the paraphrase are different and the paraphrase contains more detail. What’s the “same” is the essential meaning.
You claimed agreement with that statement while at the same time admitting no contradiction between the two statements! I noted this contradiction, and you never adequately explained it away.
The commentor writes of a contradiction but doesn’t explain what he believes is contradictory. We are left to guess.
I later provided the following example as way of showing just how wrong your statement was, and why your position was contradictory.
Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day. This is analogous to your original statement.
The above is NOT “analogous” to my original sentence.
Lil Johnny goes to school faithfully every day, extorts lunch money from his classmates, deals drugs behind the gym, and physically assaults his teachers.
This is analogous to my suggested alternative statement. [”Congress can do pretty much as it wants to do, within it’s delegated authority and within the restrictions of the Constitution, if it’s supported by the public.”]
As I noted at the time, any school principal in the country will react MUCH differently to the second statement than the first, and contrary to your repeated assertions will not consider the two statements to be the same except for additional detail. The two statements are providing VASTLY different views of lil Johnny. If two statements provoke a different response, then it’s logical and reasonable to assume that the two statements are imparting a perception that is vastly different. That makes the statements different, btw….
Yes, the two sentences above ARE different. One contains more detail. But they can both be TRUE. Nothing in the second sentence precludes anything in the first sentence. Johnny may do bad things once he gets to school but that doesn’t mean that Johnny ever misses even one day of school. Johnny may go to school EVERY day and still be a criminal. The hypothetical reaction of Principals to either sentence has NOTHING to do with whether both sentences can be true.
Dear readers, contemplate the following sentence:
“Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school.”
It is clear from the qualifying phrase, “pretty much,” that Johnny’s attendance is not perfect but that in fact there are some days when Johnny does not attend.
Furthermore, it is not ordinarily required of the speaker to say, “Johnny pretty much has good attendance at school, except for days when he is ill with the flu, or has the mumps, or the chicken pox, or sprained his ankle in gym class, or has to recover from a hernia operation, or there is a family emergency, or when the family car has a flat on the way to taking him to school,” because all those exceptions are already implied by the phrase, “pretty much.”
This may seem like a simple concept, dear readers; I include this illustration not to belabor a point with you but only because it seems to be an idea that is too subtle for the commentor to grasp, although I’ve already provided examples several times.
The commentor continues with the ad hominem attacks and continues to beg/demand(it’s difficult to know which) that I argue for a position I never took. Here is why the commentor’s hypothetical is flawed:
It does not reflect an antithesis to my position. I do not believe and have never claimed that Congress has no constitutional limits and therefore cannot enthusiastically offer argument for the contrary.
Wow….grackle, I admire your persistence. I have rarely had the pleasure of witnessing such a thorough, even-keeled obliteration of the likes of Scottie. It is truly astounding the lengths people will go to for the preservation of ego. And when Scottie ultimately resorted to ad hominem (fairly early on) in an effort to reduce the conversation to vitriolic exchanges and distract from his failure, I was quite impressed by your continued rationality.
I don’t know what your political leanings are, but I hope you continue your quest for rationality…something the world could use a little more of.