Responses to Banned Members

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

democracy anyone?

I find your comment to be dishonest. In one of your comments you write with apparent support for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a supposed constitutionalist, and as many on the right are quick to point out, the Constitution is based on a republican form of government, not a democracy. So to support Ron Paul is to support a republican (small r) government, which means ignoring the popular will when the law specifies otherwise. This is a direct contradiction to what you write here which is the support of the popular will over the law, and hence why your comment is dishonest.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

It could be seen that way, but there is one variable: the constitution. So yes, I believe that the people should make every decision, as LONG as it doesn't violate the constitution.

Your comment here is a contradiction with itself. You simultaneously support the people making every decision and the integrity of the Constitution. The Constitution disempowers the people to make every decision. Most decisions are made by elected representatives of the people. Secondly, if you mean that "the people should make every decisions" as in every decision should have majority support by the people and be carried out by the elected representatives and be Constitutional, that smells very fishy since the Constitution says nothing about an additional requirement of laws needing to be popular, and since you have placed great emphasis on the Constitution, it seems disingenuous that you now would be arguing for a requirement for passing laws that is not found in the Constitution.

If, for some reason, someone were to prove to me that the constitution directly encourages a mandate, that forces all citizens to purchase a service, whether or not they or want it or plan to use it, I'd probably have to reassess my allegiances, and my perspective.

The issue here is not the constitutionality of the individual mandate, but whether or not it can possibly be honest to say that the most important legislative agenda is to conserve the original intent of the Founders while simultaneously arguing for something that the Founders would have disagreed with: that all laws must be popular.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I also can't afford it. I also don't qualify for much assistance. I'd only get about half of the premiums paid for by Uncle Sam. And if I refuse to pay for it then I'd be slapped with a fine of several thousand dollars. Damned if I do and damned if I don't. Which means I'd have to cut back on buying things. So much for helping the working poor.

Actually the fine is $695 or 2.5% of a person's income (whichever is higher). Your comment is false specifically and generally.

It's a way to give insurance companies business. It boggles my mind really. This legislation was supported by liberals who supposedly hated insurance companies and the exorbitant premiums, yet the individual mandate forces citizens to do business with them. Maybe they were thinking that if they forced individuals to buy health insurance then they would come to hate insurance companies too.

It's a way to rationally deal with a very serious economic and moral problem (people's healthcare). The current health care system is a disaster and when the Taiwanese were looking at healthcare models to emulate, they concluded that the US' is the worst and shunned it. The US has one of the most inefficient and uninclusive healthcare systems among all the advanced economies. Your take on the Affordable Health Care Act is completely wrong. It primarily benefits the poor, and the working class, and it also helps the entire economy. Health care costs are rising and it's a really bad idea to allow this huge economic expense to grow less inclusive and more expensive.

Your last two lines are sheer nonsense.

I'm generally against insurance because of the business model. The companies only want you to buy insurance if you are less likely to use it. If you really need it then you have to pay through the teeth, which when you really need it is because you can't afford high bills. I can't transfer any of that money I pay or borrow against it, or even claim it is mine anymore. I'm paying a company to invest with my money, but the only benefit I get is that they'll pay my bills. This is assuming they don't try to weasel out of their end and then use the money I paid them to help fund a legal defense against my claims. I'm better off saving my money in an account for health care costs.

Which is why part of the ACA said that health insurance companies cannot weasel out of claims with the "pre-existing conditions" canard.

If the individual mandate had options, such as a savings account for health care costs (not current HSAs which are ridiculously dumb), then I wouldn't mind so much. It'd still be an issue of the government forcing me to do something it has no business in. Plus the legal (read constitutional) argument. But I wouldn't have a pragmatic argument against it. That'll never happen though, since it helps the workers without benefiting someone in Washington or the persons whose pockets they're in.

Nonsense and factually incorrect.

Applying a more rational approach, your comment completely misrepresents how insurance works. A sick person cannot save up to pay for his or her sickness. The healthy and the sick pay for the sick. That is how it works. Trying it your way means a sick person saves up a few thousands dollars, tries in vain to pay for their treatment, fails and then dies because you only get what you pay for.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Really doesn't sound like you have one, single solitary fact correct. Example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_...e_in_Palestine

If Jews are conquerors, they're the most peaceful such conquerors ever.

You've told a rather weak lie here. Not only do you not disprove a single fact I wrote (while claiming that what I wrote is factually incorrect), you do so by citing Wikipedia, which is pretty low on the credibility list for a topic like the Middle East.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Furthermore, your link establishes the opposite of what you say it is supposed to establish (Israel is peaceful).

From your link: "By 1943, Jews had paid $560,000,000 for nearly 400,000 acres, amounting to around 6% of the land."

Even if one were to make the sloppy leap in logic you made where buying land means you get to declare independence with that land, even doing that, you only get 6% of Israel purchased. The other 94% was acquired through violence, the opposite of peace. Even at face value, your comment badly fails - it is dishonest.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

Even at 6%, you are just wrong.

This makes no sense. With all of your bad logic overlooked, you arrive at a 6% number for total amount of Israel that Israel legitimately acquired. 6% is a small portion of a country to acquire by purchasing it, so it is you who are wrong for that reason. Notice, I provided reasons and logic for how you are wrong, you merely use the word "even" and then say "you are just wrong"; that's not an actual logical argument.

I include it to prove at least some of what you've written is just flat out wrong. Someone was selling, others buying. 94% was not taken by violence. If you read about the making of Israel, you'd find they also turned abandoned desert into fertile lands. They made deals with its current owners in England to provide services for recognition. In the end, the Mid East was largely carved up by great powers. Most are Muslim recognized states. Why are they all attacking Israel? For starters, because they are JEWS. Had Israel just been another of the twenty something Muslim states, I'd have to think silly topics like this wouldn't exist.

You say you are wrong, you are wrong while you are wrong and you don't provide any facts or reasons to show that I am wrong.

I've read about Israel. In comparison to what I've read, you have not read about Israel.

Again, let's overlook your bad logic in coming to this conclusion and let's just accept it at face value: "they also turned abandoned desert into fertile lands". Improving land after one steals it is not a justification to steal it.

Regardless of what motivation Arab nations have of attacking Israel, this is not relevant to Israel having stole the land in the first place, which is what I believe is the logical point of disagreement we have.

EDIT: I also just read at the same site, Jews paid about 10 x as much per acre as they should have. They were trying to buy a state.

The Palestinians weren't interested in selling.

Do you need links about Jewish service to the Brits or the desert they turned into fertile land?

This is a question, not an accusation. I am asking: do you hate Jews?

Neither is this. Are you a child molester?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

It's pretty universally accepted that Romney lost because conservatives stayed home. However, I heard that there were 10 million fewer voters this election than in 2008, and Obama got 8 million less votes, so it seems to me that LIBERALS stayed home from voting.

Off-topic. The topic is Mitt Romney getting zero votes in these 57 Philadelphia precincts.

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I think he has a point, honestly. I've been so unhappy with the conservative party as of late I am a registered libertarian. The conservatives are just too much in the tank for big business. It's the little guy that drives this economy.

Who did you vote for?

Well I think that conservatives are a lot in the tank for big business but that's not really what motivates them. There has always been a party in this country that advocates less government, and that includes less regulations on business and less taxes on business. The GOP position on taxes is very consistent with their overall position on smaller government. I think that the GOP base has large motivations in racism though. While there is a very long tradition of Jeffersonian idealism and pro-big business policies in US politics, I think a lot of the GOP base is simply motivated by the notion that blacks are lazy, they are a mess and other people including them or the rich are white and should not be taxed or in their mind subsidizing lazy and chaotic blacks. Small government has always been the cleaned up version of saying this.


WEB

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

I voted for Mitt Romney, but only because I can't stand Obama. On a scale of dislike from 1-10, 10 being absolute disgust for, Obama is a 10, Mitt was about an 8. So I had to vote for the lesser of two evils. I would have preferred someone more conservative and true to conservative principles. Romneys smirk during the debates made me want to slap my TV.

I have long said that if the GOP ran Mitch Daniels they would have won the election. The GOP passed over a bunch of decent candidates including John Thune and Tim Pawlenty. The weakness of the GOP field was dumbfounding.

Romney was absolute garbage. He was an absolute hypocrite and a liar. He ran lie after lie from start to finish.

Why do you think Obama is so bad?

[W.E.B. Du Bois]

In response to this added comment:

"Blacks definitely participate in a disproportionate amount of crime for their percent of the population. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "crazy." I know some crazy white folks too! LOL"

I said that a large part of the GOP base considers blacks lazy, not crazy. I think you might be proving my point, making the argument that because of whatever you characterize black people as, that therefore taxes on everyone should be low and there should be less government programs.