US/Obama Healthcare Plan Consolidated MEGA-THREAD

[Ryadn]

Now wait, I didn't say anything about Treason. Treason is pretty specifically defined in the Constitution. However, a simple label of "Disloyalty" has no constituional definition. And these statements certainly are disloyal to the United States.

The American people do not owe loyalty to the president, nor to any other person or office of government. We owe loyalty to the nation and to each other. And the government owes both its loyalty and service to us, not the other way around.

I loathe and detest these astroturfed fake protesters more than I can express, but I cannot tolerate anyone calling for Sedition Acts to be used against them. Sedition Acts are an evil in US history and a sign of administrations that were weak and lacking in legitimacy.

I will not tolerate handing this nation back to that backstabbing fuck Dick Cheney just because of some "Nazi!" screaming droolers. They may deserve to get told to shut the fuck up by their fellow citizens, but NOT by the government. NEVER by the government.

Excellent point. Sedition is betraying one's country, not any particular administrative body. Otherwise we'd have no use for the second amendment and our right to overthrow tyranny.

I'm not sure how that ties into calls for violence against the President. When someone advocates violence against the current administration, are they treating Obama as a lawfully elected Commander in Chief, or as a individual man? Is it illegal to /support/ violence against anyone if one personally makes no /threat/ of violence?

[Georgetpwn]

Screw nationalized healthcare!
wait a minute, i got TRICARE...

[Muravyets]

Can someone tell me something about the public option. It would be a non-profit insurance company started by the government but it would not be subsidized by the government after the initial investment. The logic being that the private insurers could never compete if the public option was subsidized. Am I right so far? So wouldn't it basically be the same thing if someone set up a non-profit insurance company, kind of like the way Vanguard is set up as a non-profit financial services company? Has anyone ever tried that? That way there would be no government intervention in the market. Am I missing something here?

No, apparently that is not what was being considered. Instead, they were considering a non-subsidized version of what Medicare is that anyone below Medicare age could buy into. So individuals or groups (employers) would still have to pay premiums, and the provision of the service would be contracted out to private companies, just like Medicare is. Since there would be no subsidy from the government, it would charge higher premiums than Medicare, but it was proposed to have several advantages over private insurance, including:

> It would be national, so if you bought in as an individual you would not lose it if you moved to another state. A new contractor/provider would take over your policy, but your policy would not end and a new one started.

> It would have the bargaining power of a very, very large group of insureds, via the government acting as managers of the plan, in order to get the best possible premium prices and drug prices from the contractor companies. This is of particular interest to self-employed people who often cannot get affordable insurance from private companies.

> It would be guaranteed not to discriminate by age, health, occupation, gender, residence location, etc.

But apparently all that is moot, since I believe that option is off the table.

[Muravyets]

Now wait, I didn't say anything about Treason. Treason is pretty specifically defined in the Constitution. However, a simple label of "Disloyalty" has no constituional definition. And these statements certainly are disloyal to the United States.

The American people do not owe loyalty to the president, nor to any other person or office of government. We owe loyalty to the nation and to each other. And the government owes both its loyalty and service to us, not the other way around.

I loathe and detest these astroturfed fake protesters more than I can express, but I cannot tolerate anyone calling for Sedition Acts to be used against them. Sedition Acts are an evil in US history and a sign of administrations that were weak and lacking in legitimacy.

I will not tolerate handing this nation back to that backstabbing fuck Dick Cheney just because of some "Nazi!" screaming droolers. They may deserve to get told to shut the fuck up by their fellow citizens, but NOT by the government. NEVER by the government.

Excellent point. Sedition is betraying one's country, not any particular administrative body. Otherwise we'd have no use for the second amendment and our right to overthrow tyranny.

I'm not sure how that ties into calls for violence against the President. When someone advocates violence against the current administration, are they treating Obama as a lawfully elected Commander in Chief, or as a individual man? Is it illegal to /support/ violence against anyone if one personally makes no /threat/ of violence?

It is against the law to seriously and realistically threaten to murder anyone, regardless of who or what they are. Death threats against public officials are always taken seriously, though, because of who and what they are.. I believe threats to kill the president and other officials is seen as an attempt to destabilize the operations of government and, even more, to terrorize the population. So it's an act of terrorism.

However, I believe that, although the Secret Service takes every single death threat seriously, upon investigation, they usually dismiss most of them without arrests because it is learned that the threats come from known insane people who are under care, or just from garden variety assholes who are too stupid to avoid talking about assassinations in internet forums but who will never shift their asses even to get their own beer, let alone carry out a plot.

EDIT: As to whether a call for violence would be illegal, I would say that would have to be judged by a prosecutor after the fact of a violent action or attempt, to see whether there was real and direct incitement. Incitement to violence is against the law, but it is very hard to prove in a court.

[The South Islands]

Now wait, I didn't say anything about Treason. Treason is pretty specifically defined in the Constitution. However, a simple label of "Disloyalty" has no constituional definition. And these statements certainly are disloyal to the United States.

The American people do not owe loyalty to the president, nor to any other person or office of government. We owe loyalty to the nation and to each other. And the government owes both its loyalty and service to us, not the other way around.

I loathe and detest these astroturfed fake protesters more than I can express, but I cannot tolerate anyone calling for Sedition Acts to be used against them. Sedition Acts are an evil in US history and a sign of administrations that were weak and lacking in legitimacy.

I will not tolerate handing this nation back to that backstabbing fuck Dick Cheney just because of some "Nazi!" screaming droolers. They may deserve to get told to shut the fuck up by their fellow citizens, but NOT by the government. NEVER by the government.

Excellent point. Sedition is betraying one's country, not any particular administrative body. Otherwise we'd have no use for the second amendment and our right to overthrow tyranny.

I'm not sure how that ties into calls for violence against the President. When someone advocates violence against the current administration, are they treating Obama as a lawfully elected Commander in Chief, or as a individual man? Is it illegal to /support/ violence against anyone if one personally makes no /threat/ of violence?

As stated before, sedition and treason are two very, very different things. No capital punishment is deserved. Just a few jail sentences. Make an example of the leaders, and the others will follow.

We owe loyalty to the President when he is a good and just ruler. When he is not, we owe him nothing. Sedition acts are good to prevent exactly what is happening now, the same lies being repeated again and again and again by the same people so much that it becomes nigh fact. The law must step in to stop this.

[Ryadn]

As stated before, sedition and treason are two very, very different things. No capital punishment is deserved. Just a few jail sentences. Make an example of the leaders, and the others will follow.

We owe loyalty to the President when he is a good and just ruler. When he is not, we owe him nothing. Sedition acts are good to prevent exactly what is happening now, the same lies being repeated again and again and again by the same people so much that it becomes nigh fact. The law must step in to stop this.

I'm sure there were boatloads of nobles who thought Louis Seize and Tsar Nicholas II were good and just rulers. How many people have to agree with him/her before we owe our leader loyalty?

[The South Islands]

As stated before, sedition and treason are two very, very different things. No capital punishment is deserved. Just a few jail sentences. Make an example of the leaders, and the others will follow.

We owe loyalty to the President when he is a good and just ruler. When he is not, we owe him nothing. Sedition acts are good to prevent exactly what is happening now, the same lies being repeated again and again and again by the same people so much that it becomes nigh fact. The law must step in to stop this.

I'm sure there were boatloads of nobles who thought Louis Seize and Tsar Nicholas II were good and just rulers. How many people have to agree with him/her before we owe our leader loyalty?

Different, as they were not elected leaders of a Nation. In my mind, loyalty to the leader (personal if not political) is necessitated by two things. One, the leader was democratically elected. Two, the leader proves himself to be competent. The current president has proven both. Therefore, we owe him personal loyalty. Again, disagreeing with the policies of a president are permissible in a free society, but vicious lies that undermine the nation cannot. This isn't about stifling dissent. Its about preserving the integrity of the Government.

[Muravyets]

As stated before, sedition and treason are two very, very different things. No capital punishment is deserved. Just a few jail sentences. Make an example of the leaders, and the others will follow.

We owe loyalty to the President when he is a good and just ruler. When he is not, we owe him nothing. Sedition acts are good to prevent exactly what is happening now, the same lies being repeated again and again and again by the same people so much that it becomes nigh fact. The law must step in to stop this.

I have a feeling you just made up that supposed difference between sedition and treason.

Also, wrap your brain around this: The President of the United States is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- a ruler.

He is the executive of an administration.

NOT a ruler. I said it again so you would not miss it.

And the law expressly forbids the government from stopping the liars from lying in public. It is up to the rest of us to silence them with facts and our votes.

[The Alma Mater]

I'm sure there were boatloads of nobles who thought Louis Seize and Tsar Nicholas II were good and just rulers. How many people have to agree with him/her before we owe our leader loyalty?

We could just objectively count the number of lies, halftruths and so on each side tells. As long as the opposition tells more lies than the president, the president is good.

[Muravyets]

Different, as they were not elected leaders of a Nation. In my mind, loyalty to the leader (personal if not political) is necessitated by two things. One, the leader was democratically elected. Two, the leader proves himself to be competent. The current president has proven both. Therefore, we owe him personal loyalty. Again, disagreeing with the policies of a president are permissible in a free society, but vicious lies that undermine the nation cannot. This isn't about stifling dissent. Its about preserving the integrity of the Government.

The government can preserve its integrity by producing results that benefit the people and by obeying the law it is supposed to uphold.

It cannot preserve its integrity by murdering that integrity and pissing on its corpse, which it would do if it silenced dissenters for "disloyalty."

Again, Americans are a self-governing people. That means it is OUR job to expose and dismiss these lies and to remove the liars from government by our votes.

[The South Islands]

I have a feeling you just made up that supposed difference between sedition and treason.

Also, wrap your brain around this: The President of the United States is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- a ruler.

He is the executive of an administration.

NOT a ruler. I said it again so you would not miss it.

And the law expressly forbids the government from stopping the liars from lying in public. It is up to the rest of us to silence them with facts and our votes.

The Constitution is quite specific with regards to Treason. Aid and Comfort to an enemy is not the same as trying to undermine the government. Although perhaps it would fall more under that act (whose name escapes me at the moment) that criminalize attempts or encouragement to overthrow the legitimate government of the united states.

I think Ruler is quite an apt term when describing the President and Congress. We elect them to rule over us (within the confines of the Constitution). Citizens make no decisions.

When those lies undermine the very fabric of the Republic, I think government should step in and deal with these people. People attending these meetings and thuggishly disrupting these events with their booing and signwaving are no better then the Confederacy or the Taliban.

[The South Islands]

Different, as they were not elected leaders of a Nation. In my mind, loyalty to the leader (personal if not political) is necessitated by two things. One, the leader was democratically elected. Two, the leader proves himself to be competent. The current president has proven both. Therefore, we owe him personal loyalty. Again, disagreeing with the policies of a president are permissible in a free society, but vicious lies that undermine the nation cannot. This isn't about stifling dissent. Its about preserving the integrity of the Government.

The government can preserve its integrity by producing results that benefit the people and by obeying the law it is supposed to uphold.

It cannot preserve its integrity by murdering that integrity and pissing on its corpse, which it would do if it silenced dissenters for "disloyalty."

Again, Americans are a self-governing people. That means it is OUR job to expose and dismiss these lies and to remove the liars from government by our votes.

I disagree. Simple people, as proven during the past few years, can be mislead by other people that are supposedly superior to them. This is what is happening now. Democracy only works if the people indeed have their best interests in mind and can act as a rational actor in the voting box. Again, the last few elections have proven that it is possible for a small minority to influence a majority in very wrong ways. In this case, the Government must step in to ensure that the People are not influenced by the supposed intellectual elite that use fancy words and clever twists of the tongue to get voters to go against their (and the country's) well being.

The Government exists, in part, to protect the citizens. In this case, the Government needs to protect the citizens from hurtful ideas. Ideas as these "intellectual elites" promote.

[Muravyets]

The Constitution is quite specific with regards to Treason. Aid and Comfort to an enemy is not the same as trying to undermine the government. Although perhaps it would fall more under that act (whose name escapes me at the moment) that criminalize attempts or encouragement to overthrow the legitimate government of the united states.

I think Ruler is quite an apt term when describing the President and Congress. We elect them to rule over us (within the confines of the Constitution). Citizens make no decisions.

When those lies undermine the very fabric of the Republic, I think government should step in and deal with these people. People attending these meetings and thuggishly disrupting these events with their booing and signwaving are no better then the Confederacy or the Taliban.

That's pretty much pure bullshit, TSI, sorry.

[New Kereptica]

Different, as they were not elected leaders of a Nation. In my mind, loyalty to the leader (personal if not political) is necessitated by two things. One, the leader was democratically elected. Two, the leader proves himself to be competent. The current president has proven both. Therefore, we owe him personal loyalty. Again, disagreeing with the policies of a president are permissible in a free society, but vicious lies that undermine the nation cannot. This isn't about stifling dissent. Its about preserving the integrity of the Government.

The government can preserve its integrity by producing results that benefit the people and by obeying the law it is supposed to uphold.

It cannot preserve its integrity by murdering that integrity and pissing on its corpse, which it would do if it silenced dissenters for "disloyalty."

Again, Americans are a self-governing people. That means it is OUR job to expose and dismiss these lies and to remove the liars from government by our votes.

I disagree. Simple people, as proven during the past few years, can be mislead by other people that are supposedly superior to them. This is what is happening now. Democracy only works if the people indeed have their best interests in mind and can act as a rational actor in the voting box. Again, the last few elections have proven that it is possible for a small minority to influence a majority in very wrong ways. In this case, the Government must step in to ensure that the People are not influenced by the supposed intellectual elite that use fancy words and clever twists of the tongue to get voters to go against their (and the country's) well being.

The Government exists, in part, to protect the citizens. In this case, the Government needs to protect the citizens from hurtful ideas. Ideas as these "intellectual elites" promote.

Who watches the Watchmen?

[Muravyets]

I disagree. Simple people, as proven during the past few years, can be mislead by other people that are supposedly superior to them. This is what is happening now. Democracy only works if the people indeed have their best interests in mind and can act as a rational actor in the voting box. Again, the last few elections have proven that it is possible for a small minority to influence a majority in very wrong ways. In this case, the Government must step in to ensure that the People are not influenced by the supposed intellectual elite that use fancy words and clever twists of the tongue to get voters to go against their (and the country's) well being.

The Government exists, in part, to protect the citizens. In this case, the Government needs to protect the citizens from hurtful ideas. Ideas as these "intellectual elites" promote.

Just like your made-up difference between treason and sedition, you can think anything you feel like inventing, but it doesn't change the facts. You don't get to make up a special case for abandoning the Constitution and the law just for the specific acts you don't like. And you don't get to base your arguments on the supposition that the US government operates according to your jaundiced view of humanity, instead of the way it actually does. Or rather, you CAN base your argument on that supposition if you want to, but it will only render your argument invalid.

EDIT: By the way, while I'm engaged in the act of defending their right to free speech, I would just like to repeat my own personal view that all those Lying Liar McLiartons with their idiotic death panel bullshit, etc, can kiss my ass. I just don't want anyone -- especially any one of them -- to get the wrong impression.

[The South Islands]

The Constitution is quite specific with regards to Treason. Aid and Comfort to an enemy is not the same as trying to undermine the government. Although perhaps it would fall more under that act (whose name escapes me at the moment) that criminalize attempts or encouragement to overthrow the legitimate government of the united states.

I think Ruler is quite an apt term when describing the President and Congress. We elect them to rule over us (within the confines of the Constitution). Citizens make no decisions.

When those lies undermine the very fabric of the Republic, I think government should step in and deal with these people. People attending these meetings and thuggishly disrupting these events with their booing and signwaving are no better then the Confederacy or the Taliban.

That's pretty much pure bullshit, TSI, sorry.

Your argument is eloquent and logical, yet simple enough for even I to understand. Brilliant!

[The South Islands]

The government can preserve its integrity by producing results that benefit the people and by obeying the law it is supposed to uphold.

It cannot preserve its integrity by murdering that integrity and pissing on its corpse, which it would do if it silenced dissenters for "disloyalty."

Again, Americans are a self-governing people. That means it is OUR job to expose and dismiss these lies and to remove the liars from government by our votes.

I disagree. Simple people, as proven during the past few years, can be mislead by other people that are supposedly superior to them. This is what is happening now. Democracy only works if the people indeed have their best interests in mind and can act as a rational actor in the voting box. Again, the last few elections have proven that it is possible for a small minority to influence a majority in very wrong ways. In this case, the Government must step in to ensure that the People are not influenced by the supposed intellectual elite that use fancy words and clever twists of the tongue to get voters to go against their (and the country's) well being.

The Government exists, in part, to protect the citizens. In this case, the Government needs to protect the citizens from hurtful ideas. Ideas as these "intellectual elites" promote.

Who watches the Watchmen?

Good watchmen don't need watching.

[The South Islands]

I disagree. Simple people, as proven during the past few years, can be mislead by other people that are supposedly superior to them. This is what is happening now. Democracy only works if the people indeed have their best interests in mind and can act as a rational actor in the voting box. Again, the last few elections have proven that it is possible for a small minority to influence a majority in very wrong ways. In this case, the Government must step in to ensure that the People are not influenced by the supposed intellectual elite that use fancy words and clever twists of the tongue to get voters to go against their (and the country's) well being.

The Government exists, in part, to protect the citizens. In this case, the Government needs to protect the citizens from hurtful ideas. Ideas as these "intellectual elites" promote.

Just like your made-up difference between treason and sedition, you can think anything you feel like inventing, but it doesn't change the facts. You don't get to make up a special case for abandoning the Constitution and the law just for the specific acts you don't like. And you don't get to base your arguments on the supposition that the US government operates according to your jaundiced view of humanity, instead of the way it actually does. Or rather, you CAN base your argument on that supposition if you want to, but it will only render your argument invalid.

The difference between sedition and the constitutional definition of treason is quite apparent.

[Muravyets]

Your argument is eloquent and logical, yet simple enough for even I to understand. Brilliant!

I thought you'd like it.

[Muravyets]

The difference between sedition and the constitutional definition of treason is quite apparent.

Only to you.

But over here in Realityland, the only difference is between people talking about this in the context of facts about what really exists and what is really happening, and you, who are talking about this in context of your own personal opinions and imaginings.

EDIT: For instance, do I need to remind you that you, yourself, acknowledged that we have no standing Sedition Act in the US? That means there is no law against sedition, so that as crimes go, it doesn't exist. Was that the big difference you meant to highlight with all your talk about how these lying dirtbags should be stopped by the government, even though they are not committing treason (yet)?

[Ryadn]

Who watches the Watchmen?

Good watchmen don't need watching.

And I thought I was optimistic.

[New Kereptica]

The Constitution is quite specific with regards to Treason. Aid and Comfort to an enemy is not the same as trying to undermine the government. Although perhaps it would fall more under that act (whose name escapes me at the moment) that criminalize attempts or encouragement to overthrow the legitimate government of the united states.

I think Ruler is quite an apt term when describing the President and Congress. We elect them to rule over us (within the confines of the Constitution). Citizens make no decisions.

When those lies undermine the very fabric of the Republic, I think government should step in and deal with these people. People attending these meetings and thuggishly disrupting these events with their booing and signwaving are no better then the Confederacy or the Taliban.

That's pretty much pure bullshit, TSI, sorry.

Your argument is eloquent and logical, yet simple enough for even I to understand. Brilliant!

1. "Ruler" can only describe the President. You see, there are three different branches of the US government, the legislative branch, made up of Congress, &c. , the executive branch, made up of the President, &c., and the judicial, made up of the Supreme Court, &c.. The Executive branch is aptly named, as it is the one that rules. The legislative branch, on the other hand, represent the people and make laws based upon the will of the people.

2. The rights of assembly and freedom of speech guaranteed in a 1st Amendment to the Constitution guarantee that people can demonstrate their opinions by protesting those events.

So, yeah. Your argument is pure bullshit.

[The South Islands]

The difference between sedition and the constitutional definition of treason is quite apparent.

Only to you.

But over here in Realityland, the only difference is between people talking about this in the context of facts about what really exists and what is really happening, and you, who are talking about this in context of your own personal opinions and imaginings.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Rather specific, don't you think?

[Muravyets]

Good watchmen don't need watching.

Hehe, sucker.

[New Kereptica]

The difference between sedition and the constitutional definition of treason is quite apparent.

Only to you.

But over here in Realityland, the only difference is between people talking about this in the context of facts about what really exists and what is really happening, and you, who are talking about this in context of your own personal opinions and imaginings.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Rather specific, don't you think?

Oh, but what a funny thing, the word "sedition" is not mentioned in the Constitution.