Comments on: Before You Get Your Granny Panties In A Wad… Look Behind You

By: Harland Moritz

Harland Moritz — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 20:22:19 +0000

Wow that is an very interesting article for me. I like your website. Maybe you should write more articles of these type.

By: Al

Al — Sat, 22 May 2010 12:17:47 +0000

The federal government was established due to the states’ realization that they made better decisions collectively than individually. Each state made its own monetary decisions on an individual basis for the first eleven years (1776-1787). Some states held to a hard money standard while others issued bills of credit (paper money), some conservatively, some with wild abandon. At the constitutional convention in 1787, they collectively determined that all would be better off with a single monetary standard and no bills of credit. Even though the federal government has abandoned the no-paper-money position, can you imagine what interstate commerce would be like with each state issuing its own?
People generally come to better conclusions or decisions collectively than individually. The speed limit laws are an example. Though it appears that most drivers violate the speed limits, even chronically, few drivers are in favor of abolishing all speed limits. Then, thieves do not want theft laws abolished. They are in favor of punishing other thieves who steal from them.
Many nations have a unified central government. Those of any size generally have provinces, counties and municipalities that deal with purely local concerns, but the national governments of those have ultimate power.
That individuals cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of all is why we have government, not “advise-ment.” Many would, left to themselves, behave well if properly informed, but on the grand scale no one knows for sure who those individuals are. Almost everyone violates some law sometime.

By: bc42

bc42 — Fri, 21 May 2010 12:57:05 +0000

Unify the states. Fine. One DL. Fine. One gun law, and one only. If you have one you will go to jail.

As for your final question, the states prove themselves over and over again to be incapable of making the correct moral decisions (i.e. prop 8, school desegregation, and this bs idea that they can simply opt out of nationalized health care)The federal govt on the other hand has been the one to continuously make the moral decisions (With the exception of King George) and have been continuously made to force the states to comply.

One of the main jobs of the govt is to ensure the safety and welfare of its people. If people can’t be trusted to to that themselves then the govt must act.

By: Al

Al — Wed, 19 May 2010 23:57:47 +0000

“When the states refuse to act morally the federal govt must and does act.”
Why then, if the federal government is so morally superior to the states’ governments, don’t we just get rid of the states and have a unitized national (not federal) government?
One driver license no matter where I live
One vehicle title & registration (plate) no matter where I live
Same gun laws everywhere (except for limited municipal regulation)
About all that “states’ rights” means today is that the states have the right to abuse their citizens & any hapless passersby.
One more question: Who acts when the federal government fails or refuses to act morally?
Everyone should be provided a safe car. No more giving up safety in favor of other desired features of some cars.

By: bc42

bc42 — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:35:28 +0000

Dr. Stragegun,
By that skewed line of thinking then you would have us white people still owning slaves. Amendments 14 and 15 impress rules on the states previously granted as states rights. When the states refuse to act morally the federal govt must and does act. This is what we saw at the end of the Civil War, then again in the 30′s, and again in the 50′s and 60′s. This is what we have seen here.

I wonder how people can stand beside a system that will deny women coverage for cervical cancer, claiming that because she has a cervix it is therefore a pre-existing condition, or the child who gets leukemia at age four and is told he/she has a pre-existing condition.

The countries that have implemented govt health care have seen a surge in their economies, their infant death rates have decreased, the average life span has increased, how can you still say “every man for himself”? Keep your immorality, the moral, completely constitutional, decision has been VOTED on and approved.

By: Dr.Strangegun

Dr.Strangegun — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:34:43 +0000

Legislating the provision of health service coverage to the citizenry using tax dollars either is or is not provided for in the enumeration of powers to congress and the executive… and you’ve got to make a hell of a stretch to make the Constitution say “is”.

This is supposed to be each state’s work, not the federal government.

By the way, the bill in total has a component that would see it defeated in a battle in the supreme court. There is a provision that requires states create and provide for insurance exchanges. The federal government is restricted under the tenth amendment from directly forcing a state to enact federal legislation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:36:20 +0000

Another interesting statistic would be the proportion of bankruptcies in each country where at least 33% of the debts put under bankruptcy protection were medically-related.

By: bc42

bc42 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:07:15 +0000

Hear, hear! Well put. These are the things that we (Liberals) have known all along. It is time for the conservatards to stop worrying about themselves and start worrying about this country and its people. There is a prevailing attitude that we (Cons)will protect your rights right up until you are born, then it’s screw you, you’re on your own. Well screw you conservatards, it’s a modern world and we must evolve if we are going to survive.