Bag of Randomness


This entry was posted in Personal. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Bag of Randomness

  1. john15nlt says:

    I don't understand the government shutdown, I also don't understand the affordable care act, but what I really don't understand is Congress passed it, the president signed it, the Supreme court upheld it, Obama campaigned on it and was reelected logic. I do not believe that if took a poll of the American Citizens that this would be something that we all want as a majority, but we are not a democracy we are a Representative republic.

    • Geeding says:

      " I do not believe that if took a poll of the American Citizens that this would be something that we all want as a majority" – My main disagreement with this is that the ACA was a major campaign issue in the last election and Americans voted for politicians that represented their views.

      "but what I really don't understand is Congress passed it, the president signed it, the Supreme court upheld it, Obama campaigned on it and was reelected logic"
      "but we are not a democracy we are a Representative republic" – The federal government is not a democracy, I agree, there's not debating that, you are 100% correct. Our legislators are elected by the people (democracy) and make law and that makes us a constitutional republic. While legislators elected by the people make laws, they can only do so by what is authorized in the Constitution (a republic). If anything goes outside the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the ability to decide if it's constitutional, and they did so regarding ACA So my point in saying that Congress passed it, the president signed it, the Supreme Court upheld it, and that Democrats mad e it a campaign to uphold it is that it was all done in the confines of our constitutional republic.

      Thanks for your thoughts, John. I may not agree with your, but I appreciate you taking the time to let me understand your point of view.

  2. Uppercase Matt says:

    Part of accepting how our government works is accepting that nothing one Congress does is binding on another Congress — anything that passes can be amended, repealed, defunded, etc. There's no such things as "the law passed, so the issue is closed." If there were, then no civil rights reforms, for example, ever would have happened. New legislation to change or abolish old or just stupid legislation is an integral and important part of our system.

    • Geeding says:

      Hey Matt –

      I totally agree with what you are saying and I think it was very well stated. The issue I have against the far right is their justification saying the American people don't want this and that it's not constitutional.

      Our elected officials, the House, Senate, and the President created the law in Obama's first term. If the will of the people were to overturn his signature initiative, they had their opportunity in the last election to oust the man in office and the congressional representatives that wanted to keep it in place.

      As for them saying it isn't constitutional, I'd say it's untrue because of the reason I stated above – Congress passed it, the president signed it, the Supreme court upheld it. It most certainly constitutional.

      An you are wholeheartedly correct in saying that there's no such things as "the law passed, so the issue is closed." And I'm thankful things are set up that way, and my apologies if I misled you and anyone into thinking I was saying such, perhaps I should have spent more time working on my wording.

      A college prof once told me that the beauty of the Constitution is that not everything is written in stone, and thank goodness. If our elected representatives want to amend the ACA, then let them do so, but not by shutting down the government and saying it's not the will of the people and that it's unconstitutional.

      Thanks for your thoughts, Matt. I appreciate you allowing me to get a better understanding of your perspective of things.


  3. Dude says:

    I disagree about Walt's confession to Skylar. I think he had a realization in the previous episode when he hit rock bottom… it wasn't about his family, it was about HIM. So I think we saw the first time he spoke truthfully to Skylar in pretty much the whole series in that kitchen. Let's face it, how many times did Walt's ego and hubris wreck a situation? In that last scene with Skylar he came clean.

  4. Uppercase Matt says:

    I think it's silly to talk about whether ACA as a whole is constitutional — the only aspect that has actually be tested is the non-participation penalty, which the Administration said wasn't a tax until CJ Roberts said that it's only constitutional if it's a tax and now the Administration tries not to talk about at all. Aspects of ACA will be tried in court for years — must aspects haven't gone into effect, so they're not ripe to sue over.

    I'll also have to disagree with you on the "message" of the 2012 elections. If healthcare were the ONLY issue, maybe Obama's reelection would have particular meaning for ACA — but it of course wasn't. Gay rights, marriage equality, social programs, tax policy, two foreign wars, a really poor GOP candidate, etc. all played into the elections. One might argue that the House elections — where all members were up for election, and where the GOP maintained control — were much more indicative of what the populace wanted the legislative priorities to be. After all, it had already passed, and only Congress can repeal it — and only a third of the Senate was up for election.

    • Geeding says:

      When a law passes the House and Senate and the president signs it, I'd say it's constitutional. I'd say it's only unconstitutional when the Supreme Court issues a verdict. But I will admit I don't have strong knowledge in this area, so I may be incorrect in my thinking. I dont' want to come across as being arrogant saying I know exactly how things work.

      You make some very great points that I have to agree with regarding the last election. But I still think if Americans really really really didn't like ACA then they would have elected officials to overturn it no matter how poor the party candidate(s).

      But thankfully we live in a place were we have the freedom to air out our differences without consequence.

      Thanks again for your thoughts, Matt.

      • Uppercase Matt says:

        The constitutionality thing is kind of abstract — you could certainly say that a law is presumed constitutional until it's overturned by the courts. But I think we'd all agree that if/when it is ruled unconstitutional, then it was *always* unconstitutional from the moment it was enacted. So any current law is presumed constitutional but is potentially unconstitutional. And it is not uncommon at all for legislatures, city councils, and other bodies to pass laws or ordinances that are clearly unconstitutional (and most of them do it knowingly) — because those laws will be enforced unless and until someone has the position and means to challenge them in court.

        Congress could pass a law that says "it shall be a crime for any person to criticize Congress" — and that would be the law until a court overturned it. And they would — but if it were taken all the way to the Supreme Court, it might take years to be finally resolved.

        As for the ACA itself, I think it will be a disaster. My doctors have had nothing good to say about it. The cost of the healthcare I provide my employees has gone up for me and for them — but I doubt any of them will decline our health benefits in favor of the "marketplace." I think the main result, in the end, is that the people that pay for health care will pay more for worse service to support people who aren't willing to pay for it. I expect that within a few years, I'll be paying significantly more for better service, by switching to "concierge" health providers that provide better service at a premium. I think health care will be increasingly stratified between the better care that only some people can afford and the poor care that's subsidized by the government.

        • Geeding says:

          Once again, Matt, thanks for the dialog today and keeping it civil and respectful. While we may not win over each other partly or completely (not that that was every the goal), I hope we both can come out of this saying we see the other perspective in a better light.

          The unconstitutionality discussion is quite a philosophical one that could go on and on. You make points I can't totally disagree with, and I hate to demean the constitution to sports, I think we all know that on the Hail Mary Drew Pearson should have been called for offensive pass interference for pushing off, but he wasn't. Since it was never called, it never became a penalty. So in that sense, I see laws that the Supreme Court rule unconstitutional as being constitutional up until the time they are ruled unconstitutional. I have to admit I'm on a bit of a caffeine high and things may not be connecting as well I like, but I think you get my overall point.

          I think in the long term ACA will work out with wrinkles (amendments) being ironed out over time. I think the arguments of more part time workers and rising costs doesn't hold a lot of water since those things have been trending up for a while, and for employers cutting back or health benefits I think that was something that was going to happen anyways, it's just easier for them to point the blame at the government than to say it was something that was bound to happen anyways.

          I guess we'll both have to wait and see.

          Thanks again for your thoughts.

  5. Dude says:

    Keith…. more greatness from Stephen Colbert:

  6. Molly says:

    Iron makes your blood sticky, sticky blood clogs arteries – men should donate blood to keep their blood iron levels low.

Comments are closed.