  |
||||||||
|
||||||||
User login
Get Email Alerts!
Recent comments
- fk
Very funny!!!
Sad the
15 hours 8 min ago - Hey, how about we get rid of
16 hours 52 min ago - Love it retweeted, & shared.
17 hours 21 min ago - I hadn't even heard about
17 hours 45 min ago - Just in time for all you
20 hours 48 min ago - What I meant by the first
1 day 23 min ago - Of course, the rich are
1 day 2 hours ago - So, you shouldn't divide
1 day 16 hours ago - Horsecrap. The market moves
1 day 21 hours ago - Those tax hikes we had in
2 days 1 hour ago
Sponsored ad
News
- No sign of oil spill after Gulf platform fire
- Afghans Pull Money From Weakened Bank
- Officials Assess Damage From Blast in Gulf of Mexico
- Burger King sets sights overseas after $3.26B sale
- Hurricane Earl Nears Atlantic Coast
- Earl threatens East Coast with weekend pounding
- Line Umpires’ Job Is to See but Not Be Seen
Do Something!
Comments
If all those guys who claim
If all those guys who claim to know the constitution had actually read it ...
Ah, well. It's much easier to make things up and ignore the parts you don't like.
Goodness me, you Americans
Goodness me, you Americans are funny.
We've had universal health care here in the UK (or "Socialist Healthcare" as you appear to be calling it) for 60 years now.
We're doing very well too, thank you. And we're joined by all the other Western democracies, except for one obvious omission.
What are you really afraid of? Come and join the party! It's warm in here and full of friends.
Some states actually HAVE
Some states actually HAVE health care for the poor already IE: Mainecare, Medical, CHIP Hawkeye ET AL
I was actually denied coverage by Maine care and became homeless for a year even though supposidly that is not supposed to happen. Thanks Big Government & socialism!
Democracy Equals the tyranny
Democracy Equals the tyranny of the majority
If I recall the left had a
If I recall the left had a fit when the people of California voted to ban gay marriage. The left whined that voters limited peoples rights. Apparently the left are not up in arms with reguards to Socilist healthcare which WILL limit rights.
America is a republic not a Democracy. Those that want socialism can move to China.
Excuse me America IS a
Excuse me America IS a Democracy and magority wins in a democracy..I guess there is no educating people in a teabag society is there. Do you even know what socialism is? NOTHING about health care reform changes our country except it saves lifes..Decent people don't mind saving lives.
So if the majority of
So if the majority of americans suddenly want to kill people of certain race creed belief system ETC that make it okay then? It does in Democracy.
America is a republic (rule by law)
I'm sorry America is a
I'm sorry America is a Representative Republic not a Democracy. This is a good site that explains the differences and why our founders choose a Republic over a Democracy
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
Its a long read so I'll summarize the difference
Democracy:
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
To put it bluntly, a democracy is unquestioned/challanged majority rule. A republic is ment to protect the minoritiy from opression by the majority thus why we have a constitution. Prehaps that explains better why the "tea baggers" as you so maturely put it, have issue with how this health care bill has been handled.
What rights will we
What rights will we lose?
The right not to get ripped off?
The right to not die because a CEO is gunning for a bigger bonus?
I think we can live without those "rights"
We will lose our lives, our
We will lose our lives, our liberty and our property if this goes through.
First, its not universal heatlhcare its MANDATORY care. In other words YOU must buy a expensive insurance plan or you get fined or jailed. Just like In Massachusettes
second, Like in Britain and Scandanavia there will be mantatory mental healthcare meaning that if the psychiatrist takes Mike savages wisdom to heart, you could be locked away in an institution for life because you are deemed mentally unfit to live. Not only that, you will be force to take strong meds that will limit your abilities and judgement, you will be forced into things you dont want ETC
third, its too expensive and it WILL bankrupt this country.
You have zero facts on your
You have zero facts on your side.
Yes, it's mandatory... just like car insurance, and for much better reason. You get sick/injured, you get treatment... and unless you have insurance, the cost is passed on to those of us who have it, like all responsible adults should.
You are so full of horseshit here it's not even funny. There is no mental health requirement, and I challenge you to prove there is. But you won't, because you know you're full of -------.
What's too expensive is leaving the aging population's care costs all on Medicare and Medicaid, which is what happens if reform doesn't happen NOW. But you don't care about that, do you, you just care about political points based on lies.
You sicken me.
When mandatory car insurance
When mandatory car insurance became law, many americans, most of whom were poor could no longer afford to own an automobile which prevented them from travelling to their jobs. This is bad in cities that do not have public transportation.
Since you do not have a choice whether or not to buy car insurance or health insurance, companies have no incentives to keep the cost down and gradually increase their prices forcing consumers to pay up their noses. New Hampshire is the only state that does not have mandatory insurance. And it has the lowest insurance costs in the country. And unlike most states they dont tax insurance either.
After Massachusetts mandated healthcare, premiums have increased every year. Last year, the cost of insurance premiums went up 8%. Its expected to go up again this year. Why? No one has a freedom to choose anymore. You MUST pay for health insurance. Insurance companies are free to hike their prices without losing customers since the government is forcing them to BE customers.
I am a liberal progressive
I am a liberal progressive and I am against this fraud healthcare scam. Its not like Europe its just like In Massachusettes!
Forcing people like me to buy health insurance is subsidizing the wealthy. No thanks. Im poor enough as it is after 8 yrs of Bush.
So in other words, families
So in other words, families that can't afford health insurance must pay for it anyway and wind up homeless or go to jail? This is typical liberal fascism. No wonder our economy is a mess. And the CEOS will be living it even better while WE GET POORER! THANKS A LOT OBAMA!
im totally with you
im totally with you
So, you'll bitch if
So, you'll bitch if healthcare reform passes on a thin margin... but not when a civil rights violation is? Let me get you a time machine; you belong in the Italy-Germany region, circa the 1930s-40s.
So what if 66% of Americans
So what if 66% of Americans want to make it illegal for blacks (who make of 13% of the population BTW) To go to school or learn to read? What if 66% of Americans want to ban guns and ban free speech and free press?
America is a republic (rule of law) Not a Democracy (Mob rule) Even if the vast majority of Americans wanted fascism to be the political system, that still would not be allowed.
Hopefully the amendments we have in place namely the 2nd amendment will be sufficient to prevent this should 66% decide they want fascism.
So um, you do know that we
So um, you do know that we have a process for banning guns/racist laws, right? There are Constitutional amendments that prohibit both of those things, so regardless of a majority, simple or super, that's not all you would have to have in order to take away guns or the rights of minorities. You would have to go through the entire amendment process.
Isn't it nice to know fifth grade social studies?
John Adams on America's 21st
John Adams on America's 21st Century Problems
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate tothe government of any other."
I'm really tired of
I'm really tired of individuals dropping the "fascist" label on groups of people - especially when they have no clue as to what facism actually is.
In a nutshell, facism is when corporate and government ideologies meet. Government becomes the enabler for the the profit motive - above all else. Unions are usually crushed or controlled by the corporate elite.
Sound familar?
Looks like we are already careening toward a facist state, doesn't it?
Well, you've read the
Well, you've read the dictionary definition of fascism and misunderstood it. The "corporatism" referred to in it's definition doesn't mean "corporations" as in big businesses, it means "bodies" as in government bodies that tightly control trade and production. In fact, the word comes the Italian word "corpo" which means body. Has the same root as corporation, but the meaning is entirely different.
Fascism is a type of centrally planned socialism that allows private ownership of production, but tightly regulates the businesses and trade unions involved. Fascism also has a strong nationalistic component, and, taken to the extreme, is racist in nature, as we saw with Nazi Germany. The fascists saw their ideology as being the middle path between the evils of both communism and capitalism.
What you're talking about is an oligarchy. Fascism sounds better when you're trying to insult someone or provide some sort of guilt by association with the evils of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but it's pretty much almost always used incorrectly these days.
Wrong. Fascism is when
Wrong. Fascism is when government controls how you live your life IE: Orwell.
I tried to put up a link to
I tried to put up a link to this on Facebook and was denied.
"Warning: This Message Contains Blocked Content
Some content in this message has been reported as abusive by Facebook users."
I wasn't denied, worked fine
I wasn't denied, worked fine for me.
Good day, I would like to
Good day,
I would like to know if there is a way to have access to the animated cartoons you did before July 8, 2009 (this is the earliest I can access to as of today).
Thank you in advance for your answer, and keep up the good work!
This is one of the many
This is one of the many things I'd like to change about the site. You're right, there is only a fairly-recent supply of cartoons, the older ones disappear into a hidden archive. It's just a design thing I need to fix in the next redesign-- making the older ones accessible and adding categories. If there's a specific one you're looking for, I can send you a link. (Granted, not a very efficient way to go about this :-)
Thanks,
-MF
The only reason Obamarama
The only reason Obamarama got elected is because there was no alternative. Obama or McSame as obama. It was a vote of no confidence
Democracy is two wolves and
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting for what to have for lunch. And that is with a 66% majority. While the founding fathers left detailed instructions on how to pass laws, they also left a narrow range of what kind of laws could be enacted. Taking over medical care was not something Congress has the constitutional authority to do even with a unanimous vote.
By all means, pass it. It will speed the collapse of a system that has become corrupt at its very core. If the survivors are lucky, it will be replaced with something better.
It is sad how uneducated
It is sad how uneducated teabaggers are.
"general welfare" look it up.
What is ironic is according to you nimrods the Internet should not have been funded by the federal government because nowhere in the Constitution is the Internet mentioned...
If it's Republicans.... 51%
If it's Republicans.... 51% = CLEAR MANDATE
If it's Democrats .... 51% = Must not pass
If I recall, Dems had a fit
If I recall, Dems had a fit half a decade ago when the GOP took over congress and the senate.
And rightfully so... it's
And rightfully so... it's those decades of Republican legislature and most of a decade of a Republican president that has put us here.
Bulls-eye! thx mt
Bulls-eye!
thx
mt
The new animation is up and
The new animation is up and running. (Special thanks, as usual, to John Taylor for his excellent voice work.)
What do you think of that whole sneaky "majority rule" thing?
-MF
Incidentally, doesn't
Incidentally, doesn't "special thanks, as usual" become "customary thanks"?
My own chronic thanks goes out to Mr. Taylor. ;)
As usual, good point, COTO!
As usual, good point, COTO! I've been wanting to add credits to the animations themselves so John Taylor gets his due. (Credits would be fairly short, though-- Voice acting: John Taylor, Everything else: Mark Fiore.)
-MF
I wish you wouldn't flip
I wish you wouldn't flip sides on the issue when majority rule applied to tossing out gay 'marriage'.
But to be fair, you've never directly endorsed the legal finaglings of the California Supreme Court to get around majority rule. More of an 'enemy of my enemy' thing.
Let's all agree that 51% is 51%. (Already I see the platitudinous 'Democracy is sheep and wolves...' crowd beginning to swarm.)
I thought we worked out the
I thought we worked out the principle in the last civil war that civil rights may not be determined by majority rule. If a majority were to deny any of your rights they could hear you scream in Patagonia. Your principle only works when we're voting on someones rights beside yours. Quite a different issue than how to bring down the cost of health care.
The ability to call
The ability to call homosexual unions 'marriage' isn't a civil right.
Personally, I don't consider state-sanctioned civil unions to be a universal human right either, but I'm accepting of civil unions as a sterile legal instrument.
> If a majority were to deny any of your rights they could hear you scream in Patagonia. Your principle only works when we're voting on someones rights beside yours.
Maybe I feel it's my right to smear feces on my face and walk naked through your hometown.
If the majority denied me that right, I'd be screaming to Patagonia about it. But I doubt you'd contest the ruling of the tyrannical majority in that case.
My 'principle' works when 51%+ of the nation agrees with me.
Maybe you heard about the
Maybe you heard about the golden rule.
What goes around comes around.
That's the karmic rule,
That's the karmic rule, actually.
And if me and a hundred buddies went to a 'Gay Day' parade (we'll use that as an example of a homosexual institution) to hand out pro-bestial literature, and if we insisted that it was our right to do so, I can only pray that my present objections would come around.
If the parade organizers told us to take a hike and keep our crap away from their institution, they would be well within their rights to do so.
...which at this point has nothing to do with healthcare. So, my apologies to Mr. Fiore for opening up the can o' worms.
Plus, that can o' worms will
Plus, that can o' worms will be thoroughly opened up with tomorrow's animation :-)
-Mark
Yes, but constitutionality
Yes, but constitutionality takes precedence over majority rule. Using Reconciliation to pass a very small portion of a "fix-it" bill on top of the already-supermajority-passed Health Care Reform bill isn't unconstitutional.
In fact it's using the Senate rules that are in place.
-MF
From what I've read, the
From what I've read, the reconciliation's status as a "fix-it" bill is what's being questioned.
I found a fairly lucid explanation from Reuters here.
Indeed the senate bill is supermajority-passed, but there seems to be a failure of representation. The supermajority was quashed by voters in a very deliberate way in Massachusetts. I'm not sure what the polling says, but I suspect that this change didn't belie the 'democratic will' of the nation.
One of the meatier points in Reuters article is as follows:
"It is unclear if the House can muster the votes to pass the Senate bill given the unpopularity of the legislation -- polls show majorities of Americans oppose the overhauls passed by the House and Senate -- and the uncertainty about what could be changed through reconciliation."
The article isn't clear what's meant by 'majorities'. But if you believe it, Americans aren't supportive of the reconciliatory 'edits'--and their reluctance seems to stem from the fact that nobody knows how "fix-it" the reconciliation really is.
Even if the measure is constitutional, and even if the bill passes with 51% in the House, it smacks of an end-run around democracy.
And yes, before you point out (as the article does) that the GOP has been the reconciliation fiend in the past, I'm not bringing this up because I think the GOP is 'just super' or because I think the legislation should be blocked (I don't, since the US is financially circling the drain either way--sorry to be the one to tell you), I'm simply one of those fellows who believe that a representative democracy should be representative.
If less than half a nation supports changes, splicing them into a bill that would ordinarily take 60% to pass--but that can't, expressly because of those changes--doesn't strike me as a democratic triumph, no matter how badly you want the bill passed.
As for the gay 'marriage' ban being unconstitutional, we both see it as a civil rights issue; we're just on opposite sides of the field.
The law, as they say, is to be narrowly construed. And there's nothing in the US constitution that guarantees one group the right to redefine marital institution against the will of the democratic majority.
But... I'll shut up about it here to avoid starting up another 'Quasi-Marriage' brouhaha. ;)
The whole system is an
The whole system is an end-run around democracy, which is par-for-the-course in a republic... which the US is. If the people want real democracy, where the public decides what goes and what stays, the legislature needs to be abolished... and then people would need to accept that stuff will get done even more slowly than it already is.
The great thing is, laws are not forever; they can be repealed, they can be altered, even the Constitution can be modified. Even if something elds up being the worst idea since Cookie Monster in a Famous Amos factory, it can be fixed.
Post new comment