Check out some similar questions!

excon · Jul 26, 2010, 10:36 AM

Hello:

Twenty years ago today, George H. Bush signed the legislation into law. It cost BILLIONS of dollars, and I mean BILLIONS. Every city had to re-build every singe curb to be wheel chair friendly. Every retail agency in this country had to make their buildings handicapped accessible, and that meant building handicapped restrooms. Every bus and every train had to be refitted. The list of modifications the law required goes on and on. So, when I say billions of $$'s, I mean billions.

Yet, the law only helped a few. It's a PERFECT example of socialism run amok that could NEVER be passed today. Is it a good law?

I say it IS.

excon

Wondergirl · Jul 26, 2010, 10:51 AM

I was wheelchair-bound late last year for a short time and was amazed at how difficult it still is to get around, despite the ADA.

Yes, there's a handicap stall in many washrooms, but there's no sink low enough for a sitting person, so I couldn't reach the faucet to turn on the water. The paper towel holder was too high to reach, so I had to depend on strangers to help me wash and dry my hands. Oh, and the washroom door was heavy and swung inward, but I needed help to open it (no leverage when sitting down) and push it in far enough to get my chair through the opening. (I have only two hands and couldn't move the chair while holding the door open for myself.) I also needed help getting out.

I was exhausted and frustrated after just going to the bathroom. Do you want to hear more?

Btw, a wheelchair is $145 on Amazon (free shipping) if anyone wants to buy one and check out "improvements" for the handicapped.

excon · Jul 26, 2010, 10:58 AM

Hello WG:

Wow - the things we don't know.. I NEVER would have considered that stuff. So, we still have work to do.

excon

tomder55 · Jul 26, 2010, 05:49 PM

So civil rights is now a socialist concept ? Enabling the handicapped to work and to participate fully in society seems to me to be a market,and frankly American solution to the alternative of nanny state dependency. It would cost us much more in social benefits if the hanicapped became a permanent dependent class.

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 06:41 AM

Ex seems confused lately, one minute he's defending American socialism and the next he's defending the constitution. I find the two highly incompatible.

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex seems confused lately, one minute he's defending American socialism and the next he's defending the constitution. I find the two highly incompatible.

Hello Steve:

Interestingly, when I read the Constitution, I find NOTHING in there that supports either socialism OR capitalism. In fact, it's not even about the economy. It's not surprising, though, that my conservative friends read stuff that isn't there. Then they accuse me of doing the same thing. Whaddya know about that?

excon

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 07:58 AM

I'm no constitutional scholar by I would think the 10th amendment should be prohibitive to any federal socialism.

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 08:02 AM

Hello again, Steve:

THIS Tenth Amendment??

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Yup, you people read stuff that I don't.

excon

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 08:06 AM

Where does the constitution delegate power to the United States to mandate health insurance?

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 08:17 AM

Hello again, Steve:

Turning the tables, huh?

But, since YOU brought up the incompatibility of Socialism with the Constitution, it should be incumbent on YOU to find THAT in there FIRST. If you find it, then I'll do some looking too.

But, you ain't going to find it. I AM a Constitutional scholar.

excon

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 08:57 AM

I think it's quite simple, the tenth amendment guarantees states' rights. That's what the media suddenly discovered a few weeks ago when SCOTUS ruled on the 2nd amendment.

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 09:10 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I think it's quite simple, the tenth amendment guarantees states' rights.

Hello again, Steve:

Exactly HOW does states rights relate to capitalism/socialism being compatible, or NOT, with the Constitution?

excon

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 09:27 AM

What do you not get? The federal government was delegated specific powers and the rest are left to the states. The states tell the feds what to do, not the other way around, and as I specifically stated "the 10th amendment should be prohibitive to any federal socialism." If Oregon wants to have a socialist state government I suppose that's a power given them by their people, such power is not granted at the federal level.

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Where does the constitution delegate power to the United States to mandate health insurance?

Hello again, Steve:

Look. I AGREE with you. I don't believe the federal government has ANY Constitutional authority to INTRUDE into my personal and private transactions in the marketplace. But they DID anyway. They made some laws that prevented me from BUYING the products I wanted to BUY. I suppose they used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution for the authority to do so.

But you didn't make a peep about that. In fact, you thought that was the greatest piece of legislation to come down the pike. And, you still support it today. I'm talking about the drug war, of course...

So, while you laud the federal government making laws that PREVENT you from buying things, you think the laws that REQUIRE you to buy things are an intrusion in your personal and private business, and are clearly unconstitutional...

But, you gave up your right to protest the feds involvement in YOUR private and personal business, when you didn't support your neighbor's right to keep the feds out of THEIR personal and private business. Your protestations are too little, and WAY too late.

Hmmm, seems like I've said stuff like that before.

excon

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

What's not to get? The states tell the feds what to do, not the other way around, and as I specifically stated "the 10th amendment should be prohibitive to any federal socialism."

Hello again, Steve:

What's not to get is, I don't see how the states having all the rights the federal government does NOT have, translates into it "should be prohibitive" to socialism. I don't see the connection. You'll have to show me how that works.

If your saying that a state may secede if it doesn't like the policies of the federal government, I don't disagree. A few states tried it before. It didn't work then, and I don't think it would work now.

Short of secession, just how would a state, with all the rights that we agree a state has, CHANGE the federal government? Come on Steve. You need to start living in the real world instead of just reading the emails.

excon

tomder55 · Jul 27, 2010, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Look. I AGREE with you. I don't believe the federal government has ANY Constitutional authority to INTRUDE into my personal and private transactions in the marketplace. But they DID anyway. They made some laws that prevented me from BUYING the products I wanted to BUY. I suppose they used the Commerce Clause in the Constitution for the authority to do so.

But you didn't make a peep about that. In fact, you thought that was the greatest piece of legislation to come down the pike. And, you still support it today. I'm talking about the drug war, of course...

So, while you laud the federal government making laws that PREVENT you from buying things, you think the laws that REQUIRE you to buy things are an intrusion in your personal and private business, and are clearly unconstitutional...

But, you gave up your right to protest the feds involvement in YOUR private and personal business, when you didn't support your neighbor's right to keep the feds out of THEIR personal and private business. Your protestations are too little, and WAY too late.

Hmmm, seems like I've said stuff like that before.

excon

I guess this has strayed away from the ADA then. Imagine all those fun audits you could be having from the FDA ,State boards of health ,OSHA... getting to comply with cGMPs ,providing a list of SOPs ,having to comply with the latest version of the truth in advertising laws ,child proof packaging ,FTC... the list goes on and on . I deal with multiple audits by the government and the customer's representatives annually and a small fortune is spent to ensure purity in compliance, in quality control and assurance, and laboratory costs .
It's a different world from peddling out of the back of your car selling in unlabelled baggies.

What ? Are you saying that the government has no role in the purity of a product ,and from determining what products are safe and effective ;and what products should and shouldn't be on the market based on that proposition ? Even Timothy Leary says that's a legitimate government role.

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 10:33 AM

Ex, I didn't read any emails, I read the 10th amendment. Socialism implies some form of central control which I believe the 10th amendment precludes at the federal level, anything beyond their specifically enumerated powers.

If you don't believe the feds have the right to INTRUDE into your personal and private transactions in the marketplace, one would think that would extend to the most personal of transactions, health care.

You know personally I don't care if you buy weed or not and I'm certainly not opposed to legalizing it.

excon · Jul 27, 2010, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

ex, I didn't read any emails, I read the 10th amendment. Socialism implies some form of central control

Hello again, Steve:

If you watch Glenn Beck, I guess you could believe it implies some sort of central control. But, if you watch what happens, you'd see the feds collecting taxes and paying their bills.

Do you mean to imply that socialism, which is another name for BIG GOVERNMENT translates into FEWER individual rights?? I don't disagree. But, again, the drug war is the BIGGEST, most LIBERAL intrusion into your life that has EVER happened in this country. It's probably fascism, rather than socialism, but I don't care what ism it is. It IS big government, and HAS resulted in FEWER individual rights. YOU support it.

Besides, I don't think you mind too much central control anyway. I didn't see you blink when I posted about your dwindling rights regarding the massive BIG GOVERNMENT buildup in the clandestine services...

You either LIKE big government and you're willing to sacrifice your rights in order to get it, or you DON'T. But, you CAN'T have it both ways.

excon

Wondergirl · Jul 27, 2010, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by excon

It IS big government, and HAS resulted in FEWER individual rights. YOU support it.

Isn't what goes on at airports now -- all the checking, body scans, and throwing away of personal possessions -- an intrusion of big government? It's making us safe somehow?

speechlesstx · Jul 27, 2010, 11:15 AM

[QUOTE=excon;2454173]

If you watch Glenn Beck, I guess you could believe it implies some sort of central control.

For the umpteenth time I don't watch Glenn Beck. Socialism implies either collective or government ownership and administration. I don't see anyone pushing toward collective ownership and administration so that leaves one alternative.

You either LIKE big government and you're willing to sacrifice your rights in order to get it, or you DON'T. But, you CAN'T have it both ways.

And you are willing to sacrifice MY rights to MY health care and MY money. What's the difference?