Charles Krauthammer: Obamacare vs the Constitution

Just saw this. I will be back on this. But quickly... Show me where the constitution or any other document states that we must use capitalist system or an exclusive capitalist system.

The Declaration of Independence is not the US Constitution.

Assault on businesses to force unionization in a Right to Work State, (Boeing)

No one is forcing Boeing or anyone else to be a Union Shop. This is part of the contract. No one is forcing Boeing to take the contract. there is a whole lot more to this story and I'm hoping you are aware of this. I will come back to this when I get back home.

gillanator, #4.1;

No one is forcing Boeing or anyone else to be a Union Shop.

I guess Tha Boeing union having the democratically dominated oppointees of the NLRB sue Boeing in Federal Court for the right to unionize the new assembly line on the East coast doesn't apply to force.Essentially ignoring States laws to unionize the 3,000+ new jobs.

Or the fact that the unions claim to represent the workers came down to collecting a $750 Million settlement and give a promise not to strike in Washington State for five years to drop the suit, really helped the workers....... Is that in the contract?

You'll have to do better than that when you get back.

Show me where the constitution or any other document states that we must use capitalist system or an exclusive capitalist system.

To explain it to you as simply as possible; The Constitution is the form of government and it's interactions with the governed. Capitalism is an economic system and it used to work quite well until the government started to intrude on it. The reason you have jobs is because of capitalism. The car loans are capitalism. Home mortgages are capitalism. The store you buy food at and have the selections you enjoy are due to capitalism. The movies you watch are there for your selection because of capitalism. AND, unions don't hire workers capitalism does.

Capitalism has been around a lot longer than our Constitution, like 10,000 yrs or more.

Got in late last night. So I guess I'll start by replying to your last post.

I guess Tha Boeing union having the democratically dominated oppointees of the NLRB sue Boeing in Federal Court for the right to unionize the new assembly line on the East coast doesn't apply to force.Essentially ignoring States laws to unionize the 3,000+ new jobs.

Wrong. The law suit was based on the fact that Boeing by Jim Albaugh's (Boeings CEO) own admission was moving operations to SC despite that:

Washington state is his preferred location for building future airplanes

because of strikes that had occurred in the past.

"The overriding factor was not the business climate. And it was not the wages we are paying today," Albaugh said. "It was that we can't afford to have a work stoppage every three years.

Which is against the law and in direct violation of almost every standard union contract. THAT is why Boeing was being sued.

Capitalism is an economic system and it used to work quite well until the government started to intrude on it.

That is a completely inaccurate statement. Capitalism IS a good system when it is appropriately regulated. When capitalism is left to regulate itself the results have always been corruption and failure. Deregulation played a direct roll in the 2008 economic crisis. What kills me is how so many people like to put the blame of the crisis directly on the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, AKA the Gramm Leach Blily Act, most commonly called the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act. This was a deregulation. Which caused many problems that contributed to the economic crisis. This is the result of... how did you put it? The economic system of Capitalism working quite well without government intrusion. Because in the good ole days that you inaccurately refer to there were much more government regulations or intrusions a you like to call them which made the system work better than they have since they were removed. And that includes the National Labor Relations Act which Boeing was in clear violation of when they wanted to admittedly move manufacturing as a retaliation against union workers for practicing their right to strike.

You'll have to do better than that when you get back.

I hope this meets your approval.

gillanator, #4.3; .... Ya, that was good and well practiced.

First off;

And that includes the National Labor Relations Act which Boeing was in clear violation of ...

If Boeing was in violation of a Federal law the Government would have fined the Corporation and not benefited the union or dropped the suit without a penalty. This suit was by and for the union through the NLRB, not for the workers, not for a government law, but to override SC's State law as a "Right-to-Work" State.

Capitalism is an economic system and it used to work quite well until the government started to intrude on it.

When the government takes over the economic system it is called "Socialism/communism" depending on the amount of control. Which I don't need to explain. If I wanted to I can point out as many, or more, good from a capital system than you can quote evils done by individual instances.

As the saying goes; "you will always see what your looking for." If all you want to see is evil in capitalism that is what you'll find. Try looking at the USSR now Russia or China and tell me they were/are better where their system was promoted as equality and fairness for the workers.

... against union workers for practicing their right to strike.

The union workers right to strike was sold down the river when the union took $750 milliom dollars from Boeing and extended no strikes for four years to the "Contract" over the unionization of the S.C. plant workers.It wasn't about workers rights but union power and money.

Socialism has failed in every Country every time it's tried. It wasn't bad leaders but the economic system that caused it. Just like unions have caused outsourcing and plant closures not corporations trying to reduce labor costs and product price increases to the point no one will buy the product and buy something for less somewhere else. The only way to prevent this is a takeover of the total economic system and the workers by the government. Unions will then be banned.

If Boeing was in violation of a Federal law the Government would have fined the Corporation and not benefited the union or dropped the suit without a penalty. This suit was by and for the union through the NLRB, not for the workers, not for a government law, but to override SC's State law as a "Right-to-Work" State.

This is a misleading statement. The NLRB did go forward with the lawsuit in spite of seething threats from the congressional Republicans led by Lindsey Graham. And finally with drew the suit under congressional blackmail as the House threatened to cut funding to the NLRB. But no where at any time did the Republicans say they wanted to challenge it in court. Why? Because they would lose. The National Labor Relations Act has already been challenged and upheld in the Supreme Court. And Boeing was in violation which is why the right could not allow it to go to court so they used political maneuvering to get the suit dropped. Which is why this statement is wrong:

It wasn't about workers rights but union power and money.

You ask:

The union workers right to strike was sold down the river when the union took $750 milliom dollars from Boeing and extended no strikes for four years

I can turn that around and ask if Boeing dd nothing wrong than why pay the money, and why did they agree to add all of the machinist jobs to the union shop instead of having them in SC?

you will always see what your looking for.

That is true. And it works both ways. I try to be as objective as I can.Having been a Registered Republican most of my adult (until the last five years) life. Which is why I said:

Capitalism IS a good system when it is appropriately regulated.

But you on the other hand seem to be a little misinformed if not blindingly biased, judging from your statement:

Socialism has failed in every Country every time it's tried.

Considering that Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands have been successful Socialist countries for a long time now. And as a matter of fact their citizens have been ranked as happier than any other country by most organizations and above the US in every study I have found.

It wasn't bad leaders but the economic system that caused it.

Obviously an uniformed opinion.

Just like unions have caused outsourcing and plant closures not corporations trying to reduce labor costs and product price increases to the point no one will buy the product and buy something for less somewhere else.

This is another right wing myth. Lie would actually be a more accurate definition. Since we are discussing Boeing I could use an analogy from that. After Boeing CEO Albaugh stuck his foot in his mouth in an interview and admitted the desire to relocate was because of past strikes it has been said:

"It will make them far more cautious about the reasons they give about moving"

Which is a lesson that had been thought out for outsourcing. The fact is that these corporations were not moving their operations away from the US as much as they were moving to cheap labor. It isn't the US taxes. If so then why did the Republicans filibuster a bill proposal to give a tax break to all companies that would return jobs to the US? Why did Nike move to China? They were never even mass produced in the US. Nike came to the spotlight when the governments of Indonesia, and S. Korea investigated workers complaints that their working conditions were inhumane, and found them to be true. The respective governments asked Nike to upgrade the working conditions, and Nike chose to move to China, like their American counterparts. China, a communist country I might add. I thought we were supposed to be anticommunism?

Again I like Capitalism if it is done correctly. But it can't regulate itself or it will fail. If you look at almost every country that has turned to communism or socialism you will find a situation that is totally unlike the situation the US is in right now. Look for yourself (and not on the Heritage Foundation's website) at the reason Cuba revolted. Look at the conditions of the Cubans citizens under Batista and the corrupt exploitations by the corporations and organized crime. Look at the

you will find a situation that is totally unlike the situation the US

Correction. I was having trouble with the editing not saving this morning. I should read that our situations are starting to look like theirs. Workers are being targeted.

Sorry about this. I really had a rough time getting my post to save this morning. The last paragraph is as follows:

Look at the Russian Revolution. Look at Vietnam. They were fine before the French Imperialist occupation. Why couldn't they just rule themselves? They were a sovereign nation. If you love Democracy, then you should familiarize yourself with the facts instead of opinions and propaganda so you will know how to preserve it.

gillanator,

It is not that I'm "not informed" or as illinformed as you. I have had the time to investigate these facts and opinions from reliable sources and extensive reading.

This is another right wing myth. Lie would actually be a more accurate definition.

You can believe that to stay comfortable in your own made up history and outlook.

Considering that Denmark, Finland and the Netherlands have been successful Socialist countries

Wrong! on many counts. They are NOT socialist Countries but have socialized healthcare only. And it is having trouble paying for it. Even with an income tax of over 40% and an added value tax on all goods. The three you quote are also the least populated of the Euro-Zone. Why didn't you mention the heavily unionized Countries that are all in the various stages of bankruptcy and being near collapse; Greece, Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, and Ireland in the EU. Former Soviet block Countries From Poland to Romania. These are not myths

I've lived in Western Europe and knew many escapees from The USSR communist system. While it was in the '60s, I still remember what I was told by those that lived it, day by day and year by year as workers. It was not the utopia portrayed by the propaganda. These were not myths.

Look at Vietnam. They were fine before the French Imperialist occupation.

Wrong again. Another propaganda line of revised history. It was a Colony of France until the Chinese and Soviet backed communist takeover and occupation. The French withdrew and the Country was divided as in Korea. Try using a dictionary to see the difference between "Colony" and "Occupation."

I am not a rightwing anything, Don't get my information from Fox, NBC, or any other second hand sources. BUT, I am a conservative American and informed anti-socialist.

I could sit here all day and counter every one of your "beliefs" with a fact but do not think it wil be worth the time to bring you into the real world so I'm ending this and wishing you a good day.

Cuba revolted

I was about 25 years old when Fidel Castro started the Cuban revolution, which was mainly a revolution of his making:

Castro later travelled to the United States to explain his revolution. He said, "I know what the world thinks of us, we are Communists, and of course I have said very clearly that we are not Communists; very clearly." Link

So much for Communists saying that they are not Communists.

So much for Communists saying that they are not Communists.

Really? That is your rebuttal? First I was trying to make a point that corrupt politics that were run by corrupt capitalism and organized crime who were exploiting Cuba and it's people led to the the revolution. What your post has to do with that point I don't know.

Second if you read the link that you posted, you will see the following statement from Kennedy. This is just a matter of fact. Whether people want to accept it or not is an entirely different matter.

"I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country's policies during the Batista regime. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear."

How you can post what you posted in 4.9 and ignore that profound statement has got to be cherry picking at it's finest.

Now you consider the Bay of Pigs which The Eisenhower Administration left for Kennedy. And consider Eisenhower's speech containing the warning about the military industrial complex along with truth about (and you look up) Operation Northwoods you will see why Castro turned to The Soviets for protection. Considering that the most powerful nation on earth which is only 90 miles away wants nothing more that to take out Castro and roll back Cuba to what it was. Below is some reading for you if you would like to actually get a deeper understanding of the Cuba situation. Bottom line I agree with many of Ron Paul's philosophy on foreign policy. If we would keep our nose out of everyone elses business the world might be a better place. I will respond to Anthony's post later.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

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

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

P.S. Operation Northwoods - A CIA plan that was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to create red flag operations including performing terrorist attacks inside the US and blaming it on Cuba to turn US and world opinion into supporting a US led invasion on Cuba. Sound familiar?

Here is a few lines from ABC News:

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

How you can post what you posted in 4.9 and ignore that profound statement has got to be cherry picking at it's finest.

Derogatory evaluation of Newsvine members is a bad idea.

Addressing issues and arguments is a good idea.

"Really? That is your rebuttal? First I was trying to make a point that corrupt politics that were run by corrupt capitalism and organized crime who were exploiting Cuba and it's people led to the the rnevolutio. What your post has to do with that point I don't know". #4.11

A Communist, Fidel Castro, was instrumental is starting the revolution. Communists are violent. Millions of people have been killed by Communists.

Derogatory evaluation of Newsvine members is a bad idea.

Accurate interpretation of your post however is not. If you are going to continue to miscomprehend my posts than maybe you should concede or move on. You chose to pick out a comment that had nothing to do with the point I made about Cuba's decision to revolt and ignored a very relevant quote by Kennedy.

Addressing issues and arguments is a good idea.

Sticking to the point and making relevant points to the conversation is also a good idea.

A Communist, Fidel Castro, was instrumental is starting the revolution.

Castro was not a communist before the revolution. Castro was an anti-imperialist. He got involved in some socialist groups in college. And this is my point. A point that seems to elude you. If you read the Kennedy quote that I copied and pasted from your link you will see that life in Cuba for the Cubans under Batista was terrible. This was a result of corrupt imperialism, that exploited these people. Anything that is counter to what is hurting these people they will embrace. Even Communism. They wanted their freedom. You fail to recognize or admit that Capitalism can be corrupt if it isn't administered properly. And this is my point. Regardless of what you think about communism, if it were not for the corrupt capitalism mentioned by Kennedy Cuba would never have turned to Communism. They would never have had a reason to revolt. This is the case in many instances. Imperialism and occupation or as Anthony likes to call it colonization, or more accurately as Kennedy called it colonial domination destroys what was otherwise a peaceful civilization.

Millions of people have been killed by Communists.

And what about the US? Did you read the links about Operation Northwoods? Do you think this is OK? Or do you choose to just ignore facts? Do you think the US does no wrong? What about the CIA coup against Iran in 1953 to overthrow a Democratically elected Prime Minister just because Iran had chosen to Nationalize their oil industry? And then replace him with a puppet government? I suppose you will just choose to ignore this as well. We are just as bad.

Castro was not a communist before the revolution.

President Obama is not a communist either, huh? However President Obama appointed a Communist czar, Van Jones.

But you on the other hand seem to be a little misinformed if not blindingly biased, judging from your statement:

Derogatory evaluation of Newsvine members is a bad idea.

Discussion of issues and arguments is a good idea.

Wolfman - Before we go any further I want to let you know that my cherry picking comment was not intended to be a derogatory comment. If you took it that way I apologize. Sometimes I think we Viners being passionate about our beliefs might offend someone unintentionally. And even though we may disagree on a subject we should be civil.

So I just wanted to respectfully clear that up, before I tear into your last comment.

: ) Just kidding. Thanks for debating with me and I will reply later.

@ Wolf Wolfman

You must have posted your 4.15 comment while I posted my 4.16 comment and I didn't see it. Because if I did I would have retracted my post. Your taking offense to what I posted to you is one thing. But to go and select a comment from my exchange with Anthony is something else all together.

But you on the other hand seem to be a little misinformed if not blindingly biased, judging from your statement:

You copied and pasted the previous statement. And totally ignored the fact that Anthony started the dialog with me with this statement:

I'm no longer amazed that some people have to say something on a topic who have NO/LITTLE knowledge of what they are talking about.

If my saying to you that cherry picking facts is a derogatory statement that certainly Anthony's opening statement would be. And certainly

You can believe that to stay comfortable in your own made up history and outlook.

I could sit here all day and counter every one of your "beliefs" with a fact but do not think it wil be worth the time to bring you into the real world so I'm ending this and wishing you a good day.

these statements would be considered derogatory by your definition, but you conveniently overlooked those statements. So I would have to say that your method of selecting and presenting facts is most definitely cherry picking. But not surprising considering that Anthony is on your friends list.

President Obama is not a communist either, huh? However President Obama appointed a Communist czar, Van Jones.

Obama is a democratically elected president. Nice attempt to deflect though. Since you obviously cannot come up with an effective rebuttal about Cuba as a matter of fact you cannot even seem to stay on subject when we debate. The subject was the Cuban revolution. If you cannot add or counter this then I guess it is safe to assume that you concede?

Anthony - I know that you bailed on our debate, so I guess that leaves me with the last post on that exchange.

It is not that I'm "not informed" or as illinformed as you. I have had the time to investigate these facts and opinions from reliable sources and extensive reading.

That is of course your opinion. I too have spent much time reading and studying either on my own time or in college.

You can believe that to stay comfortable in your own made up history and outlook.

This is just a desperate comment to deflect that everything I posted in regards to history can be proven and is fact.

Wrong! on many counts. They are NOT socialist Countries but have socialized healthcare only.

You are correct in some ways. In that they are not socialist countries in the true sense of the word. But considering what you call socialism in this country I would say they qualify on many levels. Consider that they have Socialist parties in their parliament, or that Finland covers education from K- 12 and all secondary education up to doctor degree, as well as child care and many other programs, I would say that they would be considered socialism even by you in a different situation.

Why didn't you mention the heavily unionized Countries that are all in the various stages of bankruptcy and being near collapse

Come on The US is in a stage of bankruptcy!! Get real. We have a huge debt that we paid over 455 billion dollars in interest on last November, over 410 billion last year, and over 380 billion in interest in 2009. The whole EU is on the verge of bankruptcy. Iceland who was in perfect financial condition almost went bankrupt because of corrupt outsiders. The economic problems isn't the fault of unions.

Wrong again. Another propaganda line of revised history. It was a Colony of France until the Chinese and Soviet backed communist takeover and occupation. The French withdrew and the Country was divided as in Korea. Try using a dictionary to see the difference between "Colony" and "Occupation."

can only laugh at this. If I were you I would have turned and ran from this debate too. After posting this kind of stuff. You say a propaganda line of revised history. I would suggest that you do a little studying. Oh and BTW colony and occupation, splitting hairs. French took over Vietnam militarily. They were not invited. You call it what you want, I like Kennedy's term:

countries under colonial domination

Here are a few facts, something missing from your post.

France began its conquest of Indochina in the late 1850s, and completed pacification by 1893. The Treaty of Huế, concluded in 1884, formed the basis for French colonial rule in Vietnam for the next seven decades. In spite of military resistance, most notable by the Can Vuong of Phan Dinh Phung, by 1888 the area of the current-day nations of Cambodia and Vietnam was made into the colony of French Indochina (Laos was added later). Various Vietnamese opposition movements to French rule existed during this period, such as the Viet Nam Quoc Dan Dang who staged the failed.

It wasn't until the later part of the 19th century that all of Vietnam was under full French control.

Vietnam's independence was gradually eroded by France – aided by large Catholic collaborator militias – in a series of military conquests between 1859 and 1885, after which the entire country became part of French Indochina. The French administration imposed significant political and cultural changes on Vietnamese society.

It wasn't communist backed takeover and occupation, or whatever you call it. I used to think this too. But after studying the war I found out that during WWII the French left Vietnam because they were occupied themselves and Vietnam was then occupied by Japan. For a brief period after the Second World War Vietnam was free, Japan left after being defeated, and France was trying to recover and Vietnam reached out to America for help to keep France out and to set up a democratic government, but wad ignored. He then turned to whoever would help keep the French out.

Following the August Revolution (1945) organized by the Việt Minh, Hồ became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam that borrowed much from the French and American declarations.[20] Although he convinced Emperor Bảo Đại to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry S. Truman for support for Vietnamese independence,[21] citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman never responded.

This is historic fact. Not propaganda. Maybe YOU should actually read from independent sources. I looked this up on Wikipedia just so you couldn't say it was a biased source. Look under Vietnam, Vietnam War, and Ho Chi Minh.

I am not a rightwing anything, Don't get my information from Fox, NBC, or any other second hand sources. BUT, I am a conservative American and informed anti-socialist.

Judging from you posts I would think you get your news from Sarah Palin and your history from Michele Bachmann. Neither of which is a very good source.

I could sit here all day and counter every one of your "beliefs" with a fact but do not think it wil be worth the time to bring you into the real world so I'm ending this and wishing you a good day.

Yea, you did a real good job countering my "beliefs" on the Boeing subject didn't you? I noticed you didn't come back with a rebuttal on that one either. I know I took you to school on that.

It just saddens me to know that I spent so much of my life under the same illusion. I was a staunch conservative who went to a christian college for my first three years. Take a real look around.

gillanator #4.18...

"But you on the other hand seem to be a little misinformed if not blindingly biased, judging from your statement":

This is slightly different:

"I'm no longer amazed that some people have to say something on a topic who have NO/LITTLE knowledge of what they are talking about".

It is not that I'm "not informed" or as illinformed as you.

Wolfman - That is your opinion. If you have a problem with it report it and forget it. I have been on the Vine long enough to know the CoH. And the was a conversation between Anthony and myself. You said that when I stated that you were cherry picking facts, I was making derogatory comments. and when that didn't stick you moved to my comment to Anthony. I would say that you are not debating me on the subject but harassing me at this point. So if you have nothing left to debate about Cuba, which you obviously don't then there is no longer any reason for us to continue dialog.

"It is not that I'm "not informed" or as illinformed as you". #4.20

as illinformed as you

Derogatory evaluation of Newsvine members is a bad idea.

"I would say that you are not debating me on the subject but harassing me at this point" #4.20

Conduct Policy

Please read this Conduct Policy carefully. It governs your conduct while using various services on this Web site, located at www.newsvine.com (the "Site") and operated by Newsvine, Inc. ("Newsvine"). By using our Site, you agree to be bound the terms of this Conduct Policy.

ANY VIOLATION OF THIS POLICY MAY RESULT IN THE SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF YOUR ACCESS TO THE SITE OR USE OF OUR SERVICE AND SUCH ACTION AS WE DEEM APPROPRIATE. INDIRECT OR ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS OF THIS POLICY, AND ACTUAL OR ATTEMPTED VIOLATIONS BY A THIRD PARTY ON YOUR BEHALF, SHALL BE CONSIDERED VIOLATIONS OF THE POLICY BY YOU.

Prohibited Conduct

• The following non-exhaustive list describes the kinds of illegal or harmful conduct that are prohibited on our Site. You agree not to:
• upload, post or otherwise transmit any User Content that:
• is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, known to be false and presented as truth, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
• act in any manner that negatively affects other users' ability to use the Site, including (but not limited to) inappropriate usage of the Site's abuse reporting features;

Do you want to debate the Cuban revolution?

It's up to you.

Castro was not a communist before the revolution.

President Obama is not a communist either, huh? However, President Obama appointed a Communist czar, Van Jones.

I think you should go waste someone elses time. Later...

I think you should go waste someone elses time. Later...

I will not be disrespectful, and I will not insult.

Are you referring to the one being taught by Larry Aarn at Hillsdale College? Constitution 101?

Great idea...especially for Newsviners...especially the BHO types.

Dave #6.1...Yes, that's it. It starts Monday February 20, 2012.