Yup, it’s a good thing you wrote that constitution in stone, otherwise people might vote to change it. And what did you want me to tell the Germans, something about Goodwin or something about slavery?
Except it’s not the same thing. The government isn’t saying you have to buy broccoli. They’re saying you have to buy from the food from the food pyramid. One is a regulated choice. The other is a ridiculous argument.
Your wrong because of the way you’re applying broccoli to the metaphor.
The proposed law would say something a long the lines of, “you are required to buy 200 calories per month.”
The two key points being that you can still freely choose your calories, and you will end up buying closer to 60,000 calories per month (insert joke about American calorie consumption) Point is, your employer already provides most people with 30,000 calories. Those that can’t afford the minimum qualify for food stamps. So for 95% of Americans the point is moot.
This leaves a very small group of people that for some reason believe they won’t need to eat next month, even though they’ve been eating every month since they were born.
You’re not relating to the argument being made here. I understand that the government is not saying you have to buy broccoli. But let’s suppose they did. Do you say maintain that this would constitute regulation of interstate commerce?
You made the initial statement that since you can’t refrain from participation in the HC system, that does not count as inactivity. Why does that same logic not apply to the broccoli example (silly or not)?
You either believe in your logic or you don’t. You can’t wash away other examples where your legal logic applies just because they are not similar from a policy perspective.
Certainly you can appreciate how difficult it is to amend the constitution, no? And, maybe, why it is so difficult?
Because broccoli! isn’t a valid argument because it’s not based in reality. Could it be true? Sure, if all we had to eat in this world were broccoli, carrots and beef, then I could foresee it being true. But since we live in a world with lots of options and a government that doesn’t really care about whether you’re eating your fucking broccoli - it doesn’t apply because it is unreasonable. If you were to speak about classes of foods in generalities, like taxes or restrictions on candies, incentives to buy fruits and veggies, tax credits to produce dairy and corn (oh shit wait a minute) then I would agree with you.
edit to add - I think a good term here is discriminatory - choose a specific is discriminatory, where whereas dealing with categories is regulation.
Ahhh…but what if they start to care about whether you are eating your broccoli for whatever reason?
Wouldn’t the reason be a little bit important?
Such as, if we had an economy that was heavily dependent on the consumption of broccoli–as was shown in the wheat case.
Or what if broccoli was found to be vitally important to your health, such that you needed it to survive.
Lastly, shouldn’t the quantity of broccoli being forced on us be important? Can you see how if everyone already buys 10 per month, the regulation can either stimulate people buy 1 per month or 100 per month. Can yo use the difference? Do you understand how if everyone already (save 5% of the population) already buys 10 per month, having a government requirement to buy 1 is a rather moot point.
And even more lastly, “the government” isn’t a thing that can do stuff. It’s a collection of rich old white dudes that may or may not decide to enact legislation, who are then beholden to their voters and corporate owners. Even if it was technically permissible for the government to force us to buy broccoli, there are still a series of hurdles they need to over come before it reaches your door step. And another set of hurdles to then ensure compliance, since there is nothing requiring the government to then fund a team of federal mothers who go around at dinner time to inspect your plate.
What’s actually funny about this example is that government does this all the time. They force us to buy corn/soy buy providing subsidies paid for from tax revenue. Your tax dollars are paying for corn whether you want it or not.
And what if they start to care about the scent of scrot cheese? What then? omg!?
Reasons don’t matter here. The end result is the same.
Why should quantity be important? We are still being forced to buy a product against our will.
And somehow they got the healthcare legislation through congress even though they are beholden to the very people who thought it was a bad idea. Even more people thought the individual mandate was a bad idea but it was still passed.
And, although I don’t agree with it, the government has wide latitude over taxation and how that money is spent. Thegovernment, thankfully, cannot force me to go buy corn/soy or broccoli at the market…yet.
Well, then, they may force you to buy some. And YOU, as well as the others that argue that government has that right, will finally start to whine about the mess you helped create.
That will never happen! Never! Liberals will never, ever, ever admit they were wrong about anything, or that any bad things have happened because of what they’ve done.
What would likely happen in this case is that they’ll blame some specific politician or bureaucrat for taking their good ideas too far, or they’ll claim it was forced upon them somehow by the policies or lawmaking decisions created somewhere down the line by Republicans. 
ETA: Either that, or they’ll simply state that everybody ought to be eating broccoli anyway, and what’s wrong with the government trying to make sure that everyone is healthy?
Ok, I apologize for the Brussels sprouts. 
I disagree about the reasons but don’t care enough to push the point. Quantity is crucial, because as I said, 95% of Americans are already buying x amount of broccoli, the government is saying you are required to buy y. If x > y the law is entirely meaningless to 95% of Americans. If y > x we have an issue, which is why i thought reason was important. Maybe I do care. Here is where the CC is significant, by establishing that base minimum that everyone is buying, there are changes to the price structure. Well, it would if we weren’t talking about broccoli. If instead we were talking about insurance, increasing the number of people in the risk pool helps reduce costs.
Long story short, if you are already buying broccoli, what does it matter if there is a law saying you have to buy it? If 95% of Americans are currently buying far more broccoli than the law requires, they are hardly being forced to do anything.
This leaves the remaining 5%, why is it they aren’t buying broccoli? Is it because they are stupid? Reckless? Uninformed? Sounds like three cases where the government steps in and forces people to buy something (ie insurance).
But you’re wrong, they can. Either you buy corn/soy directly, or they take it out of your salary every month and give it directly to the farmers.
Health care is the same thing. Either they force you to buy it (assuming you don’t already have it), or they tax you and provide it for you.
Take a look through the US Federal Budget, there is a long list of things the government is forcing you to buy. Do you think I wanted to be forced to buy the FBI a bunch of black sedans?
Smilies don’t get you off the hook. Back off on the name-calling.
[ /Modding ]
Well, at least we have one point on which liberals and conservatives are like-minded to the point of being indistinguishable. . . .
Why, hello, tom. What are you doing here in the Pi…
Oops. :smack: Sorry, I forgot where I was.
Yeah, but since it’s liberals who think they know better and who are always trying to upset the apple cart, it falls to them to be the ones who do the most damage. Drug use, street crime, drive-by shootings, road rage, revolving-door prison systems, high rates of STD’s and illegitimate children, single-family homes, a lousy educational system…all the legacy of leftist attempts to make things “better”.
Blahblahblahblah…the Litany lives!
Road rage?