Jump to content

The scary thing


Guest I'll take Scotch
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest I'll take Scotch

The scary thing is that there are tens of millions of Americans who are just as stupid and just as blind as 2stupid4words. They can't tell the difference between thinking and repeating a slogan they heard on a talk show. They believe whatever they're told, as long as they already agree with it, and ignore every fact that doesn't fit into their ignorant view of the world. Fox, Limbaugh, Palin, et. al., tell them exactly what they want to hear and they parrot it right back. If you challenge it with some facts and some reason, their only response is "gobbledygook," which really means they didn't understand it and don't have the capacity to think it through. And you can bet that they'll all be voting in the next election.

We're in a lot of trouble, alright, and it's because of people like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The scary thing is that there are tens of millions of Americans who are just as stupid and just as blind as 2stupid4words. They can't tell the difference between thinking and repeating a slogan they heard on a talk show. They believe whatever they're told, as long as they already agree with it, and ignore every fact that doesn't fit into their ignorant view of the world. Fox, Limbaugh, Palin, et. al., tell them exactly what they want to hear and they parrot it right back. If you challenge it with some facts and some reason, their only response is "gobbledygook," which really means they didn't understand it and don't have the capacity to think it through. And you can bet that they'll all be voting in the next election.

We're in a lot of trouble, alright, and it's because of people like this.

Amazing, a Loony said something that was accurate: "And you can bet that they'll all be voting in the next election".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Studies and Observations
The scary thing is that there are tens of millions of Americans who are just as stupid and just as blind as 2stupid4words. They can't tell the difference between thinking and repeating a slogan they heard on a talk show. They believe whatever they're told, as long as they already agree with it, and ignore every fact that doesn't fit into their ignorant view of the world. Fox, Limbaugh, Palin, et. al., tell them exactly what they want to hear and they parrot it right back. If you challenge it with some facts and some reason, their only response is "gobbledygook," which really means they didn't understand it and don't have the capacity to think it through. And you can bet that they'll all be voting in the next election.

We're in a lot of trouble, alright, and it's because of people like this.

Which is Different exactly HOW from the Tens Millions of Liberals who parrot talking points from the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, or even worse, John Stewart of Bill Mahr? Sorry there Scotchy but Democrats are just as Sloganistic as Republicans. You're ALL Sheep..merrily Bleating along and voting according to whatever letter someone has after their name..instead of opening your eyes, and doing a little research, and maybe..just MAYBE following the Constitution for a change. The Really sad part is that so few of you have ever actually READ it..although not as sad as the hundreds of assorted congresscritters who obviously havent either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Which is Different exactly HOW from the Tens Millions of Liberals who parrot talking points from the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, or even worse, John Stewart of Bill Mahr? Sorry there Scotchy but Democrats are just as Sloganistic as Republicans. You're ALL Sheep..merrily Bleating along and voting according to whatever letter someone has after their name..instead of opening your eyes, and doing a little research, and maybe..just MAYBE following the Constitution for a change. The Really sad part is that so few of you have ever actually READ it..although not as sad as the hundreds of assorted congresscritters who obviously havent either.

Liberals don't generally act like that. Our problem isn't that we do exactly as we're told; in fact, our problem is exactly the opposite. We're not as unified as the Republicans because we THINK for ourselves. As a result, we don't all think exactly the same and it's harder for us to agree on anything. That's why Democrats had a hard time getting a health care bill passed despite large majorities in both Houses of Congress.

As for how the administration supposedly isn't following the Constitution, there's another meaningless right-wing slogan. They are following the Constitution. Right wingers just don't like the fact that they lost the election and will stop at nothing to whine about it. But hey, prove me wrong: What do you claim the government is doing that doesn't follow the Constitution? You haven't said anything yet. Now it's time. Put some meat on your claim, if there is any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Liberals don't generally act like that. Our problem isn't that we do exactly as we're told; in fact, our problem is exactly the opposite. We're not as unified as the Republicans because we THINK for ourselves. As a result, we don't all think exactly the same and it's harder for us to agree on anything. That's why Democrats had a hard time getting a health care bill passed despite large majorities in both Houses of Congress.

As for how the administration supposedly isn't following the Constitution, there's another meaningless right-wing slogan. They are following the Constitution. Right wingers just don't like the fact that they lost the election and will stop at nothing to whine about it. But hey, prove me wrong: What do you claim the government is doing that doesn't follow the Constitution? You haven't said anything yet. Now it's time. Put some meat on your claim, if there is any.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority and right to take over the entire healthcare system of the country and force everyone to puchase insurance against their wishes? Lay off the Kool-Aid, you're dilusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 4 the Record
Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted the authority and right to take over the entire healthcare system of the country and force everyone to puchase insurance against their wishes? Lay off the Kool-Aid, you're dilusional.

Do the words, "...promote the general welfare..." sound even remotely familiar to you, oh Constitutional scholar?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Do the words, "...promote the general welfare..." sound even remotely familiar to you, oh Constitutional scholar?

"promote the general welfare" is such a broad term that it can mean almost anything to anyone, and I think it was intentionally written that way. However, forcing a massive, mandatory, federalized health care system with financial penalties to enforce compliance down everyone's throats would most certainly

have been farthest from the minds of the patriots that penned the Constitution since they believed in small government, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the words, "...promote the general welfare..." sound even remotely familiar to you, oh Constitutional scholar?

That is PROMOTE, and not PROVIDE (as in "the Common Defence"), right.

Defend the nation as an afterthought, but entitlements are a Natural right????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
"promote the general welfare" is such a broad term that it can mean almost anything to anyone, and I think it was intentionally written that way. However, forcing a massive, mandatory, federalized health care system with financial penalties to enforce compliance down everyone's throats would most certainly

have been farthest from the minds of the patriots that penned the Constitution since they believed in small government, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Nice try though.

The Framers lived in a time without general anesthesia, when surgeries were done under the "anesthesia" of some strong whiskey. There were no x-rays, no antibiotics, no brain or heart surgeries and very few medicines of any kind. The good news was that health care didn't cost a lot. The bad news is that there wasn't much health care, so when people became seriously ill they just died.

Fast forward 221 years. People live twice as long today as they did in the late 1700s, when the average life expectancy was 35 years. http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/seniors/healthyaging.html That's because we have a health care system. You didn't build that. That is a product of centuries of work by people from all over the world.

So take your choice. If you don't want a health care system, then go it alone. Do without health coverage. Die if you get sick. Except you and I both know that if you get sick, you're going to come whining to a hospital begging for treatment. And you're going to get it because we live in a country that says you shouldn't generally have to pay for a mistake with your life.

You right wingers don't seem to understand that the world has been transformed completely since 1789. Do you want the benefits of modern medicine? Those don't inure just to you personally. They are for everyone and they have to work that way, or they wouldn't exist at all.

We've made a decision as a country that living an extra 35 years, on average, more than makes up for having to pay some money into the system. Whine about the supposed loss of freedom all you want. You ain't gonna have any freedom in a 2 by 6 box, 6 feet under ground.

Use your brain for once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That is PROMOTE, and not PROVIDE (as in "the Common Defence"), right.

Defend the nation as an afterthought, but entitlements are a Natural right????

A very weak point. The government is entitled to tax and spend in order to promote the general welfare. Your extremist ideology is showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
"promote the general welfare" is such a broad term that it can mean almost anything to anyone, and I think it was intentionally written that way. However, forcing a massive, mandatory, federalized health care system with financial penalties to enforce compliance down everyone's throats would most certainly

have been farthest from the minds of the patriots that penned the Constitution since they believed in small government, self-reliance and personal responsibility. Nice try though.

Dumbo,

You just admitted it. The Framers deliberately put very broad language into the Constitution, authorizing the federal government to do what was in the country's best interests. The point of our system of government is that in order to become law, a proposed law cannot merely appeal to "anyone." It has to appeal to a majority of the members of Congress, or to a supermajority in Congress if the President vetoes it. The protections are built into the system. And if the people don't like the laws, they can vote out the people who made them and elect new people who will change them. That's how a democratically elected government works.

You right wing morons used to be all in favor of that when you had the majority. Now that you don't have it, suddenly majority rule isn't a good idea any more. This is called hypocrisy.

Get lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Which is Different exactly HOW from the Tens Millions of Liberals who parrot talking points from the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, or even worse, John Stewart of Bill Mahr? Sorry there Scotchy but Democrats are just as Sloganistic as Republicans. You're ALL Sheep..merrily Bleating along and voting according to whatever letter someone has after their name..instead of opening your eyes, and doing a little research, and maybe..just MAYBE following the Constitution for a change. The Really sad part is that so few of you have ever actually READ it..although not as sad as the hundreds of assorted congresscritters who obviously havent either.

If you are not just parroting a right wing talking point, then why can't you or anyone else tell us what the government is doing that is unconstitutional? You can't tell us because you don't know. You're just listening to right wing talk show hosts and repeating what they say. You just proved it.

Most of us on the left in the US today think for ourselves. Independence of mind is an important part of what the political left in the United States is all about. You'd have to go very far left to get to the small number of people who just parrot the party line. On the left in the US today, there are only a few people like that. On the right, there are tens of millions. That is why you see large numbers of right wing knuckleheads still believing there were WMDs in Iraq (and swallowing it whole when Bush said it), refusing to accept evolution as a proved fact and insisting that Barack Obama wasn't properly elected President. Where are the parallels on the left? Name one. You can't. So you can say we're just as sheep-like as you are all you want but it's not true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very weak point. The government is entitled to tax and spend in order to promote the general welfare. Your extremist ideology is showing.

It isn't a weak point at all. The government is to help YOU promote your own general welfare, aka "pursuit of happiness." Keeping you safe, is their RESPONSIBILITY.

If you count on the government to provide for you, all that you need, that is extremely unfortunate. I'll just do for myself, thanks. Government should be there for those who NEED it, not for mere convenience.

Talk about extreme ideologies, SHEEPLE!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
If you are not just parroting a right wing talking point, then why can't you or anyone else tell us what the government is doing that is unconstitutional? You can't tell us because you don't know. You're just listening to right wing talk show hosts and repeating what they say. You just proved it.

Most of us on the left in the US today think for ourselves. Independence of mind is an important part of what the political left in the United States is all about. You'd have to go very far left to get to the small number of people who just parrot the party line. On the left in the US today, there are only a few people like that. On the right, there are tens of millions. That is why you see large numbers of right wing knuckleheads still believing there were WMDs in Iraq (and swallowing it whole when Bush said it), refusing to accept evolution as a proved fact and insisting that Barack Obama wasn't properly elected President. Where are the parallels on the left? Name one. You can't. So you can say we're just as sheep-like as you are all you want but it's not true.

That's it?? Birthers, WMD's and evolution are your talking points? Let's get serious. Federalized mandatory health care, an Obama spending frenzy that has us on a fast track to bankruptcy and Obama's far left agenda are what we should all be worried about. BTW, the Patriots who penned the Constitution believed in self-reliance, less government and personal responsibility. To suggest that a federal takeover of the nations healthcare system with financial penalties to insure compliance would be in keeping with the Constitution is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Liberals don't generally act like that. Our problem isn't that we do exactly as we're told; in fact, our problem is exactly the opposite. We're not as unified as the Republicans because we THINK for ourselves. As a result, we don't all think exactly the same and it's harder for us to agree on anything. That's why Democrats had a hard time getting a health care bill passed despite large majorities in both Houses of Congress.

As for how the administration supposedly isn't following the Constitution, there's another meaningless right-wing slogan. They are following the Constitution. Right wingers just don't like the fact that they lost the election and will stop at nothing to whine about it. But hey, prove me wrong: What do you claim the government is doing that doesn't follow the Constitution? You haven't said anything yet. Now it's time. Put some meat on your claim, if there is any.

Stuff and nonsense..take a look at the media when EVERY liberal is saying the exact same things...JUST as Republicans do on their issues.

Actually YOU are a perfect example of what i mean..here you are Merrily Bleating away, when you obviously didnt bother to actually READ my post..YOU saw it as an attack on Democrats, and a declaration that the Current Administration is not following the constitution (Which they are not), when I was commenting on BOTH parties, hence the "you are ALL Sheep" part of my Post.

Again..try READING the US Constitution, and UNDERSTAND what it is. The Docmunet exists for exactly TWO functions. #1 Set out the process and rules under which the Federal government will be organized, and operate. #2 (more importantly) LIMIT the power of that Federal government and confer as MUCH power to the individual states as possible. The Federal Government has been over-reaching it's bounds since the 40's and routinely violating the 10th ammendment to the Constitution. The previous Administration was no different, TARP, NCLB, and other programs were again Violations of the 10th Ammendment, as is the Current Administration's "Stimulus Bill" and the new "Health Care Reform" now, if they had set LIMITS on the Insurance Companies and regulations to govern how they operate, that would be fine, however, PARTICIPATING by swelling the ranks of the already unconstitutional Medicaid/medicare roles they do in fact violate the intentions of the Founders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
The Framers lived in a time without general anesthesia, when surgeries were done under the "anesthesia" of some strong whiskey. There were no x-rays, no antibiotics, no brain or heart surgeries and very few medicines of any kind. The good news was that health care didn't cost a lot. The bad news is that there wasn't much health care, so when people became seriously ill they just died.

Fast forward 221 years. People live twice as long today as they did in the late 1700s, when the average life expectancy was 35 years. http://www.fitnessandfreebies.com/seniors/healthyaging.html That's because we have a health care system. You didn't build that. That is a product of centuries of work by people from all over the world.

So take your choice. If you don't want a health care system, then go it alone. Do without health coverage. Die if you get sick. Except you and I both know that if you get sick, you're going to come whining to a hospital begging for treatment. And you're going to get it because we live in a country that says you shouldn't generally have to pay for a mistake with your life.

You right wingers don't seem to understand that the world has been transformed completely since 1789. Do you want the benefits of modern medicine? Those don't inure just to you personally. They are for everyone and they have to work that way, or they wouldn't exist at all.

We've made a decision as a country that living an extra 35 years, on average, more than makes up for having to pay some money into the system. Whine about the supposed loss of freedom all you want. You ain't gonna have any freedom in a 2 by 6 box, 6 feet under ground.

Use your brain for once.

So let me understand you. Because the framers didn't have anesthesia and people live longer today, I should have my pockets picked for Joe Sixpack's liver transplant while Comrade Obama trashes the Constitution. Sorry Charlie, we're tossing you back in Nov. with all the other socialist Loonys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Stuff and nonsense..take a look at the media when EVERY liberal is saying the exact same things...JUST as Republicans do on their issues.

And yet you can't cite even one example of this.

Actually YOU are a perfect example of what i mean..here you are Merrily Bleating away, when you obviously didnt bother to actually READ my post..YOU saw it as an attack on Democrats, and a declaration that the Current Administration is not following the constitution (Which they are not), when I was commenting on BOTH parties, hence the "you are ALL Sheep" part of my Post.

Your argument serves right wing ideology and I responded to it as such. You CLAIM the administration isn't following the Constitution. Yet the only challenge that I know of is to the recent health care legislation. Even if the far-right-wing Supreme Court we have now strikes it down because of the individual mandate, the rest of it is still good law. All you're telling us is how blindly ideological you are.

Again..try READING the US Constitution, and UNDERSTAND what it is. The Docmunet exists for exactly TWO functions. #1 Set out the process and rules under which the Federal government will be organized, and operate. #2 (more importantly) LIMIT the power of that Federal government and confer as MUCH power to the individual states as possible. The Federal Government has been over-reaching it's bounds since the 40's and routinely violating the 10th ammendment to the Constitution. The previous Administration was no different, TARP, NCLB, and other programs were again Violations of the 10th Ammendment, as is the Current Administration's "Stimulus Bill" and the new "Health Care Reform" now, if they had set LIMITS on the Insurance Companies and regulations to govern how they operate, that would be fine, however, PARTICIPATING by swelling the ranks of the already unconstitutional Medicaid/medicare roles they do in fact violate the intentions of the Founders.

I've read it many times and it authorizes far more than that. It authorizes the federal government to act on behalf of the people's welfare, which is very broad authority. You may not like it but that's what it says and how the Supreme Court has properly interpreted it for many years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
So let me understand you. Because the framers didn't have anesthesia and people live longer today, I should have my pockets picked for Joe Sixpack's liver transplant while Comrade Obama trashes the Constitution.

Dear Stupid,

As always, you completely missed the point, because you're not interested in the point or the facts or anything except your narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant view of the world.

The point is: Because we live in a completely different world than existed in 1787, when the Constitution was adopted, government has to play a different role. We tried keeping government small and going without regulation. This landed us in the Great Depression and the near-collapse of 2008. It makes no sense - not that that bothers you - to compare medicine today to "medicine" in 1787. We have made a decision as a people that we are not going to let people die in the richest country on earth because they don't have medical care. You may not agree with that decision but that is the decision we have made as a people. If we're going to do it that way, then there has to be a health care system. Some people will take advantage of it, just like some people take advantage of the capitalist system that you love so dearly. But overall, most people will make some kind of a contribution to society, the people who work hard will still do better than those who don't and we'll be better off with a system that works for everyone than without it.

In fact, it will be cheaper to take care of Joe Sixpack because if we make sure everyone has health care, he will have preventive care that will allow doctors to keep his disease from progressing to the point where he needs a liver transplant. You insist on making people go without care until their illness is so bad that the treatment is many times more expensive. So you're not saving us any money. You're costing us money with your ideological stubbornness.

If you want to whine and complain about taking advantage of the system and the American people, why aren't you writing to complain about $20 million golden parachutes for corporate executives that ruined their own companies? Why aren't you complaining about all the favorable laws that have been passed allowing the super-rich to game the system and steal money from the rest of us? That's socialism for the rich. Apparently you have no problem with that at all. One of those people costs society far more than thousands of Joe Sixpacks, as you put it. Why don' t you complain about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Dear Stupid,

As always, you completely missed the point, because you're not interested in the point or the facts or anything except your narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant view of the world.

The point is: Because we live in a completely different world than existed in 1787, when the Constitution was adopted, government has to play a different role. We tried keeping government small and going without regulation. This landed us in the Great Depression and the near-collapse of 2008. It makes no sense - not that that bothers you - to compare medicine today to "medicine" in 1787. We have made a decision as a people that we are not going to let people die in the richest country on earth because they don't have medical care. You may not agree with that decision but that is the decision we have made as a people. If we're going to do it that way, then there has to be a health care system. Some people will take advantage of it, just like some people take advantage of the capitalist system that you love so dearly. But overall, most people will make some kind of a contribution to society, the people who work hard will still do better than those who don't and we'll be better off with a system that works for everyone than without it.

In fact, it will be cheaper to take care of Joe Sixpack because if we make sure everyone has health care, he will have preventive care that will allow doctors to keep his disease from progressing to the point where he needs a liver transplant. You insist on making people go without care until their illness is so bad that the treatment is many times more expensive. So you're not saving us any money. You're costing us money with your ideological stubbornness.

If you want to whine and complain about taking advantage of the system and the American people, why aren't you writing to complain about $20 million golden parachutes for corporate executives that ruined their own companies? Why aren't you complaining about all the favorable laws that have been passed allowing the super-rich to game the system and steal money from the rest of us? That's socialism for the rich. Apparently you have no problem with that at all. One of those people costs society far more than thousands of Joe Sixpacks, as you put it. Why don' t you complain about that?

You're spinning. If I were to complain about everything that's wrong with our society, I'd be typing for days. The point of the thread is the Federal takeover of the national health care system and the yellow brick road we're on to the land of OZ and the trashing of our Constitution.

I'll say this one final time, people that are physically unable to work and provide for themselves should be given as much help as needed. All others need to be self reliant and take personal responsibility (what interesting concepts) for their own lives.

If Joe Sixpack wants to live in his momma's basement and watch soaps all day, that's fine with me, but we shouldn't be paying for his liver transplant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
If Joe Sixpack wants to live in his momma's basement and watch soaps all day, that's fine with me, but we shouldn't be paying for his liver transplant.

You already do. Lifesaving treatments cannot be denied for financial reasons. Therefore who pays the bill/ No one-so the cost, plus the collection costs, already goes to the rest of us in increased insurance rates and increased costs at the hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You're spinning. If I were to complain about everything that's wrong with our society, I'd be typing for days. The point of the thread is the Federal takeover of the national health care system and the yellow brick road we're on to the land of OZ and the trashing of our Constitution.

I'll say this one final time, people that are physically unable to work and provide for themselves should be given as much help as needed. All others need to be self reliant and take personal responsibility (what interesting concepts) for their own lives.

If Joe Sixpack wants to live in his momma's basement and watch soaps all day, that's fine with me, but we shouldn't be paying for his liver transplant.

Yeah, right. "One last time."

OK, that's your opinion, and if we lived in a perfect world, most of us probably would agree with you. But we don't live in a perfect world, so we don't agree with you practically. If society agreed with you, we would need a mechanism for deciding who gets assistance with health care and who doesn't. Should we exclude smokers? How about people who smoked for ten years and then quit but still developed lung cancer? What about people who are overweight? People who eat a lot of red meat? A person who drinks two beers a day, as opposed to a sixpack? Women who have a child knowing their health is at risk? Do you really want to open this can of worms? Will there be some kind of notification mechanism for people who are in danger of losing their right to assistance, or will they simply be denied care after they need something like a liver transplant? Go ahead, stupid, tell us who you're going to exclude besides your mythical Joe Sixpack. You won't and you can't because you don't have any real ideas; all you have are fantasies and illusions.

You whine about the Constitution, completely ignoring the fact that the recent health care bill is authorized by the general welfare clause in the preamble. Whether the individual mandate will survive is an open question but there's no question that Congress can adopt a national health care system, including a public option or a single payer system. We already have one for the elderly, called Medicare.

Meanwhile, your "solution" would require an extensive set of federal regulations and a legal mechanism to address challenges to any denial of care. So the minute you admit that government should assist those who need it, you create an entitlement; and when you do that, you have to have legal basis for any denial. Your "idea" may seem like a good idea to you, but that's only because you don't really think about it. It would cost more than treating the few people dreamed up in your fantasy-world.

You would like the world to be as simple as your mind obviously is, but the world is not that simple. Solutions to real problems in the real world are hard; that's not a reason to blame government or oppose real solutions. You reflexively want to blame people who have less than you have for your problems, when in reality the people who are stealing you blind are the ones with more money, power and influence than you have. You're too stupid to notice and too stubborn even to think about it, despite how often it has been pointed out to you. The rich are stealing us all blind but by golly, if some poor schlub doesn't get a nickel from you, then you're happy. You have no idea how many people you're even talking about because you can't define your categories of exclusion. Prove me wrong by doing it. The reason laws and regulations on these subjects are so voluminous is that there's nothing simple about deciding what the boundary lines should be. Lawmakers don't have the luxury of whining on a chat board; they have to make real rules that actually work.

On balance, your "solution" creates more problems than it solves.

And just so you'll have a second opinion: you're an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
It isn't a weak point at all. The government is to help YOU promote your own general welfare, aka "pursuit of happiness." Keeping you safe, is their RESPONSIBILITY.

If you count on the government to provide for you, all that you need, that is extremely unfortunate. I'll just do for myself, thanks. Government should be there for those who NEED it, not for mere convenience.

Talk about extreme ideologies, SHEEPLE!!!!

Wrong. The general welfare means the welfare of all the people taken as a group, as in the welfare of the country and its people.

People have plenty of incentives to work hard, and most Americans are working hard. What we need, and hopefully now have, is a system that makes sure people have affordable medical care; that makes medical care a right, not merely a privilege.

Your idea of going it alone is a fantasy. No one goes it alone, except those few people who cut themselves off from society, go into the woods and become hermits. If you were going it alone, you wouldn't be on a computer. How do you think the Internet exists at all: did you create it?

How do you think you get health care? Are you going to take out your own appendix if it becomes inflamed? No, you're going to rely on someone else to do it. And you're going to hope that your insurance policy covers it, or you earned enough money to pay for it if you don't have insurance. So what are you going to do if you become so ill that you need medical care that costs $100,000 per year? Do you think spreading the risk is a good idea? If so, why not spread the risk among 350 million Americans, instead of just those who signed on with a particular insurance company? Either way, you're hardly going it alone.

So the question is how much is the individual and how much is society. If you want all the things we have today, like computers and medical care and cars and fresh lettuce in February, you're going to have to accept the fact that we all depend on each other. You can't have it both ways: the philosophy of the rugged individualist doesn't mean the same thing it meant 200 years ago, and barring a catastrphe it never will again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Stuff and nonsense..take a look at the media when EVERY liberal is saying the exact same things...JUST as Republicans do on their issues.

I watch very carefully what both sides are saying. What you're saying about them being exactly the same is just not true, and there's a reason why it's not true.

Liberals are trying to govern. They need the people to believe in the system, so they don't run around making over-the-top attacks against it.

"Conservatives" today aren't really conservative. They're radical. They attack the system because they have no problem with the corporations running everything. They don't want the government involved - not because they're for the average person, but just the opposite because they want to rich to be unimpeded in the use and exercise of their power. One of their lines is to make government small enough to drown it in the bathtub. They don't want the system to work. That's why their attacks are so outrageous. The mud-fight favors the right and damages the left. Liberals are no saints, but they don't do that; it would be political suicide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Wrong. The general welfare means the welfare of all the people taken as a group, as in the welfare of the country and its people.

People have plenty of incentives to work hard, and most Americans are working hard. What we need, and hopefully now have, is a system that makes sure people have affordable medical care; that makes medical care a right, not merely a privilege.

Your idea of going it alone is a fantasy. No one goes it alone, except those few people who cut themselves off from society, go into the woods and become hermits. If you were going it alone, you wouldn't be on a computer. How do you think the Internet exists at all: did you create it?

How do you think you get health care? Are you going to take out your own appendix if it becomes inflamed? No, you're going to rely on someone else to do it. And you're going to hope that your insurance policy covers it, or you earned enough money to pay for it if you don't have insurance. So what are you going to do if you become so ill that you need medical care that costs $100,000 per year? Do you think spreading the risk is a good idea? If so, why not spread the risk among 350 million Americans, instead of just those who signed on with a particular insurance company? Either way, you're hardly going it alone.

So the question is how much is the individual and how much is society. If you want all the things we have today, like computers and medical care and cars and fresh lettuce in February, you're going to have to accept the fact that we all depend on each other. You can't have it both ways: the philosophy of the rugged individualist doesn't mean the same thing it meant 200 years ago, and barring a catastrphe it never will again.

Good grief! We're talking about federalizing the nation's healthcare system and this leftist moron is talking about lettuce in feb. I get my healthcare from private companies, I control the level of insurance I want and I'm responsible for premiums and deductables, just the way I like it. I don't need zerO sticking his hands into my pocket to pay for Joe Sixpack. You socialists just can't imagine taking responsibility for your own actions and needs, you want to live in a nanny state and live like zombies doing everything Comrade zerO tells you to do. The Founding Fathers would puke listening to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
It isn't a weak point at all. The government is to help YOU promote your own general welfare, aka "pursuit of happiness." Keeping you safe, is their RESPONSIBILITY.

If you count on the government to provide for you, all that you need, that is extremely unfortunate. I'll just do for myself, thanks. Government should be there for those who NEED it, not for mere convenience.

Talk about extreme ideologies, SHEEPLE!!!!

I agree it isn’t a weak point you have it exactly correct. The framers of the constitution were very exact and precise with their wording and meaning. It states what government is responsible for and limits it. The framers wanted to establish justice-the courts, insure domestic tranquility-how states interact, provide for the common defense-the military and promote the general welfare-pursuit of happiness like the Declaration says. Promote meaning to encourage, not creating a welfare state.

Here’s what James Madison the “Father of the Constitution” and Thomas Jeffersons said about it:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions." - James Madison, 1792

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." - James Madison, Federalist 45

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." - Thomas Jefferson, 1798

The Framers were brilliant men; it’s very clear what they had in mind. You can’t interpret the Constitution to fit your ideology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...