Gotta hand it to Al Franken

[Yukon Cornelius]

That is the whole point. The framers of the consistution were specifically vague where they wanted to be. You interpret it one way, some can interpret it another way. It isnt a matter of what I want, but a matter of how crowing about assigned powers in the constitution is just stupid.

 

There also were amendments that altered and added to the assigned powers after the fact as the country and populace changed over time. What if the country added an amendment that specifically granted health care coverage for all citizens? Would you secede?

 

The US govt has been, and will be, wrong on issues and have added amendements to ALTER certain rights as society has changed. Abolishing slavery is one, prohibiting AND THEN REPEALING production and consumption of alcohol is another. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was specifically contradictory as indians and other races were not included under "all men are created equal". Hell, women were not allowed to vote either!

 

I find it odd that instead of asking themselves what might be the morally correct thing to do, people that only use the Consitution as their "rulebook" only care about what the bare minimum of what they are legally obligated to do, and F@#$ the rest.

 

Kinda sad really . . .

WWJD

[Perchoutofwater]

That is the whole point. The framers of the consistution were specifically vague where they wanted to be. You interpret it one way, some can interpret it another way. It isnt a matter of what I want, but a matter of how crowing about assigned powers in the constitution is just stupid.

 

There also were amendments that altered and added to the assigned powers after the fact as the country and populace changed over time. What if the country added an amendment that specifically granted health care coverage for all citizens? Would you secede?

 

The US govt has been, and will be, wrong on issues and have added amendements to ALTER certain rights as society has changed. Abolishing slavery is one, prohibiting AND THEN REPEALING production and consumption of alcohol is another. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was specifically contradictory as indians and other races were not included under "all men are created equal". Hell, women were not allowed to vote either!

 

I find it odd that instead of asking themselves what might be the morally correct thing to do, people that only use the Consitution as their "rulebook" only care about what the bare minimum of what they are legally obligated to do, and F@#$ the rest.

 

Kinda sad really . . .

 

The Constitution wasn't vague. It specifically enumerated the powers of government and stated anything not specifically enumerated falls back to the states. To interpret it, you need to look at the writings of the founding fathers, there is no problem in interpretation until someone tries to bastardize it.

 

If the country added an amendment that specifically granted health care coverage for all citizens, I'd try to do everything in my power to make sure the states did not ratify it, but once ratified I would accept it. I don't have any issues with any of the amendments to the constitution as I view them a good law, and the reason that they are good law is that in required a super majority to pass them and then the states had to ratify them. If 2/3 of both houses of congress and two thirds of the states supported the currently proposed health care reform, we wouldn't be having this debate.

 

With regard to the last sentence of your rant, do you want the government legislating morality, and if so whose version? How many of the people not currently covered are not covered by choice? Just because we don't support the federal government providing health care to the roughly 1.5% of US citizens that can not afford it or don't already qualify for federal medical care, doesn't mean we don't think it should be provided. I think it should be provided at a state and local level, as well as through charities. My father is chairman of one of the Shriner's Hospitals for Children. Not a single patient in those hospitals pay for their treatment. I believe in charity. So it isn't that we don't want people to have health care, it is we feel there are much better and more efficient ways to provide it.

[detlef]

The one that had almost complete bipartisan support when congress authorized it?

That's a great point.

 

When something major went down right after Bush took office, both sides gave the benefit of the doubt and said, "Do what you've gotta do." It wasn't until he crapped all over the constitution, made a mockery of the office, and was shown to be an abject liar that people started fighting him tooth and nail.

 

Not you guys. The second someone who's not a neo-con took office, the right seemed hell bent on undermining every move. Like others have said, it seems like you'd rather see the country fail than have a guy you don't like succeed.

[moneymakers]

Death panels are a reality now.

 

Do you dare to say yes on your DL to donate organs?

 

Me thinks not

[Perchoutofwater]

That's a great point.

 

When something major went down right after Bush took office, both sides gave the benefit of the doubt and said, "Do what you've gotta do." It wasn't until he crapped all over the constitution, made a mockery of the office, and was shown to be an abject liar that people started fighting him tooth and nail.

 

Not you guys. The second someone who's not a neo-con took office, the right seemed hell bent on undermining every move. Like others have said, it seems like you'd rather see the country fail than have a guy you don't like succeed.

 

I definitely do not want the country to fail, I just don't want it fundamentally changed. Look at the czars Obama has appointed, from racists, communists, wacked out animal rights nuts, to a science czar that supports forced abortion. Look at the amount of debt what Obama has proposed will amass. He has already spend more in 8 months than Bush did in 8 years. It isn't that we don't like the guy, it is he is pissing on the constitution, admittedly trying to fundamentally change the country, and surrounding himself with a bunch of far far left people.

[bpwallace49]

I definitely do not want the country to fail, I just don't want it fundamentally changed. . . , it is he is pissing on the constitution, admittedly trying to fundamentally change the country, .

 

How can you have the balls to say that after the ramifications of the Patriot Act that specifically, as you so eloquently put it . . "pissed on the constitution"?

 

If you are going to stand on your pulpit touting the constitution and your secret conversations with the founding fathers via Ouiji board, at LEAST extend it to all changes . . .

[westvirginia]

That is the whole point. The framers of the consistution were specifically vague where they wanted to be. You interpret it one way, some can interpret it another way. It isnt a matter of what I want, but a matter of how crowing about assigned powers in the constitution is just stupid.

 

There also were amendments that altered and added to the assigned powers after the fact as the country and populace changed over time. What if the country added an amendment that specifically granted health care coverage for all citizens? Would you secede?

 

The US govt has been, and will be, wrong on issues and have added amendements to ALTER certain rights as society has changed. Abolishing slavery is one, prohibiting AND THEN REPEALING production and consumption of alcohol is another. In fact, the Declaration of Independence was specifically contradictory as indians and other races were not included under "all men are created equal". Hell, women were not allowed to vote either!

 

I find it odd that instead of asking themselves what might be the morally correct thing to do, people that only use the Consitution as their "rulebook" only care about what the bare minimum of what they are legally obligated to do, and F@#$ the rest.

 

Kinda sad really . . .

 

First of all, you might want to ask some folks how much they give to charities, churches, etc. before you make an ASSumption out of yourself with the "legally obligated" crap.

 

Second, if there were an amendment passed, I wouldn't agree with it, and it would be a sorry state of affairs. Again, you don't have any right to anything that must be taken from anyone else. I'm not saying the constitution is the be all and end all, and I agree that the way we treated indians and blacks was horrible. But there you go assuming again.

 

So you think it's morally correct that because people make bad decisions in their lives then everyone else should have to bear the cost of those bad decisions? You think that's morally correct to take from someone who makes the right decisions to bail out those who don't?

 

Kinda sad, really...

[Perchoutofwater]

How can you have the balls to say that after the ramifications of the Patriot Act that specifically, as you so eloquently put it . . "pissed on the constitution"?

 

If you are going to stand on your pulpit touting the constitution and your secret conversations with the founding fathers via Ouiji board, at LEAST extend it to all changes . . .

 

Nice try at deflection, but I opposed most of the controversial portions of the Patriot Act affecting US Citizens. As to knowing what the founding fathers were thinking, there is ample writings from them to determine what their intentions were such as:

 

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

-James Madison ( You know the guy that wrote The Constitution)

 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794) If the guy that wrote the Constitution doesn't know where it is, then I'm guessing it isn't there.

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-James Madison

 

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

-Thomas Jefferson

 

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

 

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

[bpwallace49]

but I opposed most of the controversial portions of the Patriot Act affecting US Citizens.

 

 

I honestly don't see what the big deal is, unless you are truelly afraid that they are going to start taking away your liberties piece by piece. That is the only reason I can see to oppose it, and I wonder how many of those that oppose it are all for gun control. I really think this is just more partisan BS. I could care less if someone wants to know what books I buy. I just make sure I buy all of my porn with cash.

 

Perch, this a quote by you regarding the Patriot Act. I search "perch" and "patriot act" and found this blurb that you posted.

 

While I may disagree with West Virginia on many issues, at least he is CONSISTENT and stands by his beliefs. For that I respect the hell out of him, even when i dont agree with him.

[bushwacked]

Perch just got worked.

[cre8tiff]

Perch, this a quote by you regarding the Patriot Act. I search "perch" and "patriot act" and found this blurb that you posted.

 

While I may disagree with West Virginia on many issues, at least he is CONSISTENT and stands by his beliefs. For that I respect the hell out of him, even when i dont agree with him.

 

Ouch. That's gonna leave (another) mark.

[Perchoutofwater]

Perch, this a quote by you regarding the Patriot Act. I search "perch" and "patriot act" and found this blurb that you posted.

 

While I may disagree with West Virginia on many issues, at least he is CONSISTENT and stands by his beliefs. For that I respect the hell out of him, even when i dont agree with him.

 

I wonder why you didn't link the quoted back to the original post I know this is one issue I actually changed my mind on (and there have been a few thanks to some thought provoking arguments usually by WV or Ursa before he became a sour old man). Since you love stalking me, why don't you look up some of the quotes of mine after than one, an link them so that we can see the time line. If you do this, you will find that I changed my stance on that issue long before Obama was in office. See, I actually keep an open mind and when someone comes around with a better argument in I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong and change my stance on an issue when I'm proven wrong. You should try it.

[AtomicCEO]

I know this is one issue I actually changed my mind on

 

And since defending the Patriot Act, you've become the most outspoken advocate of smaller government and constitutional rights on this board, coincidentally around the time Obama won the election.

 

This certainly sounds suspicious. Hmm. It's probably just me being paranoid.

[westvirginia]

I don't think any government does anything well, efficiently or expediently. That being said, some things it DOES have to handle. Looking at medicare, does anyone really thing the government option won't turn into a bloated mess that costs way more than anyone ever estimated? The way it's set up some businesses will gladly dump their HC plans and pay the fine. The fine in the bill (for the info I saw) was equal to 8% of payroll - compared to an average of 12% of payroll being the cost of employer provided HC. This will place those who continue private insurance at an average of 4% disadvantage in payroll costs. In addition to rationing, removal of choice as to types of plans, and other bugaboos.

 

Here is where my info is coming from. Relevant actual sections of HR 3200 and everything. From a professor at that bastion of libertarian ideology, Duke University, no less.

 

:crickets:

[Perchoutofwater]

And since defending the Patriot Act, you've become the most outspoken advocate of smaller government and constitutional rights on this board, coincidentally around the time Obama won the election.

 

This certainly sounds suspicious. Hmm. It's probably just me being paranoid.

 

Actually it was prior to the election, before Obama was even the nominee. It is interesting how you were once so bother with everything and now do nothing but defend and deflect. Of the two of us, which of us do you think changed for the better?

[WaterMan]

Let say for the sake of argument you're right, and the "tank" is ENTIRELY the fault of shrub.

 

WHAT IN THE SAM HILL DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THIS DISCUSSION, MORAN?

 

Dear God in heaven, if you could at least come up with INTELLIGENT non sequitors then maybe someone would occasionally listen to you. As it stands now you're a worse schtick artist than skins or h8tank ever thought about being.

 

The founding fathers didn't think a President was going to be the cause of mass layoffs adding more people to the number who don't have health care. They figured the leaders in power had the People's backs.

[WaterMan]

Actually it was prior to the election, before Obama was even the nominee. It is interesting how you were once so bother with everything and now do nothing but defend and deflect. Of the two of us, which of us do you think changed for the better?

 

It was kind of clear that McCain wasn't going to be POTUS, even before the Dems had a nominee.

[evil_gop_liars]

Death panels are a reality now.

 

Thank God.

 

When do we nominate people?

[Ursa Majoris]

I know this is one issue I actually changed my mind on (and there have been a few thanks to some thought provoking arguments usually by WV or Ursa before he became a sour old man).

Hey, I've just graced your great state with my presence for a few days so to you.

[Jimmy Neutron]

WWJD

 

Healed everybody at no cost and called it good?

[bpwallace49]

Healed everybody at no cost and called it good?

 

iSnt that like a "single payer system"?

 

socialist . . .

[westvirginia]

iSnt that like a "single payer system"?

 

socialist . . .

 

OK, that was actually funny...

[Rovers]

Didn't read the whole thread. No, I have no clue what is being proposed, because the issue has never been presented in a clear unbiased way. It seems like that when anyone says anything, they say nothing.

 

Here is what I think I know:

 

People who have benefits or can afford private insurance are scared crappies this will cost them more money.

 

The wealthy insuarnce companies are only worried about profits, and doctors rush from one patient to the next because these companies only pay half of what the doctors bill out.

 

People who have private benefits should be worried, very worried if they ever get a serious illness... the company will spend 10's of thousands to save a million trying to drop you if you become ill.

 

People who work and cannot afford health care are screwed.

 

It seems even illeagal immigrants get better free health care than the working poor of this country who get squat.

 

I think in any case, cutting the money we spend on wars by 20% would cover the people who need health care.

 

The sytem is broken, and I have no idea who to believe. It seems everyone has a poker in the fire, a vested interest, a selfish interest that they want to protect, while hanging some good people out to dry.

 

Seems to me that it won't change.... the health insurance companies even bought off Hillary, once their arch enemey. Money talks, and the little people can die... and who cares?

[I Like Soup]

Nice try at deflection, but I opposed most of the controversial portions of the Patriot Act affecting US Citizens. As to knowing what the founding fathers were thinking, there is ample writings from them to determine what their intentions were such as:

 

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

-James Madison ( You know the guy that wrote The Constitution)

 

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794) If the guy that wrote the Constitution doesn't know where it is, then I'm guessing it isn't there.

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”

-James Madison

 

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

-Thomas Jefferson

 

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”

-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

 

“When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.”

-Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821

 

As I"ve read the back and forth between bpwallace and Perch, I gotta say I'm thinking our founding fathers would vehemently been against the government providing healthcare for 300 million people, and while I'm at it, would probably be red in the face for the bloated entity the US government has become.

 

As far as healthcare, I'd like to see a systematic approach to fixing the system. Not an all encompassing attempt at ramrodding something through just to say you tried to do something. What is the harm in taking this issue piece by piece and really trying to do something concrete? Hell, what makes these guys in Congress experts on the subject anyway?...right, nothing.

[AtomicCEO]

Actually it was prior to the election, before Obama was even the nominee. It is interesting how you were once so bother with everything and now do nothing but defend and deflect. Of the two of us, which of us do you think changed for the better?

 

I'm still bothered with people who spend their time blowing hard and spewing misinformation about everything. I haven't changed a bit.

 

So... you're saying that before Obama was the nominee you were outrageously mad at the democratic congress for trampling the constitution in a way you supported a year earlier from republicans? That's when the change happened? Just find me the part where you criticized a Republican for it, and I'll be on my way. kthx.