Anti-American VS Anti-government

[code1211]

I think that depends on your definition of 'America'. I think that it means two different things depending on whether you are left or right. The left see the founding principle as something broken needing to be fixed, and the right see it as something to be returned to.

The right bemoan the ending of America as the ending of the American Dream - the ideals, it's founding principles. The left see it as an opporunity to hand responsibility for their decisions to someone else so when they fail, they won't be responsible.

Except that it never existed other than in mythology.

For centuries, this country - like all other countries - did NOT ascribe rights of life, liberty and property to all of its citizens. When it was first being written, it applied to white males who owned property. Slavery existed for the first century of this nation's existence, and a whole race of people was disenfranchised for another century in large swaths of the country. Women did not have full legal rights until 1920.

The ideals of America are the best in the world, IMHO. However, we should not idealize a past that has never existed. That is what conservatives are guilty of.

Perspective.

Throughout much of history, society depended on the subjegation of others as slaves. The word comes from Latin and meant those from the Slavic countries because that is where the Romans took them at the time. Human rights have suffered from this paralax view since before history was written. Slaves were used by Pharoah before the Bible was written.

The slavery of the USA was not unique nor was it original. It was the end of the institution in North America and an afront to the stated ideals of the Founders when read literally, but not with the paralax view used by the intelligencia of that time or any time before then.

That Jefferson owned slaves does not reduce the power, the eloquence or the prima facia truth of the words he wrote. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." What a thought this is. It is, by and of itself, the Revolution.

The drive to attain this ideal has changed the world. Literally. If we believe that this thinking might have existed in the past and we should try to re-attain it, I don't know why you would think this is bad. If you think that we should condemn those who believed this in the context of the world in which they lived, again, I don't know why you would think this should be done.

If a lofty ideal is held up to emulate, one that has changed a world to one of Democracies from one of Monarchies and Dictatorships, what could possibly be bad about that? Please recall that there were about 5 democracies on Earth in 1890.

In light of this, you are defending group-thought that delights in picking fly poop out of pepper while the feast rots on table. Go ahead and eat the feast today. You might end up with a little fly poop, but who cares? If you can't stand the thought of it, then don't use the pepper.

Why condemn Jefferson or Franklin or Washington or Adams for seeing the world in the context of their time. Why not exhalt in the fruition of their thoughts and their ability to see the furure in the context of the potential of their dreams.

 

[code1211]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

Fool. Liberals don't "bash" America. They point out what conservatives have done to damage this great country. Every branch of government has been damaged by conservatives. No conservative can name a single thing they have done to help the Middle Class for at least the last 40 years.

I'm in the middle class. My whole proffessional life has been spent in the middle class and in the last forty years. I own a home, a couple cars, no debts of any kind, there is peace in my city and the country, I eat on a daily basis and really don't want for anything.

I don't need nor do I want most of what the Democrats are trying to sell. I do want lower taxes. The Republicans seem to be more devoted to that than do the Dems.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 predates your limit, but that act had much higher percentages of Republicans than it had in Democrats:

By party
The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Anybody who worked during the Reagan Adminstation who remembered the Carter Administration is grateful to Reagan. More tax cuts. Go figure. Reagan came about 100 votes from Sweeping the Electoral College. Mondale won his native Minnesota by .18%. All Reagan asked was this: "Are you better of now than you were four years ago?" The answer is pretty obvious.

You will please recall that the Federal Budget was brought into balance by the Republican Congress during the Clinton Administration and was expanded greatly by the Democratic Congress during the Reagan years. In both cases, the Congress acted in varience to the wishes of the Executive.

Myopia is a good way to live only if you wish to maintain your beliefs at the expense of understanding reality.

 

[Toro]

Perspective.

Throughout much of history, society depended on the subjegation of others as slaves. The word comes from Latin and meant those from the Slavic countries because that is where the Romans took them at the time. Human rights have suffered from this paralax view since before history was written. Slaves were used by Pharoah before the Bible was written.

The slavery of the USA was not unique nor was it original. It was the end of the institution in North America and an afront to the stated ideals of the Founders when read literally, but not with the paralax view used by the intelligencia of that time or any time before then.

That Jefferson owned slaves does not reduce the power, the eloquence or the prima facia truth of the words he wrote. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." What a thought this is. It is, by and of itself, the Revolution.

The drive to attain this ideal has changed the world. Literally. If we believe that this thinking might have existed in the past and we should try to re-attain it, I don't know why you would think this is bad. If you think that we should condemn those who believed this in the context of the world in which they lived, again, I don't know why you would think this should be done.

If a lofty ideal is held up to emulate, one that has changed a world to one of Democracies from one of Monarchies and Dictatorships, what could possibly be bad about that? Please recall that there were about 5 democracies on Earth in 1890.

In light of this, you are defending group-thought that delights in picking fly poop out of pepper while the feast rots on table. Go ahead and eat the feast today. You might end up with a little fly poop, but who cares? If you can't stand the thought of it, then don't use the pepper.

Why condemn Jefferson or Franklin or Washington or Adams for seeing the world in the context of their time. Why not exhalt in the fruition of their thoughts and their ability to see the furure in the context of the potential of their dreams.

You miss the point. If I am defending groupthink, then you are defending slavery.

I am not attacking the ideals. I said in my post that the American ideals are probably the most noble on earth, IMHO.

The point is that many conservatives idealize the past as something lost. However, the past is myth. It never existed as nothing more than an ideal, and conservatives idealize this past that did not exist. People had life, liberty and property if they were white males for the first 100 years of this nation's existence. Perhaps "we" as white, property-owning males have seen liberty lost, but the vast majority of inhabitants of this country did not. Maybe that's why most conservatives are white males, and most everyone else is not.

We can marvel at the forethought and brilliance of the Founding Fathers. That does not change the actual history and what transpired in this country, however. And idealizing a past that is myth bastardizes history.

 

[ihopehefails]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

What are you talking about? Do you think slavery came about by itself or because it was both tolerated and promoted by society itself? If this acceptance isn't reflective of the of society than what was it?

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

We are a representative republic. What authority are you complaining about?

This is true but we don't elect people to make decisions over our own lives that we could do before we elected them. The concept of government authority being vital to human existence is constantly echoed in liberal arguments such as the doom and gloom arguments if we decreased the scope of government control of our lives because you don't know how many times I've been told that society will fall apart if we "deregulate" or human beings will cease to be civilized.

Also, its quite possible to condemn American society at the time but why do the actions and thoughts of previous generations get smeared into Americana? Why not say German society is evil because of the NAZIs and accuse every german living for the next 1000 years of being NAZIs because of a brief period in their history.

 

[ihopehefails]

Perspective.

Throughout much of history, society depended on the subjegation of others as slaves. The word comes from Latin and meant those from the Slavic countries because that is where the Romans took them at the time. Human rights have suffered from this paralax view since before history was written. Slaves were used by Pharoah before the Bible was written.

The slavery of the USA was not unique nor was it original. It was the end of the institution in North America and an afront to the stated ideals of the Founders when read literally, but not with the paralax view used by the intelligencia of that time or any time before then.

That Jefferson owned slaves does not reduce the power, the eloquence or the prima facia truth of the words he wrote. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal..." What a thought this is. It is, by and of itself, the Revolution.

The drive to attain this ideal has changed the world. Literally. If we believe that this thinking might have existed in the past and we should try to re-attain it, I don't know why you would think this is bad. If you think that we should condemn those who believed this in the context of the world in which they lived, again, I don't know why you would think this should be done.

If a lofty ideal is held up to emulate, one that has changed a world to one of Democracies from one of Monarchies and Dictatorships, what could possibly be bad about that? Please recall that there were about 5 democracies on Earth in 1890.

In light of this, you are defending group-thought that delights in picking fly poop out of pepper while the feast rots on table. Go ahead and eat the feast today. You might end up with a little fly poop, but who cares? If you can't stand the thought of it, then don't use the pepper.

Why condemn Jefferson or Franklin or Washington or Adams for seeing the world in the context of their time. Why not exhalt in the fruition of their thoughts and their ability to see the furure in the context of the potential of their dreams.

You miss the point. If I am defending groupthink, then you are defending slavery.

I am not attacking the ideals. I said in my post that the American ideals are probably the most noble on earth, IMHO.

The point is that many conservatives idealize the past as something lost. However, the past is myth. It never existed as nothing more than an ideal, and conservatives idealize this past that did not exist. People had life, liberty and property if they were white males for the first 100 years of this nation's existence. Perhaps "we" as white, property-owning males have seen liberty lost, but the vast majority of inhabitants of this country did not. Maybe that's why most conservatives are white males, and most everyone else is not.

We can marvel at the forethought and brilliance of the Founding Fathers. That does not change the actual history and what transpired in this country, however. And idealizing a past that is myth bastardizes history.

Most people did have liberty but what you are speaking of is voting rights which is not the same thing as saying you are free. The concept of the founders was that government, in order to preserve freedom for all including non-white males, government had to stay out of society as little as possible and only acted as a go-between for two parties. In this enviroment it is possible for a black, white, women, or whatever to pursue their own interest without any government authority interfering with their pursuits.

 

[Toro]

Most people did have liberty but what you are speaking of is voting rights which is not the same thing as saying you are free. The concept of the founders was that government, in order to preserve freedom for all including non-white males, government had to stay out of society as little as possible and only acted as a go-between for two parties. In this enviroment it is possible for a black, white, women, or whatever to pursue their own interest without any government authority interfering with their pursuits.

Except, of course, that did not really happen. Once again, you are idealizing a time that did not exist.

Most blacks were slaves and women were considered the legal property of their husbands. Segregation and the restrictions of the actions of and movements by blacks by state governments occurred for 100 years after the Civil War. How can you possibly call this anything other than a gross violation of individuals' freedoms and liberties? These were legal restrictions that were imposed by many state governments. That the Founding Fathers wrote noble ideals does not change the fact that these ideals were not applied to the population as a whole.

The problem with many conservatives is that they think that taxes are what defines government interference in people's lives. Your economic life is only one part of your life. Restrictions on your social actions and legal rights are every bit as relevant to one's freedom as taxes.

 

[ihopehefails]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

Fool. Liberals don't "bash" America. They point out what conservatives have done to damage this great country. Every branch of government has been damaged by conservatives. No conservative can name a single thing they have done to help the Middle Class for at least the last 40 years.

No one can ever explain why the middle class deserves special policies that other economic classes such as the poor and the rich seemingly don't deserve. I would prefer everyone to be treated equally by the government regardless of them being poor or rich such as equal taxation of income like a flat 5% for everyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

But as of 2013, if this thing passes? Your Choice and 'easy access' Ceases. It then becomes a MANDATE with penalties if you do NOT comply at the behest of the IRS.

I ask you? Is the the Liberty ye seek? Is the the 'Access' you want? Forced, like it or NOT?

And under which provision of the Constitution advocates this?

Ball/Court/YOURS...

If I am going to have a common access to healthcare why is it you think the constitution states that I shouldn't pay for it?

the point is the government will be forcing you under threat of tax penalties if you do not buy the insurance they tell you to buy. And if you don't pay the tax penalties, the government will confiscate your property and/or imprison you.

the government will tell you that you have to buy insurance that covers things like substance abuse counseling and mental health counseling even if you have never needed them and don't want them.

The insurance that I currently have (and am completely satisfied with BTW) will no longer be "acceptable" to the government and I will be forced to buy a more expensive policy.

As i said before, this is nothing but another attempt by the government to equalize results.

Tell me why else would there be a tax on people that the government deems to have so called "Cadillac" insurance plans?

Insurance is the problem here. And the insurance industry is already one of the most heavily regulated in the country (I know from experience) and you think more regulation will make it better not worse given the government's track record?

Why is it that in any other area of your life, you know exactly what something will cost you? You know how much a car, a cell phone, a steak etc will cost you but do you know what the office visit charge for your last exam or the blood work done or that x ray you had cost?

And it's not just insurance. The government is interfering with nearly every aspect of our lives. You can't have a beer or a smoke without being taxed because the government has deemed these to be a sin. the idea of sin taxes is bogus btw because the last thing the government wants is people to stop smoking and drinking because then their revenue would dry up.

Government is making the entry into the free enterprise system too expensive for the average person. We have bands of roving government inspectors handing out $1000 fines to business owners who don't have a government approved label on a bottle of Windex and for all sorts of other specious things all in the name of "protecting" the safety of workers but in reality it is yet another revenue generating scam by the government.

We are being exploited by the government. Government sees you as a revenue stream and will keep taking more and more of your money so as to reduce your ability to exercise your freedom for the simple reason that you won't be able to make choices you otherwise would have because the government is confiscating your income.

Economic liberty is just as important as any other type of liberty if not more because economic liberty gives one the ability to make more choices. More choices; more freedom.

NO. And that is the problem. If medical procedures were treated like everything elses on the free market, we would see a decrease in costs.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skull makes a point that cannot be defended at all: that the health insurance industry is the most regulated in the world.

 

[KittenKoder]

Skull makes a point that cannot be defended at all: that the health insurance industry is the most regulated in the world.

Huh? It actually is one of the most regulated in the US.

 

[logical4u]

Pissing and moaning because the election of the President didn't go the way some wanted and it's "the end of America".

Give me a bloody break. America won't be "ended" any time soon, tis too much of a robust country.

"IF", Obama signs the treaty to "regulate" CO2 (an international treaty), that gives the UN authority to enforce the treaty, it will "subjugate" the USA to taxes and decisions made by the UN (that has been trying to get a toehold into the USA tax base for decades). It will hurt this country and all that live here. The UN will use American workers' taxes to fund the takeover of the country.
Believing this country will last forever is the worst mistake any of us can make. Our own gov is currently working on voiding the Bill of Rights, using gov run healthcare (who will stand against the entity that holds the power to withhold health care from your parents, spouse and children?).
If the people do not demand the gov reduce its spending (and size), it will continue to grow like a malignant tumor, and it will eventually invade the vital organs and kill the country.

 

[logical4u]

What founding principle is the left trying to fix and what founding principle is the right trying to return to?

I'm surprised you don't know but it's this... We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

See that shit about Liberty and Posterity? That.

Well I see a lot of shit, you've written, but I fail to see how promoting the general welfare through a single payer system is unconstitutional or prevents me from liberty.

Taking from one person to give to another person prevents the liberty of the person that was forced to give to the other (taxes). If a peson works hard to establish an income that will support their family's needs: education, health care, food of their choice, housing of their choice, and the gov (elected by people that prefer handouts to ownership) steps in and takes a portion (of any size) to pay for other families': education, health care, food of their choice, housing of their choice, the gov is limiting the liberty and freedom of the taxed person.

The single payer system is like, "fun island" from Pinoccio: the people that want a good time on someone else's dime are pushing and shoving to get to the island. Once there, they become working asses, sold into lifetime labor for someone else's benefit. The libs are like the boys running thru the streets proclaiming "a good time on someone else's dime" without ever saying where it will lead. The conservatives accepted long ago that in life, only the hard way will bring achievements; the easy way (someone giving you something for nothing), is a deception that leads to serving another, not yourself or your family.

Until recently, the libs were not a serious threat, they talked, they had no plan for achievement. Now, they are promising healthcare and want us to pay for years before the plan is implemented; we will be taxes for healthcare while still having to provide for our families for a product that isn't there. Judging from other 'lib' programs, this will not be managed any better and the 'benefits' will costs many times higher than what is currently offered in the private sector. These bills in the House and the Senate have no wording protecting patients/citizens. Both bills give the IRS power over individuals' accounts for healthcare, to collect and "punish". One of both of the bills give Secretaries the power to change the healthcare system at a whim, there is no provision for a representative change or appeal, just absolute authority. That a gov official has the power to declare my family's access to healthcare acceptable or refuse it, based on gov proceedure is an infringement on my liberty. What is next: will the gov take over the housing and tell us how many people "must" live in a dwelling of a particular size? Will the gov take over the food distribution and give families what the gov deems the "best foods for health"? This is a takeover of our rights and liberties, only the "Obama-zombies" could see it as anything else.

 

[code1211]

Most people did have liberty but what you are speaking of is voting rights which is not the same thing as saying you are free. The concept of the founders was that government, in order to preserve freedom for all including non-white males, government had to stay out of society as little as possible and only acted as a go-between for two parties. In this enviroment it is possible for a black, white, women, or whatever to pursue their own interest without any government authority interfering with their pursuits.

Except, of course, that did not really happen. Once again, you are idealizing a time that did not exist.

Most blacks were slaves and women were considered the legal property of their husbands. Segregation and the restrictions of the actions of and movements by blacks by state governments occurred for 100 years after the Civil War. How can you possibly call this anything other than a gross violation of individuals' freedoms and liberties? These were legal restrictions that were imposed by many state governments. That the Founding Fathers wrote noble ideals does not change the fact that these ideals were not applied to the population as a whole.

The problem with many conservatives is that they think that taxes are what defines government interference in people's lives. Your economic life is only one part of your life. Restrictions on your social actions and legal rights are every bit as relevant to one's freedom as taxes.

You are judging people in the past by standards of today. Recognizing that there have been changes in what constitutes justice, fairness or legality is separate from judging those who operated within a society in which those standards were different than in your own society. The former guages the evolution of thought while the latter is simply a debating tactic.

From where I sit, limiting the strength of the government starts with limiting the level of taxation. You seem to be consumed by a fear that a Conservative will tell you that you cannot do a particular thing. Liberal or Conservative, if a government has no money to enforce its will, no enforcement of that will can have potency.

With the programs being discussed by the Dems right now including health care, cap & trade, additional sin taxes now to be levied on Mountain Dew and such, strengthening the CAFE standards with big penalties and so on, we are looking at real live increases in taxation on EVERYTHING that we use to live. Higher prices means fewer widgets purchased with every dollar.

If I run out of money due to higher taxes before I have purchased those things that I want to purchase in my pursuit of happiness, this is a real limitation of my freedom. If you have heard that the government might be able to overhear your cell phone conversations and whip yourself into a frenzy that you are in danger, that is a sign of your need for counseling.

What are the particular restrictions on you social actions and legal rights that you are concerned with?

 

[logical4u]

Well I see a lot of shit, you've written, but I fail to see how promoting the general welfare through a single payer system is unconstitutional or prevents me from liberty.

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

Simple answer: taking from some people to pay for another's healthcare is interferring with 'their' right to act as their own sovereign.

Gov run healthcare is taking control of citizens' bodies. Can you show anywhere in these bill that offer protection for patients/citizens' rights? Can you explain where it says the gov cannot 'require' patient participation in medical experimentation, involutary organ donation, suicide, or any other horror you can imagine? My point: if it is not there, it IS posssible, and the gov is using this 'platform' to SUBJUGATE the population, not represent them.

 

[logical4u]

Well I see a lot of shit, you've written, but I fail to see how promoting the general welfare through a single payer system is unconstitutional or prevents me from liberty.

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

1. Was the draft unconstitutional? Did it infringe on anyone's 'liberty'?

2. Is Medicare unconstitutional?

3. Is using taxpayer dollars to build hospitals for the Iraqis unconstitutional?

The answer to all three: yes.
1. The draft was based on past government proceedures for staffing the military. There was a change in the thinking, and the draft was eliminated. There are pros and cons for the draft, but that is another topic.
2. Medicare was a gov experiment to manipulate the population. It was sold to the public as necessary to keep older Americans from suffering after 'serving' their country (via taxes). It worked, as did social security and eventually welfare. The next program: healthcare. Already, a huge percentage of the USA's budget goes for entitlement programs. We are working in the red (in debt). Why would we sell our children into slavery for another program that does nothing to further freedom or liberty?
3. Building hospital in Iraq had a precident: WWII. It was done after the war to help the devastated countries stabilize (less likely to go back to war any time soon).

Now explain how gov healtcare gives the taxpayers liberty or freedom. Because if it doesn't give them either, it is taking both.

 

[logical4u]

The rightwingers now remind me of the little old lady in 'Gone with the Wind' who had the dramatic fainting spells.

Because we disapprove of the desire to 'fundamentally change' America makes us Americans. That may remind you of 'Gone with the Wind', but to us it is against the Constitution to 'fundamentally change' America.

Who the hell was it who talked about 'fundamentally changing' America? And you wonder why we don't like Obama?

So you do not see the overthrowing of a form of government as 'fundamental change?' This country would not exist were it not for a desire for fundamental change. Shouldn't a self-proclaimed constitutionalist understand this???

Changing from a gov by the people, for the people to a tyranny is not a good "change".

 

[Toro]

You are judging people in the past by standards of today.

I am not condemning people for the past. One can only be judged by the moral standard of one's time.

However, we should idealize a past that did not exist either. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" did not apply to the majority of the people in the past. So when one says "We had more liberty 100 years ago," "we" does not include the majority of the people in this country since women were often considered to be adjuncts of their husbands and blacks did not have the legal rights of whites. "Freedom" means more than taxes.

All nations need their myths. Mythology has significant elements of truth but it also distorts history.

 

[logical4u]

I think that depends on your definition of 'America'. I think that it means two different things depending on whether you are left or right. The left see the founding principle as something broken needing to be fixed, and the right see it as something to be returned to.

The right bemoan the ending of America as the ending of the American Dream - the ideals, it's founding principles. The left see it as an opporunity to hand responsibility for their decisions to someone else so when they fail, they won't be responsible.

Except that it never existed other than in mythology.

For centuries, this country - like all other countries - did NOT ascribe rights of life, liberty and property to all of its citizens. When it was first being written, it applied to white males who owned property. Slavery existed for the first century of this nation's existence, and a whole race of people was disenfranchised for another century in large swaths of the country. Women did not have full legal rights until 1920.

The ideals of America are the best in the world, IMHO. However, we should not idealize a past that has never existed. That is what conservatives are guilty of.

Will you please name a country, any country that had a 'better' past than the USA (even with all the problems)? Will you please explain how moving towards socialism is revolutionary, when it can be demonstrated that the socialist forms of gov do not offer liberty or freedom for the citizens of said countries?
In proverbs, it warns against joining with a group and making a common purse, there is a lot of wisdom there.

 

[logical4u]

Liberals spend their entire time bashing America and spend every ounce of their intellectual energy in finding new ways they can make America look evil by writing a ton of history about things that have happened such as slavery. Now its one thing to acknowledge or point out the evils of slavery but the entire tone of their criticism is never directed at the institution of slavery, the people who participated in it, or even the laws that allowed it to happen but at the identity of American society itself.

The only aspect of America that liberals seem never to criticize is the government or at least the authority it holds over people. Its the reason why tea party protesters were criticized by left-leaning CNN as "anti-government" as if being "anti-government" is a great sin yet the criticism of being "anti-government" never gets the same defense from the left as being anti-American.

Every person has the power to form whatever opinion they have of America they wish even if that opinion is negative but they also have the same power to form an opinion of the general authority of the state as can be formed of American culture, history, and people.

The left does not seem to want to recognize this fact because those that do criticize the general authority of the state are labeled as "anti-government", "militia members", or "right-wing terrorist". The lack of vigorous defense, fear, and disdain for people who criticize the general authority of the state in the same way those that criticize America reflects a thinking on the left that the authority of the state is a complimentary part of human existence in which no person can be complete without.

Fool. Liberals don't "bash" America. They point out what conservatives have done to damage this great country. Every branch of government has been damaged by conservatives. No conservative can name a single thing they have done to help the Middle Class for at least the last 40 years.

Excuse me, aren't the libs the ones that were calling our soldiers 'terrorists', and accusing them of intentionally hurting civilians in Iraq and Afganistan? Isn't the 'main' liberal, Obama apoligizing for this nation's existance every chance he gets? Can you point out any time that the 'main' liberal, ever, gave a speech on how great this nation is? When did he ever talk about the great thing the USA has done in this world?
You might want to rethink you wording of "bash".

 

[California Girl]

Well I see a lot of shit, you've written, but I fail to see how promoting the general welfare through a single payer system is unconstitutional or prevents me from liberty.

Yea, people who don't get the Constitution make that mistake. I suggest you educate yourself on your Constitution. Find out what the founders themselves said about phrases such as 'general welfare'. Saying it time after time, like some mantra, doesn't make it true.

I've read the founders and those whom they drew their political thought from. The central promise behind the principle of liberty is the individual as their own sovereign. For something to be unconstitutional it has to strip away my right to act as my own sovereign. Preventing me from marring the person I loved would do this. Government control of my body would do this. Allowing a common access to health-care doesn't do this though. This is why I asked you the question. As a constitutionalist why don't you just answer my question instead of ducking them.

I am not against equal rights for same sex couples, I am against forcing churches to marry same sex couples if that is against the church's beliefs.

This 'access to health care' isn't about 'access' it is forcing people to have health care. That is not constitutional. You do not have the right to force me to have health insurance. This 'general welfare' that politicians claim provides for healthcare, does not provide for healthcare. You may not like that but that doesn't change the facts.

Also, on the subject of healthcare, until the SC rules that it will be legal to refuse cover for illegals, then I am not prepared to take anyone's word for it. The SC has already ruled on similar and it is likely that illegals will get access to health care. I don't care what anyone says - I am not paying for fucking illegal aliens to get 'free' healthcare. It is NOT free if someone else is paying for it.