Deal or no deal? Repeal or no repeal?

[Foxfyre]

To be honest with you, you would have a stronger case if you argued that healthcare violated the Constitutional principle of "Truth, Justice and the American Way"

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

It was the purpose of the government to carry out the wishes of the people. It's 180 degrees out of phase from the intent and completely prostituted to 'groups' . The individual no longer matters.

American Exceptionalism no longer matters (if it ever did) to them.

Scott Rasmussen's book In Search of Self Governance is a revelation in how opposed authoritarian government is to the basic instincts, hopes, dreams, and wiring of most Americans. The American culture still has a lot of that old freedom loving spark left, but there are those who fully intend to snuff it out. If we had a media willing to do its job again, the current bunch in Washington couldn't get elected dogcatcher and a proposal like that healthcare legislation would have a majority calling for recall of their errant representatives and impeachment of the President.

 

[Foxfyre]

To be honest with you, you would have a stronger case if you argued that healthcare violated the Constitutional principle of "Truth, Justice and the American Way"

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights. I bet you couldn't write a coherent paragraph on what the Founders meant when they used the word 'freedom' or 'the blessings of liberty'.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

But I know what is covered in the Declaration of Independence vs the Constitution

No you don't or you couldn't possibly write some of the stuff you write.

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm sure you are confused. And I'm even more sure that you have not spent much, if any, time with the writings of the Founders to understand their intent with the Constitution or how the principles set forth in the Declaration were incorporated into the Constitution.

There is no "their" intent. The Founders themselves had different political philosophies that impacted their views of the role of the federal government (and thus how to apply the Constitution). The two primary authors of the Federalist papers, Hamilton and Madison, were two of the primary players in the first great schism that led to the first organized American political parties: Hamiltonians congregated in the Federalist party while Madisonians/Jeffersonians found their way into the Democratic-Republican party (to which the modern Democratic party traces its lineage).

There was no single "right" answer to these questions, even in 1791. I don't know how you can possibly have read the writings of more than one member of the founding generation and come away with such a cartoon version of American political history.

And if you think all the 'goodies' for special interests were removed from that legislation before it was passed, I still have a very nice assortment of pretty bridges to show you.

Post the ones you're talking about and we can discuss them. This is a discussion board, we can move beyond empty slogans and sound bites.

I bet you couldn't write a coherent paragraph on what the Founders meant when they used the word 'freedom' or 'the blessings of liberty'.

I'm curious how your own paragraph would incorporate the concept of slavery. If the Founders' conception of freedom was the purest possible then surely the abolition of slavery was a serious blow to freedom.

 

[The T]

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

It was the purpose of the government to carry out the wishes of the people. It's 180 degrees out of phase from the intent and completely prostituted to 'groups' . The individual no longer matters.

American Exceptionalism no longer matters (if it ever did) to them.

Scott Rasmussen's book In Search of Self Governance is a revelation in how opposed authoritarian government is to the basic instincts, hopes, dreams, and wiring of most Americans. The American culture still has a lot of that old freedom loving spark left, but there are those who fully intend to snuff it out. If we had a media willing to do its job again, the current bunch in Washington couldn't get elected dogcatcher and a proposal like that healthcare legislation would have a majority calling for recall of their errant representatives and impeachment of the President.

And it begs a serious question: Why on Earth would you use your God-given rights to destroy the same? Only two answers come to mind.

Either they don't know nor understand what they've been given in this historic form of Self-Governance...OR it's a matter of Self-Loathing that they profess to project on to everyone else.

Ideas?

 

[rightwinger]

I bet you can't define 'unalienable rights' or articulate why the Founders based the Constitution on the concept of unalienable rights. I bet you couldn't write a coherent paragraph on what the Founders meant when they used the word 'freedom' or 'the blessings of liberty'.

I bet you look at the purpose of government as being to govern the people. I bet you can't wrap your head around a concept of a people governing themselves.

And that is what makes the difference between a liberal and a conservative in America today.

But I know what is covered in the Declaration of Independence vs the Constitution

No you don't or you couldn't possibly write some of the stuff you write.

When quizzed on what makes the law unconstitutional....you replied it violates "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Do you hang around Sarah Palin much? Let me guess......you read her book

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm sure you are confused. And I'm even more sure that you have not spent much, if any, time with the writings of the Founders to understand their intent with the Constitution or how the principles set forth in the Declaration were incorporated into the Constitution.

There is no "their" intent. The Founders themselves had different political philosophies that impacted their views of the role of the federal government (and thus how to apply the Constitution). The two primary authors of the Federalist papers, Hamilton and Madison, were two of the primary players in the first great schism that led to the first organized American political parties: Hamiltonians congregated in the Federalist party while Madisonians/Jeffersonians found their way into the Democratic-Republican party (to which the modern Democratic party traces its lineage).

There was no single "right" answer to these questions, even in 1791. I don't know how you can possibly have read the writings of more than one member of the founding generation and come away with such a cartoon version of American political history.

And if you think all the 'goodies' for special interests were removed from that legislation before it was passed, I still have a very nice assortment of pretty bridges to show you.

Post the ones you're talking about and we can discuss them. This is a discussion board, we can move beyond empty slogans and sound bites.

I bet you couldn't write a coherent paragraph on what the Founders meant when they used the word 'freedom' or 'the blessings of liberty'.

I'm curious how your own paragraph would incorporate the concept of slavery. If the Founders' conception of freedom was the purest possible then surely the abolition of slavery was a serious blow to freedom.

If you think the Founders had no 'intent' and no 'consensus of intent' with the wording of the Constitution, then we have nothing else to discuss because you obviously know nothing of the background, history, or thought processes that went into it. But it is typical of 'liberal-eze' to focus on the differences of opinion and dismiss or ignore how those were resolved. And if you think my views are the 'cartoon' version, I can only conclude that you haven't read much if anything on the subject other than what you've plucked off leftwing message boards.

As for the special interests in the healthcare legislation, many have already been posted and pooh poohed or ignored by the big government HOORAY LET'S GIVE UP ALL OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS group here.

And as for the concept of slavery, I haven't addressed that. The Founders, however did. Why don't you read up on that yourself. And then you might understand how they managed to reach a consensus around that issue and left open the opportunity and probability that at some point slavery would be abolished. Which it was. And in the meantime they made sure that all who opposed it and rejected it would not be obligated to put up with it.

You see the Founders did not require that everybody agree on every single point. They only worked to achieve a consensus that once their unalienable rights were secured, a people could govern themselves. They achieved a consensus that it was the right of free people to establish whatever social contract they wished and order whatever sort of society they wished to have.

That is a concept alien to the modern American liberal.

The healthcare legislation passed violates the unalienable rights of the people. And that is what makes it unconstitutional.

And unless you can articulate what an unalienable right is and why the Founders thought it worth fighting and dying for, then we have probably exhausted any productive discussion on this subject.

 

[The T]

But I know what is covered in the Declaration of Independence vs the Constitution

No you don't or you couldn't possibly write some of the stuff you write.

When quizzed on what makes the law unconstitutional....you replied it violates "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Do you hang around Sarah Palin much? Let me guess......you read her book

It violates the very core of what Government is supposed to do on behalf of the People. These days? Government is stealing the very same to give to others.

And it doesn't bother you in the very least, does it?

 

[Foxfyre]

No you don't or you couldn't possibly write some of the stuff you write.

When quizzed on what makes the law unconstitutional....you replied it violates "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Do you hang around Sarah Palin much? Let me guess......you read her book

It violates the very core of what Government is supposed to do on behalf of the People. These days? Government is stealing the very same to give to others.

And it doesn't bother you in the very least, does it?

And I don't know Mr. T. I haven't read Sarah's book. I haven't seen a copy of Sarah's book. Have you?

But when boxed into a corner, like asking them to define something as basic as unalienable rights, it sure looks like a given that the Left will revert to the Pavlov-like behavior of arguing ad hominem with personally directed insults. Why do they do that? Because they CAN'T define unalienable rights. And they have a mental block that prevents them from understanding how that is the basis for the entire U.S. Constitution.

And to think of a government unable to order society the way the Left wants it to be ordered I think is probably too traumatic and terrifying to even attempt to discuss.

 

[rightwinger]

No you don't or you couldn't possibly write some of the stuff you write.

When quizzed on what makes the law unconstitutional....you replied it violates "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Do you hang around Sarah Palin much? Let me guess......you read her book

It violates the very core of what Government is supposed to do on behalf of the People. These days? Government is stealing the very same to give to others.

And it doesn't bother you in the very least, does it?

Stealing?

How is lawfully elected representatives of the people passing tax legislation stealing?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Foxfyre, you are making sweeping generalizations. Please do not diminish the differences of the Founders (representation, slavery, judicial review, taxation, nationalism, states rights, etc ad infinitum ad nauesum). They were not 'dem-gods', they were creating a government that would have limited power to infringe on white men with property and wealth. Women, Native Americans, minorities, etc., did not need apply.

To suggest that their thinking was sufficient unto today reveals the insufficiency of your thinking about these issues.

 

[EriktheRed]

Total repeal is a losing issue for the GOoPers and they know it. Too bad for them they have so many in their base who expect them to try it anyway.

 

[Greenbeard]

If you think the Founders had no 'intent' and no 'consensus of intent' with the wording of the Constitution, then we have nothing else to discuss because you obviously know nothing of the background, history, or thought processes that went into it.

That's not quite right. Certainly there was agreement that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to levy taxes, and the power to pass laws necessary and proper for carrying out laws passed under its authority. And that's what's relevant to this discussion.

And if you think my views are the 'cartoon' version, I can only conclude that you haven't read much if anything on the subject other than what you've plucked off leftwing message boards.

Yes, I recognize the nuance in the political philosophies of the founding generation because I haven't read about them.

As for the special interests in the healthcare legislation, many have already been posted and pooh poohed or ignored by the big government HOORAY LET'S GIVE UP ALL OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS group here.

If you're talking about the ones mentioned in this thread, they were "pooh poohed" because none of them are in the law. Shouldn't reality at least have a little bearing on this discussion?

And as for the concept of slavery, I haven't addressed that. The Founders, however did. Why don't you read up on that yourself. And then you might understand how they managed to reach a consensus around that issue and left open the opportunity and probability that at some point slavery would be abolished. Which it was. And in the meantime they made sure that all who opposed it and rejected it would not be obligated to put up with it.

I lobbed you a softball on that one and you flubbed it. The Constitution is a political document (that's why it's sometimes referred to as a bundle of compromises). Slavery was considered a necessary economic and political evil and its retention--along with the odious three-fifths compromise--was required to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. There's nothing noble about that, that's just the way it had to be. But you're asking me to to submit to the personal philosophies about what freedom is that were held by people who owned other human beings (i.e. people who could raise property rights above individual liberty). They lived in the 18th century, I don't. And I don't particularly want to.

The document is sound in that it can accommodate and survive changing social and philosophical attitudes. The document, not the men behind it, is paramount.

The healthcare legislation passed violates the unalienable rights of the people. And that is what makes it unconstitutional.

All right, this has gone pretty far so I'm going to help you out: to make an argument that it's unconstitutional, you have to draw from and reference the text of the Constitution. Bonus points for legal precedents in constitutional law.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you think the Founders had no 'intent' and no 'consensus of intent' with the wording of the Constitution, then we have nothing else to discuss because you obviously know nothing of the background, history, or thought processes that went into it.

That's not quite right. Certainly there was agreement that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to levy taxes, and the power to pass laws necessary and proper for carrying out laws passed under its authority. And that's what's relevant to this discussion.

And if you think my views are the 'cartoon' version, I can only conclude that you haven't read much if anything on the subject other than what you've plucked off leftwing message boards.

Yes, I recognize the nuance in the political philosophies of the founding generation because I haven't read about them.



If you're talking about the ones mentioned in this thread, they were "pooh poohed" because none of them are in the law. Shouldn't reality at least have a little bearing on this discussion?

And as for the concept of slavery, I haven't addressed that. The Founders, however did. Why don't you read up on that yourself. And then you might understand how they managed to reach a consensus around that issue and left open the opportunity and probability that at some point slavery would be abolished. Which it was. And in the meantime they made sure that all who opposed it and rejected it would not be obligated to put up with it.

I lobbed you a softball on that one and you flubbed it. The Constitution is a political document (that's why it's sometimes referred to as a bundle of compromises). Slavery was considered a necessary economic and political evil and its retention--along with the odious three-fifths compromise--was required to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. There's nothing noble about that, that's just the way it had to be. But you're asking me to to submit to the personal philosophies about what freedom is that were held by people who owned other human beings (i.e. people who could raise property rights above individual liberty). They lived in the 18th century, I don't. And I don't particularly want to.

The document is sound in that it can accommodate and survive changing social and philosophical attitudes. The document, not the men behind it, is paramount.

The healthcare legislation passed violates the unalienable rights of the people. And that is what makes it unconstitutional.

All right, this has gone pretty far so I'm going to help you out: to make an argument that it's unconstitutional, you have to draw from and reference the text of the Constitution. Bonus points for legal precedents in constitutional law.

Sorry Greenbeard. I have learned through bitter experience that it is futile to debate people who change and divert or change the questions and who refuse to debate points at face value as expressed. And because you, like your other leftwing brethren here, are apparently incapable of defining 'unalienable rights' as the Founders defined them and are unwilling to see that as the basis for the Constitution, we've probably exhausted any further useful discussion here. Evenmore so that no leftwinger is willing to discuss how the healthcare legislation does violate the rights of the people as the Founders saw those rights to be.

I do applaud you for keeping it somewhat civil and perhaps we will cross swords on another topic another time.

 

[The T]

When quizzed on what makes the law unconstitutional....you replied it violates "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

Do you hang around Sarah Palin much? Let me guess......you read her book

It violates the very core of what Government is supposed to do on behalf of the People. These days? Government is stealing the very same to give to others.

And it doesn't bother you in the very least, does it?

Stealing?

How is lawfully elected representatives of the people passing tax legislation stealing?

The intended purpose. Giving it to others that are physically able but refuse to earn it themselves for the sake of Political power.

Chew on that awhile.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The basis of your argument, foxfyre, is flawed. You have tried to create an alternate reality using "inalienable rights" as your foundation. Then you will create your own flawed definitions. Go for it, but I doubt anyone will accept the legitimacy of your process.

 

[rightwinger]

It violates the very core of what Government is supposed to do on behalf of the People. These days? Government is stealing the very same to give to others.

And it doesn't bother you in the very least, does it?

Stealing?

How is lawfully elected representatives of the people passing tax legislation stealing?

The intended purpose. Giving it to others that are physically able but refuse to earn it themselves for the sake of Political power.

Chew on that awhile.

OHHHHhhhh....I see

You are talking about giving tax incentives and shelters to the incredibly wealthy

 

[The T]

Stealing?

How is lawfully elected representatives of the people passing tax legislation stealing?

The intended purpose. Giving it to others that are physically able but refuse to earn it themselves for the sake of Political power.

Chew on that awhile.

OHHHHhhhh....I see

You are talking about giving tax incentives and shelters to the incredibly wealthy

That needs to cease as well. I'm all for a Flat or FAIR Tax.

Simple.

 

[EriktheRed]

If you think the Founders had no 'intent' and no 'consensus of intent' with the wording of the Constitution, then we have nothing else to discuss because you obviously know nothing of the background, history, or thought processes that went into it.

That's not quite right. Certainly there was agreement that the federal government should have the power to regulate interstate commerce, the power to levy taxes, and the power to pass laws necessary and proper for carrying out laws passed under its authority. And that's what's relevant to this discussion.



Yes, I recognize the nuance in the political philosophies of the founding generation because I haven't read about them.



If you're talking about the ones mentioned in this thread, they were "pooh poohed" because none of them are in the law. Shouldn't reality at least have a little bearing on this discussion?



I lobbed you a softball on that one and you flubbed it. The Constitution is a political document (that's why it's sometimes referred to as a bundle of compromises). Slavery was considered a necessary economic and political evil and its retention--along with the odious three-fifths compromise--was required to ensure the Constitution would be ratified. There's nothing noble about that, that's just the way it had to be. But you're asking me to to submit to the personal philosophies about what freedom is that were held by people who owned other human beings (i.e. people who could raise property rights above individual liberty). They lived in the 18th century, I don't. And I don't particularly want to.

The document is sound in that it can accommodate and survive changing social and philosophical attitudes. The document, not the men behind it, is paramount.

The healthcare legislation passed violates the unalienable rights of the people. And that is what makes it unconstitutional.

All right, this has gone pretty far so I'm going to help you out: to make an argument that it's unconstitutional, you have to draw from and reference the text of the Constitution. Bonus points for legal precedents in constitutional law.

Sorry Greenbeard. I have learned through bitter experience that it is futile to debate people who change and divert or change the questions and who refuse to debate points at face value as expressed. And because you, like your other leftwing brethren here, are apparently incapable of defining 'unalienable rights' as the Founders defined them and are unwilling to see that as the basis for the Constitution, we've probably exhausted any further useful discussion here. Evenmore so that no leftwinger is willing to discuss how the healthcare legislation does violate the rights of the people as the Founders saw those rights to be.

Translation: I don't have a good refutation of the arguments you put forth so I'll call you unreasonable.

Btw, like your rightwing brethren on here, you seem to be incapable of explaining just how we're giving away our freedoms with the legislation recently passed.

 

[daveman]

Btw, like your rightwing brethren on here, you seem to be incapable of explaining just how we're giving away our freedoms with the legislation recently passed.

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.

 

[EriktheRed]

Btw, like your rightwing brethren on here, you seem to be incapable of explaining just how we're giving away our freedoms with the legislation recently passed.

It's really quite simple: You no longer have the freedom to decide whether or not to have health insurance. If you don't purchase it, you get fined.

Get it now? If you want to give your freedom away, fine. More fool you. But don't think for a minute you have the authority to give mine away as well.

That's weak.