Anti-American VS Anti-government

[saveliberty]

When the people that lay out your government build in checks and balances of power between the branches, stress limited government, place states rights above those of national and place authority in the people, this place has been anti-government from day one.

Anti-American used to be what the French did. Now it is envogue to portray each other as racist, nazis and ignorant fools. Why are many feeling this way? For me, it is because we have too many entitlement minded folks. When you have things given to you your self worth and motivation are lost. Many people will choose to bring others down to feel better, instead of building themselves up.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

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.

 

[PeterS]

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.

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.

 

[California Girl]

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.

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.

 

[saveliberty]

Liberty-The condition of being free from restriction or control. b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing. c. The condition of being physically and legally free from confinement, servitude, or forced labor.

Single-payer health care is a public service financing the delivery of near-universal or universal health care to a given population as defined by age, citizenship, residency, or any other demographic. Single-payer health insurance collects all medical fees and then pays for all services through a single government (or government-related) source.

Single payer controls health services which restricts my choice (liberty enfringement).
Single payer restricts what I can purchase by forcing payment.
It makes me powerless to choose how I am medically treated.
It will cause a rationing of care (more patients for a limited number of doctors).
You have the right to do what you wish, until it restricts the ability for me to meet my wishes that are legal.

 

[The T]

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.

EDUCATE YOURSELF


When the Founders said 'General Welfare" they were speaking of the States, rather than people. And that being Liberty to choose their own course rather than having things imposed upon them by the Federal Government as we see happening now, and in the PAST.

It didn't mean what FDR, LBJ and a host of others helped impliment either.

 

[PeterS]

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.

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.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

1) Not allowing you to 'marry' a relative already exists.... And redefining marriage is not the function of government
2) You already have common access to health care... but since it is your PERSONAL health you have the PERSONAL responsibility to pay for it... Your body and your well being is not PUBLIC DOMAIN.... There is nothing in the constitution, PERIOD, that gives you the right of personal care at the expense of someone else...

 

[saveliberty]

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.

The state has a right to issue a civil union. Marriage is religious and as such is up to the Church, not the state. The government will control what type of care and the timeframe you will receive it in. Your choices are limited, not expanded. I didn't duck the questions you just ducked the answers.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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 T]

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.

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...

 

[California Girl]

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.

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?

 

[PeterS]

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.

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?

 

[PeterS]

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.

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???

 

[Toro]

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.

 

[Foxfyre]

Good points there, I might need to wander off and do some thinking about them. And the point about Marx and exploitation is well made. Too many people bang on about Marx seeing an injustice in capitalism when he didn't. But he did see exploitation and that's very important. Marx wasn't opposed to labour, he said it was what made us human (among other things) but what alienated our humanity was the exploitation of labour. For Marx, I think this is right, the end of alienation (exploitation) was the goal, that and the withering away of the state as an unnecessary part of the superstructure of a society where labour wasn't alienated.

Anyway, good points.

Marx runs into problems with thinking freedom loving people in three main areas:

1) He advocated a combative, even ruthless government to break the back of the capitalists and take power, property, and ability from those who held it so that 'communism' could then exist. (Our current Administration dsplays some definite Marxist tendencies in that area though, while pledging the Utopia as Marx did, they obviously intend for power to then remain with the government rather than the people.)

2) He failed to understand that exploitation works both ways. The corporation may exploit the proletariat for its own purposes, but the worker also exploits the corporation for his own benefit and would not work at all without reasonable assurance of reward for his labor.

3) In a free society, humankind rebels against labor that offers no assurance of reward. Thus, if ones fellows choose to let others shoulder the lion's share of the work, there is little or no incentive to work. Without reasonable expectation or hope of reward for extra effort, innovation, invention, creativity, initiative, etc., there won't be much of those qualities exhibited. And yes, the most shrewd and capable will likely become obscenely wealthy and prosperous, but true prosperity generally results only when the most industrious can experience gratification for their extra effort.

"Spreading the wealth around" artificially discourages prosperity. Encouraging people to prepare themselves to acquire wealth and clearing the way for them to go after it honorably and ethically is the best cure for poverty there is.

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[The T]

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?

Non-Starter. There IS an Amendment process. Did you forget this?

 

[code1211]

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 hate to barge into an obviusly robust debate between people of goodwill and I don't want to muddy the water.

Promoting the General Welfare in no way means that the government is to guarentee the personal health of every citizen. The government should maintain an orderly setting in which the citizen can reasonably expect to find those things that will allow him to be healthy. The government, in other words, must supply the operating system and we as citizens must be able to both use and support that platform to live.

The citizens must support the government, not the other way around.

With regard to healthcare:

In my opinion, the Democrats are trying to impose a tax system on the health industry that will tax producers of medical devices, drugs, and "Cadillac Plans". It will also tax businesses of all sizes, doctors and health institutions. It will fine those who do not want to participate in thier plan.

The additional cost of this over and above all of the costs that are currently being expended on health care is about a trillion dallars across ten years to insure the 30 million who are not insured. This amounts to about $33,333 per additional person insured over that period or a monthly premium of about 277/mo. per person. Family of 4= $1100+.

(Added later: Whoopsie, I forgot. The tax collection starts right away, but the benefits don't begin for three years, so the monthly cost rises per person to $393/mo. per person. Family of 4= $1587.00. For perspective, this is about 1.5 times the amount of the cost of the plan that my employer and I are paying to use. Good buying, huh?)

Now, who is this aimed at helping? Those who cannot afford it. Who has to pay for this? Everyone, including those who cannot afford it. Those who cannot afford it will also be fined due to their inability to pay. That's brilliant, isn't it? If someone cannot pay, we will fine them and they will not pay this either. Debtors prison? Charles Dickens, we thank you for prdicting our future.

If the goal is to enhance the health care system, perhaps a better approach would be to enhance the healthcare system:

Free clinics? Maybe utilize churches or community centers. Maybe just use the empty storefronts across every town in America.
Registered Nurses conducting Patient interviews with TV access to Doctors miles away and computer links for transmitting the dignosis data?
Allowing across border insurance for healthcare just like life, home and auto?
You know that under the government healthcare plan, there will be no suing of the government. Why not reform the tort system right now?
Pass laws that reduce the need to CYA by doctors with various tests that could be avoided?

These steps may or may not be possible, wise, doable or even good ideas, but they would actually change the healthcare system.

If the goal was to enhance healthcare, that is what the plan would be doing. If the plan was to collect a bunch of money, that is what the plan would be doing. What is the Democratic plan geared to do? You can pick any of the three Democratic plans: The one from the House, the one from the Senate or the Mythical plan that Obama talks about.