This is from the Ron Paul camp who, with this attack vid, is showing he isn’t that different from the rest after all. On the other hand, those are McCain’s words.
Here’s an article on McCain’s timeline of involvement in the runup to the Iraq war. And one on his support of Bush’s wiretapping policies. And then there’s Republican Senator Lyndsey Graham who states McCain’s policies will be an extension of Bush’s. Then there’s the anti-GI Bill vote, the constant verbal gaffes and on and on.
McCain seems to be making sure that if you loved Bush you’ll love him. Or am I missing something?
>>So by Federally Certifying an HMO, the gov
>>effectively gave these corps the right to deny
>>health care. Thanks for proving my point.
> No, thanks for proving MINE. Cut out the >profit-mongering middleman, denying health >care for the sake of the shareholders, and >you’re almost home.
You live in a fantasy world if you really think there will never be a middle man. Seriously. The gov will never end up running this charade and you know it — private contractors with ties to the republicrats will. Quit the dope and think about what you just wrote. Nice trip, there, dude.
> Well, guess what, Einstein? That’s not what > you said.
Now you’re digging for justification. If you can’t read simple English in the context it was meant, perhaps you should write about something a little easier to understand.
>>How else are you going to get this
>>health care to everybody?
>Hey, go to a civilized country and find out >how they do it.
Now you’ve offended me. My country is civilized. In fact, I bled for this country.
But, back on subject — if the gov would just get OUT of the medical business, we would all be much better off.
The gov is supposed to promote the general welfare, not provide it. Get a clue and read the Constitution. If you find anything in that document that says the People are to provide universal hc, I’ll eat my hat.
Hey, fux’em if they can’t afford it. It’s not my responsibility to feed, house, clothe, medicate anyone other than my own family. It’s not The Government’s responsibility either. The Government should be responsible for national defense (including border security) and infrastructure (roads, bridges & levees and protecting all the CITIZENS’ constitutional rights.
Cancel the welfare state, choke off social security (institute a means test & keep jacking up the qualifying age until all the old beezers who currently draw drop dead), and dump the income tax system and replace it with a consumption tax.
>>The gov will never end up running this charade
>>and you know it — private contractors with
>>ties to the republicrats will. Quit the dope..
Not once the Repukes are swept from Washington like dead roaches from a crack house porch. Before Dumbya poisoned the system, the VA was superb, Medicare was doing what was intended, it’s clear that the gummint can oversee medical care.
>>Now you’re digging for justification. If you
>>can’t read simple English in the context it
>>was meant, perhaps you should write about
>>something a little easier to understand.
If your postings are that obscure and difficult to understand, maybe you should refrain from posting. I think any rational person would infer the same thing I did.
>>Now you’ve offended me. My country is
>>civilized. In fact, I bled for this country.
Gosh. Sorry. Did you cut your finger doing Community Service, or what? If “your country” were civilized, we wouldn’t have almost 50,000,000 people with no access to medical care, short of being run over by a bus and getting taken to the ER.
#64, Tom,
The gov is supposed to promote the general welfare, not provide it. Get a clue and read the Constitution. If you find anything in that document that says the People are to provide universal hc, I’ll eat my hat.
Asshats like you tend to think “general welfare” only means the programs benefiting you. Normal people look at this section of the Constitution and understand the general welfare of the country is to improve the country.
If that means regulating air traffic then great, as there will be fewer mid-air collisions. If that means regulating radio waves, then there is less conflict between competing stations on the same frequency. If that means subsidizing a transportation system then great as the whole country benefits. None of these are mentioned in the Constitution.
There is also no mention of Fire protection. Or citizens being able to drink clean water, eat good food, and breathe clean air. There is nothing about losing the right to vote if you have a felony conviction. Or certain companies being subsidized to do business in certain areas of the country. Yet they too happen and with the legal force of law. Some good and some not so good and none mentioned in the Constitution.
I suggest you might want to go back to that Gr. 7 Civics class and re-do the part about what government is all about.
When you start into your rant about “rights” you lose. You obviously don’t understand what a right is. Check out a dictionary and how many different definitions for the word there are.
#65, CountSmuck,
The Government should be responsible for national defense (including border security) and infrastructure (roads, bridges & levees and protecting all the CITIZENS’ constitutional rights.
We don’t have any levees and very few bridges in my part of the country. Why should my tax dollars be used to pay for someone else’s bridges and levees? The roads here are relatively inexpensive; little earth moving, no blasting, why should my tax dollars pay for roads going through hilly and rocky areas?
The point you trolls miss is that YOU benefit just as much from government as anyone. And before you start babbling about “the right”, read the Constitution. Pause a little when you get to the Ninth Amendment.
> Not once the Repukes are swept from
AHA!!
Now I understand. You really don’t have a clue what is going on. You are just a rabid do-gooder wrapped in a cloak of altruism, standing before the world, holding yourself up as a model of compassion for your fellow man. The only problem with this picture is that you can’t do it without taking someone else’s money.
> I think any rational person would infer the
> same thing I did.
Don’t ask anyone else to fight your battle for you. Too Late! You already did by taking their money and giving it someone else.
> 50,000,000 people with no access to medical
> care, short of being run over by a bus and
> getting taken to the ER.
How many of them have you handed your credit card to when they needed some help?
How many empty tanks of gas have you recently filled up that didn’t belong to you?
How many homeless have you put on your couch?
> Gosh. Sorry. Did you cut your finger doing
> Community Service, or what?
Bayonet wound to the thigh, if you must know.
You need a new hobby, Mister Mustard.
And I need to find someone a little more mature to argue with. Good Day.
Sea Lawyer–just in case you check in, excellent first part response at #48. I had not considered the emotional appeal. You are quite right.
Still, the gravamen of the discussion focuses on the “forcing” argument you use and there I think Mustard said what we all know==if every citizen could veto how his tax money was spent, there would be no government. So, beyond the fact that you get taxed, an entitlement to healthcare, should be a safety net social service because simply stated it shows the world what we think of our basic obligations/duties/honor to our fellow citizens. Gee–just like our current approach does?
thanks for you excellent input==just recognize the same from others and we can all learn from one another?
67->
> Asshats like you tend to think “general
> welfare” only means the programs benefiting
> you.
Not necessarily. That is a common misconception by those who think the following:
“Normal people look at this section of the Constitution and understand the general welfare of the country is to improve the country.”
The “General Welfare” clause has “promote” in front of it. “Promote” does not give the federal gov the authority to do whatever it wants to. Wiretapping anyone?
> regulating air traffic, airwaves, etc.
In my opinion, those fall under interstate commerce which the Constitution does indeed give the fed gov the authority to regulate.
You are absolutely correct. There is nothing in the Constitution that talks about those other programs. As such, they are States’ rights, not federal rights.
The Constitution is quite specific in what the federal gov can do. Everything else belongs to the States.
Compassion is when you use YOUR OWN MONEY to help others in need. Using someone else’s money is not compassion, it is theft.
The loudest mouths in government are also the biggest hypocrites. Ted Kennedy? Before I am interested in having him tell me how my tax dollars should be used to pay for every liberal “cause” under the sun, I’d like to see him A) Pull his family’s money out of the off-shore tax dodges; the B) use that money to seed all these important programs. Let me know when he spends down the family fortune on these projects and is living in a tract home in Dorchester. Oh, and C) let me know when he decides to go up to Canada to take advantage of their free healthcare to treat his cancer because it’s just as good and it’s free.
Then, right after that, when he drops all his lawsuits to prevent the alternative energy source windmills near his home, I will DEFINITELY be interested to hear what he has to say about compassion and my money.
#71, Tom,
You are still an idiot. A blind idiot too.
The “General Welfare” clause has “promote” in front of it. “Promote” does not give the federal gov the authority to do whatever it wants to. Wiretapping anyone?
Most reasonable people understand that illegal wiretapping is NOT benefiting the general welfare of the country as a whole. LEGAL wiretapping which reduces crime does.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the government can regulate the air waves?
Where does “Promote” end? Does encouraging a private company to undertake an expensive task do it? How about the Manhattan Project? Should the government have asked various private companies to develop a nuclear weapon during WW II? Should the Pentagon just buy privately constructed aircraft carriers off the shelf? What about other very expensive hardware like the B-2 or F-35?
The government has been undertaking projects for the general welfare of the people almost from the inception of the country. The Cumberland Road, Erie Canal, Transcontinental Railroad, Airports, and Interstate Highway System are just a few examples.
You want examples other than transportation (a State responsibility)? How about rural electrification and telephone programs? Public Universities? Measurement standards? Protection and enforcement of white collar crimes?
Each of these “promoted” the general welfare of the country. The country as a whole and individuals all gained. Hey !!! Guess what !!! The government didn’t just “do what it wants”. It passed a bill in Congress and the President signed it. OUR Congress. With representatives WE elected. That answer to WE the people. Shit !!! In a democracy, that means WE did it.
And McBush is an asshat that doesn’t stand a chance of winning.
#72, Kwadguy,
This thread is about McBush and his bumbling. You effen asshats have a great tendency to try to hijack the conversation away from your embarrassing retarded pick for a President.
Face it. McBush is a fool wasting his money running for the Presidency. Obama is going to beat him so bad it won’t even be funny for the left wing Democrats.
#74 Mr. Gawd Almighty,
And McBush is an asshat that doesn’t stand a chance of winning.
You’re clearly correct on point one. I hope you’re right on point two. It’s certainly optimistic of you to think so.
In general, pessimists are happier people; pessimists are never disappointed; optimists are never pleasantly surprised.
However, in this case, I don’t imagine too many people actually being happy
whenif Diebold elects McBush.#71, Tom,
>You are still an idiot. A blind idiot too.
Wow. I have no response for such an emotional statement.
> Most reasonable people understand that
> illegal
> wiretapping is NOT benefiting the general
> welfare of the country as a whole. LEGAL
> wiretapping which reduces crime does.
Thanks for agreeing with me. This is what happens when the fed gov believes that “promoting the general welfare” means doing whatever they want.
However, I see your confusion in my last statement. I should have said, “illegal wiretapping” instead of just “wiretapping.” You have my apologies.
>Where in the Constitution does it say that the
>government can regulate the air waves?
It has to do with Interstate commerce.
>Where does “Promote” end? Does encouraging a
>private company to undertake an expensive task
>do it? How about the Manhattan Project? Should
>the government have asked various private
>companies to develop a nuclear weapon during
>WW II? Should the Pentagon just buy privately
>constructed aircraft carriers off the shelf?
>What about other very expensive hardware like
>the B-2 or F-35?
These fall under national defense, which is what the fed gov is supposed to do.
>The government has been undertaking projects
>for the general welfare of the people almost
>from the inception of the country. The
>Cumberland Road, Erie Canal, Transcontinental
>Railroad, Airports, and Interstate Highway
>System are just a few examples.
Again, all examples of interstate commerce. Although these do indeed promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have to be, to be under the control of the fed gov as per the Constitution.
>You want examples other than transportation (a >State responsibility)? How about rural
>electrification and telephone programs? Public
>Universities? Measurement standards?
>Protection and enforcement of white collar
>crimes?
Most of these would be under States responsibility. If you have specific examples, I might be able to explain the line a bit more clearly for you.
>>McBush is a fool wasting his money
>>running for the Presidency.
I hate to correct you, your Holiness, but I think he’s wasting CINDY’S money.
I wonder why the masses aren’t lampooning McBush for being a “kept man”, like they did when Kerry tapped into the little lady’s dowry.
78-> On this, we agree. I’ve wondered that, too.