Kerry

[cdbern]

Quote from MRWSM:

Just saw a commercial of Kerry promising every American health care. Has he changed his position on health care? Is he planning a Canadian style health care system or does he have a band aid idea and trying to make himself look good in commercials? I know a lot of people don't like this but with insurance premiums rising faster than Warren Buffets portfolio, it will eventually be richer than all of us. Since the US is already paying more per person than Canada, the US does not need to raise taxes to do this and will actually save money. I think it's the conservative thing to do since costs are going up so fast.

I'm an extreme republican that would consider living through Kerry's weakening of our national defense and his gigolo life style if he would fix the out of control health care system the US has.

Only thing is he already said he would raise taxes so there is no way I would vote for him.

Which side of his face was to the camera? A clue to his position on any given issue is found in which side of his face is showing. If its a straight on shot, he's not going to commit. Take your chances and wait and see.

Think twice about wavering on national defense. A hard line with terrorists is the only approach we can take to keep them from bringing their activities closer to home. The economic crash we are working our way out of resulted from 9/11. What economic stability could we possibly enjoy with a war being fought on the home front.

Prior to WWII, Chamberlain took a passive line with Hitler. Since Chamberlain failed to show any backbone, Hitler regarded him as a worm and marched onward. Churchill took a hard line. War was enviable, but under Churchill's leadership, England prevailed (with help from us of course). History has proven time and again the need to be firm. That is the only language aggressors understand.

Democrats are notorious for raising taxes. Just as they are notorious about throwing money into well intended but failed government programs. Their rationalization is beyond all logic.

And finally, hard at it is, you really don't want socialized medicine. Doctors have been slapped with huge malpractice insurance costs and insurance companies determining what level of care a Dr. can provide by refusing to pay for certain procedures or dramatically reducing the amount they will pay. Add to that the greed of pharmaceutical companies and drug stores. Need drugs, check out a Costco store, no membership is necessary. Or check out Costco online. Much cheaper !!

Take matters into your own hands by following good health habits. Then if you do get sick, seek alternative medicine. Some think alternative medicine is hocus pocus, but it really works. Hubby has placed his health in the hands of MD's and continues to suffer. I go alternative and am in excellent health.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Why should I do anything myself if the government is going to provide for me. That isn’t limiting empowerment?

Again, you are viewing this issue through the lens of capitalism.

A capitalist sees the ultimate motive for doing something as acting on material greed, selfishness, and need for accumulation of wealth beyond basic living.

An argument can be made that a higher level of existence would be doing something for others, serving society over oneself.

Yes, inside the individual. Unfortunately there are more takers than givers. See above.

And with capitalism, the takers will take everything they can weasel out of the givers.

I’m viewing everything through the lens of a Constitutionalist.

Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution is not an economic theory. The rights granted by the constitution, and the structure of government will work with either a pure capitalistic system, or a pure socialist system, but my opinion is that it works best with a system that is a mixture of capitalism and socialism with the emphasis on caring for all members of society equally.

Obviously as a liberal, or one with liberal tendencies, you don’t understand human nature.

Pure nonsense.

People take the path of least resistance. As I said before, necessity is the mother of invention. Remove the need, remove the thrust to take responsibility.

With proper education and inspiration, people seek higher levels of existence than the "human nature" you suggest.

I wager you find greater happiness on the whole with a man who devotes his life to helping others than a greedy bastard who cares for no one but himself.

There is no one single “cause”. However, allowing Socialism to manifest itself in our political and social structure will cause the greater harm.

Pure speculation.

If the Constitution needs to be amended, which it has been, then so be it. But follow what is there. That hasn’t been done. Thats the point I’m making. Everyone wants to add their own meaning or disregard its intent, throwing out every conceivable absurd reason imaginable. Doing so erodes our liberties.

Erodes our liberties?

They didn’t write the Constitution for themselves. The wrote it for every inhabitant of this country. Our job is to preserve it at all costs, for future generations.

Our job is not to preserve the Constitution, but to preserve society. The Constitution serves society, not the other way around.

ART, in addition to making a statement, I was asking you for your opinion. What part needs to change?

Who is saying it needs to change necessarily? I am suggesting that it may need to be interpreted differently as our society grows and evolves.

What you are not understanding is that essentially the constitution serves the values of our society.

If those values change, then the Constitution either needs to change or be interpreted differently.

You may not like the changes in value of our society, I may not like them, but rigidity of the Constitution will not work when values are changing.

This who gay marriage thing is about values, not really about law or the Constitution.

What do we as a society value? Personal freedom? Personal security? A concept of morality based on Christian principles? A concept based on secularism?

My point is that values do change in a society, and if the Constitution will not change with those values, it will not survive the changes.

The concept of Socialism is certainly unconstitutional.

Your opinion only, not a fact, nor a case than can or has been made to overturn the actions by government that you consider "socialistic."

 

[Casey30]

Kerry, may be anti-war....who cares. He served his time and saw what war truly was.

Bush, since he is not anti-war, could we then consider him anti-peace? Sounds appropriate to me.


What one would I chose. Hmmm. Someone who fights for the country yet also stands up for what believes, or someone who sends others off to die for what are found out to be LIES.

 

[ARogueTrader]

What a concept! Someone dare think God does not always take America's side.



Elizabeth Bumiller of the NEW YORK TIMES asked Kerry: "President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side.

"Is God on America's side?"

KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.

 

[cdbern]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Art, go off the deep end painting anti-Socialists as greedy materialistic monsters if you want, its a disservice to your argument. A higher level of existence would be the ultimate. If you want greater social conscience, say so and you'll have tons of support. If you want our country to become a Socialist nation, that's where you'll draw fire. History has shown that Socialists nations fail. Ours has been a Capitalist Nation from the get go, we have prevailed, we share our wealth. Yes there are some who take advantage of their wealth, however they represent a small minority.

Its both frustrating and intriguing that so few people understand the Constitution LIMITS the role of government. That being said, Socialism, as a form of government practice IS UNconstitutional. Whether the government provides enough for its citizens will always be a point of contention. There are those who feel government should be providing more, taxing the wealthy to fulfill that purpose, and there are those such as myself who maintain social services is not the role of government.

And what of those who choose not to get an education or lack motivation. Yet insist the government is negligent by not providing free health care, food stamps, etc. etc. No one can dispute the need to care for those unable to provide for themselves. Not even materialistic greedy capitalists will dispute that. What the materialistic greedy capitalists will tell you is, hey, I worked for what I have, no one handed it to me, that lazy bum can do the same or go without.

The Constitution establishes a parameter within which the government is to function. Without it, what kind of society do you think we'll have? Our society is a product of the Constitution.

ART you keep trying to make the Constitution into something it isn't. Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers? Just how much study have you devoted to our Founding Fathers?
Your argument tells me you really haven't studied them and what they sought to create here.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Your comments tell me you have your point of view, that you are convinced is the "right" point of view.

I don't agree.

Your comments are nothing but opinion, lacking in fact.

Quote from cdbern:

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Art, go off the deep end painting anti-Socialists as greedy materialistic monsters if you want, its a disservice to your argument. A higher level of existence would be the ultimate. If you want greater social conscience, say so and you'll have tons of support. If you want our country to become a Socialist nation, that's where you'll draw fire. History has shown that Socialists nations fail. Ours has been a Capitalist Nation from the get go, we have prevailed, we share our wealth. Yes there are some who take advantage of their wealth, however they represent a small minority.

Its both frustrating and intriguing that so few people understand the Constitution LIMITS the role of government. That being said, Socialism, as a form of government practice IS UNconstitutional. Whether the government provides enough for its citizens will always be a point of contention. There are those who feel government should be providing more, taxing the wealthy to fulfill that purpose, and there are those such as myself who maintain social services is not the role of government.

And what of those who choose not to get an education or lack motivation. Yet insist the government is negligent by not providing free health care, food stamps, etc. etc. No one can dispute the need to care for those unable to provide for themselves. Not even materialistic greedy capitalists will dispute that. What the materialistic greedy capitalists will tell you is, hey, I worked for what I have, no one handed it to me, that lazy bum can do the same or go without.

The Constitution establishes a parameter within which the government is to function. Without it, what kind of society do you think we'll have? Our society is a product of the Constitution.

ART you keep trying to make the Constitution into something it isn't. Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalists papers? Just how much study have you devoted to our Founding Fathers?
Your argument tells me you really haven't studied them and what they sought to create here.

 

[cdbern]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your comments tell me you have your point of view, that you are convinced is the "right" point of view.

I don't agree.

Your comments are nothing but opinion, lacking in fact.

ART its very frustrating to try to carry on a dialogue with someone who hasn't taken the time to study the course material.

Thinking my comments are just my opinion gives full credibility to my assertion you haven't done your homework.

Facts mean nothing to those incapable of understanding even the most basic of thought.

 

[ARogueTrader]

Your comments are fully ad hominem and an attempt to poison the well.

Why don't you make an argument that doesn't depend upon reading what YOU suggest?

Just make an argument based on YOUR understanding.

If you want to quote the Constitution, we could debate what it REALLY means.

Placing yourself as some authority on the Constitution is worthless to me.

A well crafted argument is the authority, the rest is just opinion without an underlying well reasoned argument.

Quote from cdbern:

ART its very frustrating to try to carry on a dialogue with someone who hasn't taken the time to study the course material.

Thinking my comments are just my opinion gives full credibility to my assertion you haven't done your homework.

Facts mean nothing to those incapable of understanding even the most basic of thought.

 

[cdbern]

Quote from ARogueTrader:

Your comments are fully ad hominem and an attempt to poison the well.

Why don't you make an argument that doesn't depend upon reading what YOU suggest?

Just make an argument based on YOUR understanding.

If you want to quote the Constitution, we could debate what it REALLY means.

Placing yourself as some authority on the Constitution is worthless to me.

A well crafted argument is the authority, the rest is just opinion without an underlying well reasoned argument.

ad hominem indeed. An argument based on my understanding without referencing books written on the subject would certainly be ad hominem. As such are your remarks.

Debates without emotion must therefore be based on logic. Logic requires research, research requires reading. You don't want to read, therefore you must want to baffle us with your BS because you certainly can't dazzle us with brilliance.

Come to class prepared. In addition to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, read the following:
Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocoqueville
History of American People
Basic History of the United State (6 volumes)
Story of Civilization (11 volumes)
Tempting of America
Making of America
Development of American Nationality
Books on the following;
Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
George Washington
Abe Lincoln
Winston Churchill

Unless you are willing to do the research, you least of all are equipped to tell anyone what the Constitution REALLY means.

I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but still head and shoulders over you.

 

[rowenwood]

you're wasting your time trying to inculcate logic into ART. He has proven himself to be utterly incapable of logic. Before you become as frustrated as myself and others have become with him, I thought I should warn you.


No matter how much evidence or how good your argument is, ART will never retreat from his myopic position. ART is stubborn.

The best thing I've learned from frequent comunications with ART is the phrase ad hominen. I'm going to begin using it in the next few days.