Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's not more important that any other group and I'm not saying they're not Americans. In fact, I'm saying the flaws you see in that subset of these surveys is highly representative of the great flaw. I was just using it to illustrate why the polling we're talking about has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
As for your questions about the Founders, you're making my argument for me. You have a set of beliefs, and you assume the Framers share them. That's a necessity of conservative thinking though. Everything has to define as inside the camp, or otherwise you're the alien other.
Inalienable rights are rights which are not dependent on society. They're not based on laws and customs. They're based on our shared bond: humanity. The debate isn't over the existence of these rights. The United States, along with all other developed nations, agree on a common framework of fundamental rights. Speech, religion, free assembly, fair trials (just to name a few). The debate is over the nature of these things. What are the lines? That's a question we have to answer. No freedom is without limit (you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't fully practice a religion which requires human sacrifice). The debate is over what these limits are. Saying "Well, the limits are whatever the Founders would have made them" is dishonest. We simply don't know the answer, and even if we did, that wouldn't make it the right one.
It's not more important that any other group and I'm not saying they're not Americans. In fact, I'm saying the flaws you see in that subset of these surveys is highly representative of the great flaw. I was just using it to illustrate why the polling we're talking about has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
As for your questions about the Founders, you're making my argument for me. You have a set of beliefs, and you assume the Framers share them. That's a necessity of conservative thinking though. Everything has to define as inside the camp, or otherwise you're the alien other.
Inalienable rights are rights which are not dependent on society. They're not based on laws and customs. They're based on our shared bond: humanity. The debate isn't over the existence of these rights. The United States, along with all other developed nations, agree on a common framework of fundamental rights. Speech, religion, free assembly, fair trials (just to name a few). The debate is over the nature of these things. What are the lines? That's a question we have to answer. No freedom is without limit (you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't fully practice a religion which requires human sacrifice). The debate is over what these limits are. Saying "Well, the limits are whatever the Founders would have made them" is dishonest. We simply don't know the answer, and even if we did, that wouldn't make it the right one.
In a nutshell, the Founders defined unalienable rights as those that are God given and that government shall hold inviolate. Unalienable rights are whatever a person thinks, dreams, wishes, wants, hopes for, or acts out that requires no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person other than his/her non interference.
Conservatives have no problem at all seeing that a government that requires people to purchase or acquire health insurance that they do not want under threat of penalty from that same government, violates every principle of unalienable rights.
It's not more important that any other group and I'm not saying they're not Americans. In fact, I'm saying the flaws you see in that subset of these surveys is highly representative of the great flaw. I was just using it to illustrate why the polling we're talking about has to be taken with a huge grain of salt.
As for your questions about the Founders, you're making my argument for me. You have a set of beliefs, and you assume the Framers share them. That's a necessity of conservative thinking though. Everything has to define as inside the camp, or otherwise you're the alien other.
Inalienable rights are rights which are not dependent on society. They're not based on laws and customs. They're based on our shared bond: humanity. The debate isn't over the existence of these rights. The United States, along with all other developed nations, agree on a common framework of fundamental rights. Speech, religion, free assembly, fair trials (just to name a few). The debate is over the nature of these things. What are the lines? That's a question we have to answer. No freedom is without limit (you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't fully practice a religion which requires human sacrifice). The debate is over what these limits are. Saying "Well, the limits are whatever the Founders would have made them" is dishonest. We simply don't know the answer, and even if we did, that wouldn't make it the right one.
In a nutshell, the Founders defined unalienable rights as those that are God given and that government shall hold inviolate. Unalienable rights are whatever a person thinks, dreams, wishes, wants, hopes for, or acts out that requires no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person other than his/her non interference.
Conservatives have no problem at all seeing that a government that requires people to purchase or acquire health insurance that they do not want under threat of penalty from that same government, violates every principle of unalienable rights.
Then why were conservatives promoting an individual mandate in a very prominent as recently as 2003?
In a nutshell, the Founders defined unalienable rights as those that are God given and that government shall hold inviolate. Unalienable rights are whatever a person thinks, dreams, wishes, wants, hopes for, or acts out that requires no contribution, voluntary or involuntary, from any other person other than his/her non interference.
Conservatives have no problem at all seeing that a government that requires people to purchase or acquire health insurance that they do not want under threat of penalty from that same government, violates every principle of unalienable rights.
Then why were conservatives promoting an individual mandate in a very prominent as recently as 2003?
A very prominent what?
Then why were conservatives promoting an individual mandate in a very prominent as recently as 2003?
A very prominent what?
Way. A very prominent way. I went back to change the sentence and didn't finish the thought.
A very prominent what?
Way. A very prominent way. I went back to change the sentence and didn't finish the thought.
But what mandate are we talking about?
Way. A very prominent way. I went back to change the sentence and didn't finish the thought.
But what mandate are we talking about?
The individual mandate. The quick term for "requires people to purchase or acquire health insurance".
The Bill is now law.
Does the GOP have the balls to tell 40 million Americans that they want to take away their healthcare? Do they want to throw people back into the uninsured?
Go for it GOP...Run in 2010 telling people you want to take away their healthcare
The Bill is now law.
Does the GOP have the balls to tell 40 million Americans that they want to take away their healthcare? Do they want to throw people back into the uninsured?
Go for it GOP...Run in 2010 telling people you want to take away their healthcare
i love the way this number is allways different....it has ranged from 20 million to as high as 48 million....are Illegals without Ins. a part of this number?....just askin....
I am unaware of any conservatives who proposed such a thing. But then anybody who would propose such a thing would not be conservative.
Then why aren't you paying attention to them?I think trying to project how people would have felt about things 300 years removed from their own time is a fools errand.
Congratulations. You've just dismissed the entire Constitution.
No, because the Constitution is a written document. You don't need astral projection to the 1700s to read it, because the words are still written down.
I'll be sure to tell everyone I meet that some anonymous internet leftist knows more about what they need than they do.Ahhh, but that does infringe on my rights. I have to purchase something I may not want to...or face a penalty from the government. I would call that "unreasonable search and seizure".The majority acting within in the framework of a Constitutional Republic, the laws of which in this matter do not infringe on your inalienable rights. In other words, daveman, you are not an island alone.
As for the majority, obviously you haven't seen the polls lately. More Americans want this POS law repealed than want to keep it. Are you ready to accede to their wishes?
Come on Dave....get to the point wher you presently have insurance anyway
Like most Americans who whine about "having" to buy insurance
No... I didn't vote in it because I did not think it was a legitimate poll.
The Healthcare Bill is here. It won't be repealed now and it will not be repealed while a Democrat is President. So you are looking at at least six years before you can hope to repeal.
Fact is we need healthcare reform. The bill that was passed did not do nearly enough to fix our healthcare problems.......but it was a start
Still remaining:
A legitimate public option to gain insurance
Significant reductions in costs
Increased competition
Reduction in overhead (management, billing, advertising, lobbying)
That's probably because conservatives haven't really made any arguments beyond "I don't like it, therefore it's unconstitutional".
Obama said everything was going to be fine, so you STFU.No... I didn't vote in it because I did not think it was a legitimate poll.
The Healthcare Bill is here. It won't be repealed now and it will not be repealed while a Democrat is President. So you are looking at at least six years before you can hope to repeal.
Fact is we need healthcare reform. The bill that was passed did not do nearly enough to fix our healthcare problems.......but it was a start
Still remaining:
A legitimate public option to gain insurance
Significant reductions in costs
Increased competition
Reduction in overhead (management, billing, advertising, lobbying)
yes....we need reform Rw,badly....but all this week while reading the morning paper i have seen 3-4 articles by 3-4 different entities including a federal Govt one who are ALL saying this bill is going to make EVERYONE pay more AND it wont reduce the costs of nothing....so what the hell?....am i supposed to feel good about this thing after seeing this?....
The Bill is now law.
Does the GOP have the balls to tell 40 million Americans that they want to take away their healthcare? Do they want to throw people back into the uninsured?
Go for it GOP...Run in 2010 telling people you want to take away their healthcare
i love the way this number is allways different....it has ranged from 20 million to as high as 48 million....are Illegals without Ins. a part of this number?....just askin....
No... I didn't vote in it because I did not think it was a legitimate poll.
The Healthcare Bill is here. It won't be repealed now and it will not be repealed while a Democrat is President. So you are looking at at least six years before you can hope to repeal.
Fact is we need healthcare reform. The bill that was passed did not do nearly enough to fix our healthcare problems.......but it was a start
Still remaining:
A legitimate public option to gain insurance
Significant reductions in costs
Increased competition
Reduction in overhead (management, billing, advertising, lobbying)
yes....we need reform Rw,badly....but all this week while reading the morning paper i have seen 3-4 articles by 3-4 different entities including a federal Govt one who are ALL saying this bill is going to make EVERYONE pay more AND it wont reduce the costs of nothing....so what the hell?....am i supposed to feel good about this thing after seeing this?....
