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 gives We the People the right to select the size of government we needThe Constitution allows us to vote in representatives who may increase or decrease the role of government.I don't know what to tell ya.Civilizations choose? What about individuals? don't they have the right to choose what to do with the fruits of their own labor?
Where in the Constitution are Medicare and Medicaid authorized?
How is that immoral? there is no initiation of force against such people and anybody who chooses can voluntarily provide whatever aid they like to them.
Well then why would government have to use the threat of force against you (or anybody else) to do it? If it's a moral case shouldn't it be easy to persuade most people to do so voluntarily?
If you pay one penny in taxes, then you're being robbed and forced at the point of a gun. The question is who we vote in, and how low they can keep that oppression. I don't know how many people you can convince to vote out health care for the old, poor and needy.
The point of Constitutionally limited government is to protect our rights irrespective of the winds of democracy. Otherwise the minority is completely at the mercy of the majority.
As I said, a healthier populace is good economics. That's my focus, that's my interest. Since I've not yet had a gun held to my head to pay taxes, I can't speak to that.
.
It may be your focus and your interest, but it shouldn't be a goal of government. Citizens aren't the employees of government, and government is not our boss. How healthy and industrious we choose to be is none of the state's business.
If those who want to decrease the role of government want, they can provide the electorate with a better alternative.
I'm open to hearing it.
.
If the US Constitution gives us the right to increase the role of government, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
Sorry ...our society does not function on "willing to contribute"Yes, the word is callous
As in not being willing to contribute to save another Americans life
Willing to contribute <> forced to contribute under penalty of law. Who says we don't help in other ways? You know nothing of me.... I just tire of lefties screeching about helping people when it always involves taking things from everybody else.
Anyway, the ACA is a fucking scam, even the IRS can't get the reporting right... it's a typical government monstrosity aimed at fixing a non-existent problem. What the next? The AFA (Affordable Food Act) mandating we all maintain a government mandated supply of health foods? Hell, it's in all our best interests that we eat healthy, right? The the Affordable Clothing Act? The Affordable Water Act?
It never ends...
Our schools are not funded by those willing to contribute
Our police and fire departments are not paid by those willing to contribute
Our wars are not paid by those willing to contribute
Schools, military and fire departments aren't transfer payments. The assumption is the government isn't entitled to shit.. however, we acknowledge that we need to fight fires, educate children and protect ourselves.
Far cry from forcing me to buy you insurance.
Schools that educate children whose parents don't pay for it, or pay less than others,
are a redistribution of wealth. As are fire departments that serve all in a community equally regardless of how much each household paid towards that department.
Nope, not in all places.
Some villages and towns have a volunteer fire department. You have to pay for fire insurance or otherwise the volunteer fire department will not help you put out your fire. They will only come out to protect your neighbors property or perhaps town property like a woods or public building. It's an option.
Godwin wins AGAIN!It gives We the People the right to select the size of government we needThe Constitution allows us to vote in representatives who may increase or decrease the role of government.
If those who want to decrease the role of government want, they can provide the electorate with a better alternative.
I'm open to hearing it.
.
If the US Constitution gives us the right to increase the role of government, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
No it doesn't. What the federal government is supposed to provide the nation is listed in the Powers of Congress. The US Constitution was designed to limit the power of government--not give the people the power to enlarge it.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of Government. The Constititution is an instrument where We the People established a government to represent us
The Government has broad powers
That's the current consensus. Which is why I see us sliding into full blown fascism with the next big crisis.
Cap Lock does not make a putrid argument validIt gives We the People the right to select the size of government we needThe Constitution allows us to vote in representatives who may increase or decrease the role of government.I don't know what to tell ya.
If you pay one penny in taxes, then you're being robbed and forced at the point of a gun. The question is who we vote in, and how low they can keep that oppression. I don't know how many people you can convince to vote out health care for the old, poor and needy.
The point of Constitutionally limited government is to protect our rights irrespective of the winds of democracy. Otherwise the minority is completely at the mercy of the majority.
As I said, a healthier populace is good economics. That's my focus, that's my interest. Since I've not yet had a gun held to my head to pay taxes, I can't speak to that.
.
It may be your focus and your interest, but it shouldn't be a goal of government. Citizens aren't the employees of government, and government is not our boss. How healthy and industrious we choose to be is none of the state's business.
If those who want to decrease the role of government want, they can provide the electorate with a better alternative.
I'm open to hearing it.
.
If the US Constitution gives us the right to increase the role of government, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
INCORRECT.
THE BERNIES, FASCISTS, SOCIALISTS USE THE POLICE POWERS TO STEAL, LOOT AND PLUNDER, SINCE YOU FUCKERS ARE NOW THE MAJORITY - THE MINORITY HAS NO RIGHTS.
WE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO VIOLENTLY OPPOSE ANY ATTEMPT TO PERPETRATE TREASON AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION, AND ANY ATTEMPT TO STEAL FROM "A" TO SUPPORT "B".
.
It gives We the People the right to select the size of government we needThe Constitution allows us to vote in representatives who may increase or decrease the role of government.
If those who want to decrease the role of government want, they can provide the electorate with a better alternative.
I'm open to hearing it.
.
If the US Constitution gives us the right to increase the role of government, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?
No it doesn't. What the federal government is supposed to provide the nation is listed in the Powers of Congress. The US Constitution was designed to limit the power of government--not give the people the power to enlarge it.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794
The Bill of Rights limits the powers of Government. The Constititution is an instrument where We the People established a government to represent us
The Government has broad powers
It does now thanks to liberal judges who bastardized the US Constitution. But the founders wrote the document to limit the size of government and their involvement in the private lives of people. Do you really believe that if the founders were alive today to witness gay marriage forced upon the states against their will, they would agree with that?
Yes. There are those who will always want everything for free.. Because you are a contributor to the system and not instead a leech is why. No one wants anything for free, but rather just a more righteous and morally run system than it is now.Of course Americans have a right to healthcare
The alternative is......let em die
Where does this end? Everyone needs:
- Food
- Shelter
- Water
- Air
- Love
- Clothing
- Transportation
- Etc., etc.
So they have a right to all of this?
Of course not.. you leftwing nutters crack me up.
Um...most of those they do have a right to
Money can't buy you love
Really? When did this happen? Then why am I still paying for these things if I have a right to them?
Maybe because we chose to sacrifice our lives so that you can continue to vilify us, while we protect your freedoms?Why does the military get free medical care, free room and board, free clothes and so on?
Its just another job and if they are hurt on the job they can sue just like everyone else. It has been a tradition for all these years they get all these freebies and it is time to stop the free loading and assume it's just another job, and most of that job is just training.
Agreed. Corrupt.We have one of the least corrupt governments on earth. Happens everyday when you pay for private insurance you don't use, but you are paying into a pool to get cheaper rates did you know that ? Their are millions who have paid into private insurance carriers, and have nevered used their insurance to the capacity they could have, and when they leave they get nothing in return for it... Now that is robbery Imo.It's only when the government is involved that it becomes a hated thing right ? Ok, but why does the government get involved ? Isn't it because something isn't working, and the people start petitioning their government to check on why it is no longer working ? There was a huge problem developing with insurance rates, fraud in the industry, greed, shady dealings and downright corruption that caused the government to step in, but when it does it begins flushing out the players, and of course those players won't walk away from their candy without a fight.The problem however is that when the feds step in, they use a crisis to go to far instead of just fixing something and getting back out of the way.It sucks paying for something I will never need and use, obamacare is fraudulent at best...
What has more corruption, fraud and shady dealings than federal government programs? Saying the government needs to check the insurance industry is like saying the wolf should check the hen house. Heck, even the VA scandal is only a few years old.
Insurance is an option--Commie Care is not. If you don't want house insurance, you can rent an apartment or buy your house outright with no loan and not insure it. If you don't want to pay auto insurance, then don't drive. My mother nor her parents ever paid a dime into auto insurance. None of them ever drove a car in their lives.
I was listening to the POTUS channel on Serius XM radio this morning. The host was interviewing a Congress critter from Maryland. They were talking about Commie Care when the host asked about all the people that still don't have insurance? The Congressman didn't know what to say but um, er, ah, and so on. In other words, it's a failure. It didn't work. It cost thousands of people their jobs, it caused insurance companies to get the hell out of health insurance business.
Sounds like the American people are not entitled to much of anything. If the people want healthcare they can't have it. Americans did so much before, and now according to some, those options are not longer open. What has changed?
The fact is everyone always had the right to purchase health insurance, furthermore, hospitals never turned a person down, all they had to do was pay for it, however, the issue has evolved into everyone has a right to healthcare provided someone else pays the lions share. In fact insurance companies did have the right to reject applicants due to preexisting conditions, yet there were always policies, be it expensive, that would cover preexisting conditions, and smokers.... Now we are seeing insurance carriers such as Moda, Assurant, Health Net and others that have seen what profits they made evaporate, subsequently exited, sold, or forced into state funded receivership's due to increased number of claims and young people's reluctance to sign up as mandated by the almighty one. After all isn't it the responsibility of government to wipe everyone's ass from cradle to grave?
Give me 8 weeks with them. Fat free and physically fit.Sounds like the American people are not entitled to much of anything. If the people want healthcare they can't have it. Americans did so much before, and now according to some, those options are not longer open. What has changed?
Several generations of crybabies. Their philosophy is that of a four-year-old. "I don' wanna, I Don' Wanna, I DON' WANNA!!!! WAAAAAAAA!"
They don't know what it's like to be old enough to be sent to Nam to die before you're old enough to vote.
They're so picked upon because they don't get to have snowflakes on their Starbucks cups, and they actually have to pay dues to belong to the club known as The Best Damn Country in the World [except Obama].
I'd suggest bringing back the draft, but I suspect most of 'em are too tubby to pass the physical.
. What we've seen lately is a minority using the power of government to Trump the rights of the majority. That is equally damaging and leads to the anti-trust in government today.The whole problem these days is government is no longer trusted, and that is why we see all the blow back on anything that it does or involves itself in.
Exactly. And that's directly related to government overstepping reasonable limitations on its power. That's what I think many liberals miss about democracy. If it doesn't have sane limits, every vote amounts to a life or death battle. That's why there is so little trust, and such a bitter partisan divide. When your opponents can force virtually anything on you via the power of the state, losing to them is unacceptable. When there are dependable limits on government power, it's not such a big deal. There's only so much they can do.
That's what we've lost - the sense that there are sound Constitutional limits protecting us from a majority vote that violates the rights of the minority.
Such a typically liberal reply. These people that if government doesn't provide it, no one will provide it. That attitude alone shows the destructive effect of liberalism.Sounds like the American people are not entitled to much of anything. If the people want healthcare they can't have it. Americans did so much before, and now according to some, those options are not longer open. What has changed?
Such a typically liberal reply. These people that if government doesn't provide it, no one will provide it. That attitude alone shows the destructive effect of liberalism.Sounds like the American people are not entitled to much of anything. If the people want healthcare they can't have it. Americans did so much before, and now according to some, those options are not longer open. What has changed?
You are the only one who has said that people think they were "magically taken care of by" angels, fairies etc. No one else has asserted that, or anything like that.No, it shows the ignorance of those who think that before government programs, people were magically taken care of by...I don't know? Angels? Fairies? It's your narrative. Please tell us.Such a typically liberal reply. These people that if government doesn't provide it, no one will provide it. That attitude alone shows the destructive effect of liberalism.
You are the only one who has said that people think they were "magically taken care of by" angels, fairies etc. No one else has asserted that, or anything like that.No, it shows the ignorance of those who think that before government programs, people were magically taken care of by...I don't know? Angels? Fairies? It's your narrative. Please tell us.Such a typically liberal reply. These people that if government doesn't provide it, no one will provide it. That attitude alone shows the destructive effect of liberalism.
That's their problem.
They aren't my responsibility or yours or the taxpayers of America.
I bet you're a "Christian," aren't you?
Nope. Not religious at all. I'm just a taxpayers who's getting sick and tired of being hosed to take care of other peoples responsibilities.
But I bet you're "pro-life." So explain how a baby is responsible for being born with a heart defect.
(You do know no one's asking you to take them in to live with you, right? Would knowing that help you stop feeling like such a martyr?)
You'd be dead wrong.
I'm pro choice and have no problem with abortion.
And apparently no problem with infants dying of correctable heart defects, as long as you don't have to watch.
Tales made up by the Right and believed by some fools.Americans have a right to receive medical treatment if they become sick
They also should not lose everything they have saved in their lifetime just because they get sick
We are the wealthiest nation on earth. Most other industrialized nations assure that. We should also
Who says they have that right?? You??
Who the hell are you to tell me or anyone else that they have to pay for medical care for someone?
Ask some of the citizens of those countries about those long waits for medical care. I'm sure there are folks in the UK, Europe and Canada that can tell some horror stories about those waits.
