Universal health insurance

[summasix]

summasix;3849611:

Hmm, maybe you are referring to Article 1, Section 8, which states:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”

That’s what most people go to, anyway-the phrase “General Welfare” can be interpreted in any number of ways. I won’t argue that in the modern day, that people interpret, to the point of abuse, the phrase “general welfare” to mean everything from foodstamps, to childcare benefits, to bus passes, and, yes, universal healthcare.

However, they ignore Ammendment 10, which was written, in part, to curb abuses of Federal authority-

Ammendment 10 states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Given that there is absolutely no reference to healthcare anywhere in the constitution, I would say that all matters of socialized healthcare are, at best, the responsibility of the states, and not of the federal government.

I am not, however, advocating for socialized medicine at the state level, I am simply pointing out that it is definitely not the responsibility of the federal government.

Thank you for stating my position in a much more eloquent manner. The government has the power to regulate interstate medical commerce, but it has no basis to create an organization of its own to provide direct services. The VA is a stretch of its own, and I personally think veterans who use it forget what good care looks like (no offense intended toward VA staff).

I would say that most veterans utilize this system because, although care is not as good, it is extremely inexpensive. Now, if they had to pay extra taxes to subsidize it, I think this would be a different story. Many people think we would be able to afford socialized medicine merely by diverting the money wasted on the current private system. I think when this system is proposed, and they realize they will have to pay oppresive taxes to pay for it, they will think twice about its implementation.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Another common misconception about the Patriot Act.

Have you been shot/wounded in combat? Are you more concerned for my safety than I am?

The White House has made it abundantly clear that they only monitor international calls made to or from the U.S… Wiretapping international phone calls is a common sense approach to frustrating the funnelling of al-Qaeda and other well organized terrorist organizations’ resources into the country. This is in no way an infringement on the People, it is a helpful protection against an immediate and proven danger.

Common sense to who and why are you so paranoid? Proven danger is not enforcing immigration and visa offenses at our borders and airports. Paranoia is proved by a police frisk to get on a plane or enter a government building 6 years after the attacks. Proven danger is sending troops to places we have business sending troops like Lebanon in 1983, Somalia 1993, and if we have our ships in places like Yemen that are closer to those who want to attack us the risk is not likely to be found in a phone call coming to the US. Arogance is proved by giving the rest of the world the finger saying we will do to you what we are technically forbidden to do to ourselves.

EARLIER this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the White House agreed to allow the executive branch to conduct dragnet interceptions of the electronic communications of people in the United States. They also agreed to “immunize” American telephone companies from lawsuits charging that after 9/11 some companies collaborated with the government to violate the Constitution and existing federal law. I am a plaintiff in one of those lawsuits, and I hope Congress thinks carefully before denying me, and millions of other Americans, our day in court.

House passes bill on wiretap powers
The House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a bill overhauling the rules on the government’s wiretapping powers and conferring what amounts to legal immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President George W. Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Constitution specifies in article 2 that the President, as commander in chief, has the responsibility of providing for the common defense. Where in article 1 does the Constitution delegate to Congress the power to create a healthcare system?

Never said it did. Article 1 gives Congress the power to raise an army if war is declared. You can start another thread if you like about the justness of extraordinary Presidential powers and the authority of Congress.

 

[goofyjim]

I’ve never accused you of not working as hard as you can, Jim.

Go back and read your own post to me-#489. You said work harder. That is an assumption that I don’t already work as hard as I can. You only judge the value of a man by the dollars he makes. How ridiculous. There is much more to a value of a man than how little money or how much money he earns. But that value is measured in character and cannot be taxed to make somebody pay more than they can afford.

 

[Caesar517]

I have to agree with you here, Jim. Vern goes off the deep end when he uses only someone’s salary to determine how hard they work and how much they contribute.

 

[summasix]

Have you been shot/wounded in combat? Are you more concerned for my safety than I am?

No. I am disagreeing as to what poses a greater threat to our collective safety.

Common sense to who and why are you so paranoid? Proven danger is not enforcing immigration and visa offenses at our borders and airports.

I agree. But the people resisting the Patriot Act and the people trying to thwart immigration restrictions and provide unwarranted amnesty are one and the same.

Paranoia is proved by a police frisk to get on a plane or enter a government building 6 years after the attacks.

Paranoia is the fear of exaggerated or nonexistent danger. It is not paranoia to assume that the attempted airline liquid bombings could be repeated in similar fashion.

Proven danger is sending troops to places we have business sending troops like Lebanon in 1983, Somalia 1993, and if we have our ships in places like Yemen that are closer to those who want to attack us

The U.S. had the international right to be in both Lebanon and Yemen at the time. As for Somalia, the U.S. committed a very selfless humanitarian effort, and could hardly be faulted for the violent rebuke by a small minority of extremists.

the risk is not likely to be found in a phone call coming to the US.

How do you think Khaled Sheik Muhammed communicated his master plan to take down the Twin Towers to the al-Qaeda cell operating in America all the way from the Middle East, where he was living at the time? Via morse code?

Arogance is proved by giving the rest of the world the finger saying we will do to you what we are technically forbidden to do to ourselves.

I agree, and this makes for inconsistent and often weak foreign policy. But America has crowded company in this regard. And although morally wrong, this doesn’t default our right to defend our citizens from foreign spawned violence.

 

[summasix]

EARLIER this month, the Senate Intelligence Committee and the White House agreed to allow the executive branch to conduct dragnet interceptions of the electronic communications of people in the United States. They also agreed to “immunize” American telephone companies from lawsuits charging that after 9/11 some companies collaborated with the government to violate the Constitution and existing federal law. I am a plaintiff in one of those lawsuits, and I hope Congress thinks carefully before denying me, and millions of other Americans, our day in court.

This is an opinion article, and I don’t know what news event it refers to.

House passes bill on wiretap powers
The House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a bill overhauling the rules on the government’s wiretapping powers and conferring what amounts to legal immunity to the telephone companies that took part in President George W. Bush’s program of eavesdropping without warrants after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

President Bush shouldn’t have to file a seperate request for a search warrant for every number used by al-Qaeda to each number received in the U.S.? Group warrants permit the government more flexibility while still limiting to certain groups. And extending the possible length of surveillance serves the same function. I don’t see how 3 days is Constitutionally ok, but 7 days becomes an infringement on civil liberties.

Meanwhile, suing phone companies for complying with the President in legal executive action has no legal basis outside of the imagination of certain activist judges (rather numerous if you ask me).

Never said it did. Article 1 gives Congress the power to raise an army if war is declared. You can start another thread if you like about the justness of extraordinary Presidential powers and the authority of Congress.

No thanks. I was merely trying to redirect the tangent about the military back to the topic stated in the thread. Unfortunately, you’ve gotten us sidetracked again. Maybe YOU should start a new thread.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Never said it did. Article 1 gives Congress the power to raise an army if war is declared. You can start another thread if you like about the justness of extraordinary Presidential powers and the authority of Congress.

Congress has the power to raise and maintain an army and a navy without any declaration of war.

Most of our wars have been undeclared – beginning with the Whiskey Rebellion duiring the Washington Administration, the Quasi War with France during the Adams Administration, the Wars against the Barbary Pirates in the Jefferson Administration, and on and on.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I have to agree with you here, Jim. Vern goes off the deep end when he uses only someone’s salary to determine how hard they work and how much they contribute.

Do you have another, better measure?

A thing is worth what a willing buyer will offer and a willing seller will accept. Some people have very valuable skills, and hence are offered more for their services – brain surgeons, scientists, engineers and so on are offered more than trash collectors.

Now, if it is easy to gain and use those skills – why doesn’t everybody do it? Why doesn’t everybody become a brain surgeon, scientist or engineer?

Because it’s too hard, of course.

As for contribution – if we’re talking Universal Health Insurance, how will a person “contribute?” With money, of course!

 

[Verisimilitude]

No. I am disagreeing as to what poses a greater threat to our collective safety.

You are being afraid for me. Please stop.

I agree. But the people resisting the Patriot Act and the people trying to thwart immigration restrictions and provide unwarranted amnesty are one and the same.

Not hardly. Many Americans resist the Patriot Act and millions of illegal immigrants thwart the immigration law.

Paranoia is the fear of exaggerated or nonexistent danger. It is not paranoia to assume that the attempted airline liquid bombings could be repeated in similar fashion.

Some idiot tries to light his shoe-bomb on a flight and hundreds of millions of passangers over many years now must take off their shoes, belt, and empty their pockets to fly. It is paranoia to alter our society based upon such fears. To amplify the danger beyond reason is idiocy. These people are not 007 or Maxwell Smart.

The U.S. had the international right to be in both Lebanon and Yemen at the time. As for Somalia, the U.S. committed a very selfless humanitarian effort, and could hardly be faulted for the violent rebuke by a small minority of extremists.

Now they are a small minority? I thought they are the boogey man we must alter our society for. Do you support the UN so telling the US where our combat tropops should be sent and what wars to be fought like Korea and Bosnia? If you want to be a humanitarian there are more effective ways to do it and many more places where it will be welcome. The US has the obligation to protect Americans, not Israelis or Somalis. Americans live in America by and large so our need to be overseas like we dare oesn’t seem to fit the intent of our current foreign policy.

How do you think Khaled Sheik Muhammed communicated his master plan to take down the Twin Towers to the al-Qaeda cell operating in America all the way from the Middle East, where he was living at the time? Via morse code?

According to reports he gave the instructions and training overseas and when the murderers came to the US they had little to no communication back until the mission was executed. We did however know people were learning to fly but not to land planes right here in the US. Since McVie blew up a federal building in OKC shouldn’t we do the same to Americans who might also be plotting harm?

I agree, and this makes for inconsistent and often weak foreign policy. But America has crowded company in this regard. And although morally wrong, this doesn’t default our right to defend our citizens from foreign spawned violence.

Gangs on our southern border are doing harm to America by foreign spawned violence to bring drugs and human smuggeling into America. Foreign gangs are on our local streets are doing the same. Why not send our military there? Why not accpet the moral wrong of Universal Healthcare for the greater good as well?

Such selective reasoning, paranoia and immoral justifications coupled with a foreign policy that is in opposition to the intent of the Founders is the danger to America.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Go back and read your own post to me-#489. You said work harder. That is an assumption that I don’t already work as hard as I can.

You know what happens when you assume?

You only judge the value of a man by the dollars he makes.

No, I don’t – but when the man is demanding someone else pay for his ideas, it’s perfectly fair to challenge that man to work harder and pay his fair share.

How ridiculous. There is much more to a value of a man than how little money or how much money he earns. But that value is measured in character and cannot be taxed to make somebody pay more than they can afford.

If the man had character, he would maximize his potential, now wouldn’t he?

 

[Verisimilitude]

This is an opinion article, and I don’t know what news event it refers to.

It refered to the article just below it. The opinion written a year ago is affected by the recent event noted in the second article- if you bothered to read it:
"With AT&T and other telecommunications companies facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”

“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence on Thursday."

Do you also support denying the planitiffs (th eopinion writer) their day in court? How does that fit with Article 1 or is it ok by you in the name of safety?

President Bush shouldn’t have to file a seperate request for a search warrant for every number used by al-Qaeda to each number received in the U.S.? Group warrants permit the government more flexibility while still limiting to certain groups. And extending the possible length of surveillance serves the same function. I don’t see how 3 days is Constitutionally ok, but 7 days becomes an infringement on civil liberties.

The President should be required to follow the law and being paranoid about one small violent group among the many in the world is irresponsible.

Meanwhile, suing phone companies for complying with the President in legal executive action has no legal basis outside of the imagination of certain activist judges (rather numerous if you ask me).

Please show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch has such legal authority. )(The purpose of the lawsuit that wil lbe dismissed now.) Shall we ask Alberto Gonzales to tell us what the law is- he should know shouldn’t he? Where/why is he now?

No thanks. I was merely trying to redirect the tangent about the military back to the topic stated in the thread. Unfortunately, you’ve gotten us sidetracked again. Maybe YOU should start a new thread.

The topic is healthcare and the subject is the responsibility/authority of government for the greater good of Americans. My position is the federal government has no such authority to give universal healthcare funded by force and similarly they cannot give universal safety funded by force.

 

[summasix]

You are being afraid for me. Please stop.

I have the Constitutional right to protection from foreign forces. I am not afraid, I am wary of threats that threaten not just you, but me and the People. If you don’t want protection, move to the Middle East, don’t try to spite and tie down my rights to self protection.

Not hardly. Many Americans resist the Patriot Act and millions of illegal immigrants thwart the immigration law.

Who is it who is creating sanctionary cities, that ban federal police forces from finding and deporting these immigrants, in clear disregard for the Supremacy Clause? Coincedence or no, the come from the same political party as the people opposing the Patriot Act. So actually, yes I am right.

Some idiot tries to light his shoe-bomb on a flight and hundreds of millions of passangers over many years now must take off their shoes, belt, and empty their pockets to fly. It is paranoia to alter our society based upon such fears. To amplify the danger beyond reason is idiocy. These people are not 007 or Maxwell Smart.

You are reasoning merely from pathos, which tells more about your civil liberties paranoia than my alleged national defense paranoia. If these cautions are not taken, there is a reasonable chance that “some idiot” will attempt the same thing, since it is proven fact there is motivation (hatred of U.S.), means (they have the explosives), and now opportunity (no police checks to stop them). If the threat is not irrational then it is not paranoia to acknowledge it for what it is, instead of putting one’s head in the sand. To amplify the danger beyond reason is idiocy. I am not amplifying the danger beyond reason. And whether they are 007 or not is beside the point, they are smart enough to kill people, and they have shown the ability to create plans to bypass relaxed security.

Now they are a small minority? I thought they are the boogey man we must alter our society for. Do you support the UN so telling the US where our combat tropops should be sent and what wars to be fought like Korea and Bosnia? If you want to be a humanitarian there are more effective ways to do it and many more places where it will be welcome. The US has the obligation to protect Americans, not Israelis or Somalis. Americans live in America by and large so our need to be overseas like we dare oesn’t seem to fit the intent of our current foreign policy.

We are altering our society against them. If we altered it for them, we would do as you suggest and let them just bomb us at will. I don’t feel the U.S. has anymore obligation to the U.N. than any other international organization, since it has no place in our Constitution. And yes there are more effective ways to do it. But just because a handful of extremists protest violently doesn’t mean the starving aid recipients aren’t grateful. And the goal of foreign policy is to protect key interests around the globe. Israel is a key interest. Somalia is a humanitarian recipient.

According to reports he gave the instructions and training overseas and when the murderers came to the US they had little to no communication back until the mission was executed. We did however know people were learning to fly but not to land planes right here in the US. Since McVie blew up a federal building in OKC shouldn’t we do the same to Americans who might also be plotting harm?

Timothy McVeigh lived in the jurisdiction of U.S. police forces, whereas Muhammed did not. Thus we have, theoretically, adequate resources to combat McVeigh but not Muhammed. So wiretapping gives us extended access to check Muhammed’s relative immunity to U.S. criminal justice (pre-war).

Gangs on our southern border are doing harm to America by foreign spawned violence to bring drugs and human smuggeling into America. Foreign gangs are on our local streets are doing the same. Why not send our military there?

Because a certain political party is resisting all efforts to protect our borders. As for gangs, that is the responsibility of our police force. Again, if Bush was permitted to enforce the borders, then the problem would be vastly mitigated, but who says politicians ever listened to reason?

Why not accpet the moral wrong of Universal Healthcare for the greater good as well?

On what basis is Universal Healthcare a moral wrong?

This thread has still been disputing whether or not it would serve the greater good, and the jury is still out. Maybe we should address this, since it is the topic of the thread and we do appear to be in disagreement.

Such selective reasoning, paranoia and immoral justifications coupled with a foreign policy that is in opposition to the intent of the Founders is the danger to America.

What selective reasoning? What justifications and how are they immoral? You stubbornly pursue your illogical accusations of paranoia, which I have already addressed.

The main intent of the Founders with respect to foreign policy was to protect the country’s sovereignty from the UK and France. Right now terrorism threatens national sovereignty right now, and that is why we have passed the Patriot Act.

Besides, everyone knows all patriots support the Patriot Act.:bowdown: :yup:

 

[summasix]

It refered to the article just below it. The opinion written a year ago is affected by the recent event noted in the second article- if you bothered to read it:
"With AT&T and other telecommunications companies facing some 40 lawsuits over their reported participation in the wiretapping program, Republican leaders described this narrow court review on the immunity question as a mere “formality.”

I did read it. You would know that if you bothered to read my response, which addressed every expansion of the Patriot Act and why each was beneficial.

“The lawsuits will be dismissed,” Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the No. 2 Republican in the House, predicted with confidence on Thursday."

Do you also support denying the planitiffs (th eopinion writer) their day in court? How does that fit with Article 1 or is it ok by you in the name of safety?

I think they should have their day in court, as long as the Constitution provides for it. I am saying the phone companies are not inherently responsible for wiretapping, the President is. The tendency to assault business for incidents out of their control is a chronic problem that is both immoral and negatively impacts our economy. Let the situation be legally framed in Congress before we start taking our issues to where they belong, the POTUS.

The President should be required to follow the law and being paranoid about one small violent group among the many in the world is irresponsible.

The President does follow the law. And when the law requires he protect the country, the President obeys. What you fail to understand is that inflammatory rhetoric may work in online forums, but it does not solve the world’s problems.

Please show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch has such legal authority. )(The purpose of the lawsuit that wil lbe dismissed now.) Shall we ask Alberto Gonzales to tell us what the law is- he should know shouldn’t he? Where/why is he now?

Allow me a separate post to address this.

The topic is healthcare and the subject is the responsibility/authority of government for the greater good of Americans. My position is the federal government has no such authority to give universal healthcare funded by force and similarly they cannot give universal safety funded by force.

Your premise is that this country can exist without force, which is not possible. The force of military protects us from foreign threats, and the force of law protects us from domestic ones. How would one achieve safety without force? As for universal healthcare funded by force, I’m not sure what you are addressing? Could you possibly clarify?

 

[summasix]

Please show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch has such legal authority.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The transport and or sale of any weapons or materials used in terrorism across state or national borders may be regulated by the U.S. federal government.

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Murder is a felony, and so is conspiracy to commit murder. The U.S. federal government has the right to punish these offenses.

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The Congress has the power to create laws to enforce regulations of interstate/nation terrorist contraband and to carry out the punishment of those who commit or plan to commit murder from overseas or foreign countries. If wiretapping is necessary and proper to apprehend terrorists, then Congress has the power to directly authorize wiretapping.

Congress also has the power to create agencies for this express purpose (CIA, NSA, etc.).

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices

The President may request the CIA’s recommendations on how to deal with the terrorist threat. And, as CIC, the President has the authority to act on matters deemed necessary by the bureacracy, which derives power from the Legislature.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The president has the authority to appoint cabinet members and various members of the bureacracy. The president does not himself wiretap, it is the bureacracy again who get their power from Congress.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

Here it is that the president has the power to himself authorize wiretapping. The executive order has been defended by the Supreme Court in its proper context, that it does not itself legislate but spur an action that does acts in accordance with the law.

Since international wiretapping has not been banned, the president has full power to issue executive order to institute wiretapping.

The point is moot. Congress has approved wiretapping, so it is now legal and executive order is no longer necessary.

 

[BamaRider]

The archiect of the Canadian Health care system says the system lies in ruins and getting worse, and needs to have more turned over to the private sector to get things done.

This is a system many Americans hold up as the panecea.

No thanks I’m gonna stay with my BCBS.

investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status=article&id=299282509335931

Some text from the above link.

What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.

Since the spring of 2006, Ontario’s government has sent at least 164 patients to New York and Michigan for neurosurgery emergencies — defined by the Globe and Mail newspaper as “broken necks, burst aneurysms and other types of bleeding in or around the brain.” Other provinces have followed Ontario’s example.

Canada isn’t the only country facing a government health care crisis. Britain’s system, once the postwar inspiration for many Western countries, is similarly plagued. Both countries trail the U.S. in five-year cancer survival rates, transplantation outcomes and other measures.

The problem is that government bureaucrats simply can’t centrally plan their way to better health care.

and lastly

However the candidates choose to proceed, Americans should know that one of the founding fathers of Canada’s government-run health care system has turned against his own creation. If Claude Castonguay is abandoning ship, why should Americans bother climbing on board?

Not saying we don’t need to fix the system, but universal health care??

But some here in the USA are bound and determined to stick such a monstrosisty on us. Go figure.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I have the Constitutional right to protection from foreign forces. I am not afraid, I am wary of threats … If you don’t want protection, move to the Middle East, don’t try to spite and tie down my rights to self protection.

Build a bunker in your backyard and a fence around your own property if you like but your wariness is affecting me in a negative way. Again, stop being afraid for me.

Who is it who is creating sanctionary cities, that ban federal police forces from finding and deporting these immigrants, in clear disregard for the Supremacy Clause? Coincedence or no, the come from the same political party as the people opposing the Patriot Act. So actually, yes I am right.

I think you are woefully confused. My sanctuary city for example says they have no authority to police illegals because it is a Federal responsibility to stop them at the border and are forbidden by federal policy from asking things like citizen status when applying for school, loans or a drivers license.

You are reasoning merely from pathos, which tells more about your civil liberties paranoia than my alleged national defense paranoia. If these cautions are not taken, there is a ***reasonable chance ***that “some idiot” will attempt the same thing, since it is proven fact there is motivation (hatred of U.S.), means (they have the explosives), and now opportunity (no police checks to stop them). If the threat is not irrational then it is not paranoia to acknowledge it for what it is, instead of putting one’s head in the sand. To amplify the danger beyond reason is idiocy. I am not amplifying the danger beyond reason. …

It is reasonable to be hit by a car; should we station a federal officer at each street corner? It is reasonable a mugger from Columbia hiding behind your bushes to mug you when you go home at night; should we install lighting at your house to illuminate the danger?

The threat you describe is irrational and beyond reason. Stop it.

We are altering our society against them. If we altered it for them, we would do as you suggest and let them just bomb us at will. I don’t feel the U.S. has anymore obligation to the U.N. than any other international organization, since it has no place in our Constitution. And yes there are more effective ways to do it. But just because a handful of extremists protest violently doesn’t mean the starving aid recipients aren’t grateful. And the goal of foreign policy is to protect key interests around the globe. Israel is a key interest. Somalia is a humanitarian recipient.

Get this: I don’t want or need to alter my society because of your irrational fear. Go down in your bunker and leave me to walk the streets free.

Timothy McVeigh lived in the jurisdiction of U.S. police forces, whereas Muhammed did not. Thus we have, theoretically, adequate resources to combat McVeigh but not Muhammed. So wiretapping gives us extended access to check Muhammed’s relative immunity to U.S. criminal justice (pre-war).

Jeez-louise, you give the finger to 5.9 billion people because of a few dozen or hundred. See hubris and irrational fear.

Because a certain political party is resisting all efforts to protect our borders. As for gangs, that is the responsibility of our police force. Again, if Bush was permitted to enforce the borders, then the problem would be vastly mitigated, but who says politicians ever listened to reason?

Come on…! The President and both politiacal parties are equally to blame. Are you a professional government apologist or just play one on the internet?

On what basis is Universal Healthcare a moral wrong?

If payments are forced/stolen from those who oppose it I say it is immoral. Theft is immoral.

This thread has still been disputing whether or not it would serve the greater good, and the jury is still out. Maybe we should address this, since it is the topic of the thread and we do appear to be in disagreement.

Theft is immoral.

What selective reasoning? What justifications and how are they immoral? You stubbornly pursue your illogical accusations of paranoia, which I have already addressed.

It’s ok to wiretap foreigners but not Americans (unless congress approves as they have). It’s ok to enforce this UN resolution but not that one. It’s ok to steal money from my paycheck to fund the WOT and WOD but not UHC. You didn’t address it you accept it without acknowledging your irrational fear. Do that and I won’t be so stubborn.

The main intent of the Founders with respect to foreign policy was to protect the country’s sovereignty from the UK and France. Right now terrorism threatens national sovereignty right now, and that is why we have passed the Patriot Act.

No, terrorism doesn’t threaten our sovereignty unless you think a bank robber does too. Tens of millions of non-citizens threaten our sovereignty not a whacked out religious group attacking us because we are in their countries fighting them for our alledged national interests. These ‘terrorists’ you irrationaly fear are criminals only.

Besides, everyone knows all patriots support the Patriot Act.:bowdown: :yup:

Mark Twain: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

Theodore Roosevelt said: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president.”

“Patriotism does not oblige us to acquiesce in the destruction of liberty. Patriotism obliges us to question it, at least.” -Wendy Kaminer

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Verisimilitude]

Your premise is that this country can exist without force, which is not possible. The force of military protects us from foreign threats, and the force of law protects us from domestic ones. How would one achieve safety without force?

It can exist, thrive and prosper without offensive force. Iraq is an offensive war. Since when are another nations national resource our national interest? Would you support China claiming uranium in Nevade their national interest with a right to use force to protect it?

As for universal healthcare funded by force, I’m not sure what you are addressing? Could you possibly clarify?

Payroll taxes. Income taxes. The government forces that money from me to fund many things I do not agree with, and they want to take more to fund UHC. If I had to choose one I would fund teh healthcare and not the wars.

 

[summasix]

Build a bunker in your backyard and a fence around your own property if you like but your wariness is affecting me in a negative way. Again, stop being afraid for me.

Wiretapping in no way inconviences me or you, nor does it infringe on our civil liberties, unless you have some mastermind terrorist plan. But please, stop being afraid for me.

I think you are woefully confused. My sanctuary city for example says they have no authority to police illegals because it is a Federal responsibility to stop them at the border and are forbidden by federal policy from asking things like citizen status when applying for school, loans or a drivers license.

You have it backwards. It is city law that forbids federal officers from asking these things. This is Constitutionally invalid, and prevents an essential layer in the defense of illegal immigration. Your city willfully spites the executive due to partisan bitterness.

It is reasonable to be hit by a car; should we station a federal officer at each street corner? It is reasonable a mugger from Columbia hiding behind your bushes to mug you when you go home at night; should we install lighting at your house to illuminate the danger?

These are extreme measures to combat minor threats. Wiretapping is a minor measure to combat a minor threat. A more prudent measure to prevent vehicular homicide is the institution of a driver’s license, or criminalization of a DUI. You should seriously consider the implications of what you say before you say it, otherwise it represents you negatively.

The threat you describe is irrational and beyond reason. Stop it.

Another meaningless expletive of a phrase.

Get this: I don’t want or need to alter my society because of your irrational fear. Go down in your bunker and leave me to walk the streets free.

I heard you the first time. And nobody is restricting your right to walk the streets free. You are losing touch with your own argument.

Jeez-louise, you give the finger to 5.9 billion people because of a few dozen or hundred. See hubris and irrational fear.

Not really. A predictable use of the tritely misplaced middle finger analogy reduces your credibility as an open minded individual. Did we give the world the finger when Pearl Harbor happened? The parallels between Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are quite easy to see, if one takes a second to look.

Come on…! The President and both politiacal parties are equally to blame. Are you a professional government apologist or just play one on the internet?

They are both to blame, but by no means equally deserving. Both sides have made mistakes, just one side tends to make these mistakes a bread and butter part of its party platform.

If payments are forced/stolen from those who oppose it I say it is immoral. Theft is immoral.

Taxes are stolen from those who oppose them. Are taxes immoral? Read John Locke’s theory of social contract.

Theft is immoral.

I’m not deaf, I heard you the first time.

It’s ok to wiretap foreigners but not Americans (unless congress approves as they have). It’s ok to enforce this UN resolution but not that one. It’s ok to steal money from my paycheck to fund the WOT and WOD but not UHC. You didn’t address it you accept it without acknowledging your irrational fear. Do that and I won’t be so stubborn.

I disagree with UHC not because of the principle, but the practical consequences. I think the cons will outnumber the pros. Whereas in the WOT I think the pros outnumber the cons. Trying to combat an ideology that proclaims the destruction of our country I believe will yield positive results in the long term. I am not sure what you mean by WOD. In no way am I paranoid or irrationally fearful. Your close minded commitment to calling me names in clear spite of my logical approach is beginning to irk me.

No, terrorism doesn’t threaten our sovereignty unless you think a bank robber does too. Tens of millions of non-citizens threaten our sovereignty not a whacked out religious group attacking us because we are in their countries fighting them for our alledged national interests. These ‘terrorists’ you irrationaly fear are criminals only.

10,000 terrorists don’t threaten our sovereignty. 10,000,000 terrorists DO threaten our sovereignty. They are a hybrid criminal and militant group that poses a grave threat to the U.S. America has never lost a war against a conventional opponent, but it has yet to defeat a guerrilla force. Iraq has yet to be decided.

Mark Twain: “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.”

Theodore Roosevelt said: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president.”

“Patriotism does not oblige us to acquiesce in the destruction of liberty. Patriotism obliges us to question it, at least.” -Wendy Kaminer

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.” -Theodore Roosevelt

I was hoping that the use of three smileys could convey my sardonic tone. That was supposed to be an olive branch, but instead you throw Twain at me. It’s a war now!:knight2:

 

[summasix]

It can exist, thrive and prosper without offensive force. Iraq is an offensive war. Since when are another nations national resource our national interest? Would you support China claiming uranium in Nevade their national interest with a right to use force to protect it?

You are basing your point off the mistaken premise that Iraq was invaded for oil, a figment of Howard Dean and Ron Paul’s imagination.

Payroll taxes. Income taxes. The government forces that money from me to fund many things I do not agree with, and they want to take more to fund UHC. If I had to choose one I would fund teh healthcare and not the wars.

So you are opposed to taxes? I think your position is becoming clearer now. You disagree with both the WOT and UHC. If so, and regardless, choosing between the two is a false choice. I think taxes are necessary to sustain government as we know it, so long as they are not carried to extremes, as they most often are. We may just agree on something!

 

[Verisimilitude]

You are basing your point off the mistaken premise that Iraq was invaded for oil, a figment of Howard Dean and Ron Paul’s imagination.

…continued elsewhere #1