Bachmann

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Another good one is to claim someone hates the Constituion.

Since the only one who has actually provided any account of what Bachmann did and an actual analysis of it was Scottw with the Andrew Mcarthy article, and since the thread otherwise teeters back and forth on the verge of, as JohnnyD said, pooh pooh, not a little driven there by your insertions, I'll wander into another unrelated thread diversion that you've led us. So, do you like the Constitution? Do you think it is being adhered to and followed faithfully? Do you believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate everything through the Commerce Clause? Do you think the Constitution gives Congress unlimited power to tax? Do you think that various legislations that Congress has passed over the years and have been allowed to stand by SCOTUS as constitutional has given the Federal Government power, if not nearly total, well beyond that which the original Constitution intended and still clearly states? Do you understand that the SCOTUS decision that the HCB was a tax, and therefore constitutional, was such a decision and one that grants fedgov the power to tax beyond what was specifed in the Constitution, and, actually, says the government can tax anything and everybody at will with no limits? Do you believe that all members of the fedgov, including the present President and SCOTUS, have abided by there oath to support and defend the Constitution? Just curious, since you brought up the subject of hating the Constitution, what you think of all this?

[PaulS]

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I believe that you have already said repeatedly that lib. hate the constitution.

soooo...you should be able to provide an example....you don't even have to read it yourself...just post a link, to anything...like Bryan....lots'a stuff tossed about on this page without much to back it up and from the people that always demand...backup

[scottw]

btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican

seems like a pretty balanced article too

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

btw...just clicking on the SLATE article that Bryan posted...the title is "LET HIM DIE " in quotes but if you read the article...it's Wolf Blitzer who was moderating the debate who actually said "let him die", not any republican

seems like a pretty balanced article too

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it. The three options the article presented for someone who could afford it but was uninsured and critically or terminally ill are (1) the mandate, (2) current policy of care to be paid for by the rest of us, and (3) letting him die. For option 2, current policy, the article cites A study (only one study) that says the cost shift amounts to $1,100 per family. It omits another study that found that 80% was actually covered by charities and that the cost shifted to the rest of us was about $80 per family, so the article's assertion that charities could not substantially contribute to the cost is questionable. Option 3, let him die takes the responsibility of the uninsured out of the equation. In typical progressive thinking, society has to solve his problem, not the individual. But there is an option 4. Let the uninsured individual take responsibility for the cost of saving his life. Let him sell assets, take loans, do whatever it costs to pay for it, if saving his life is worth it to him, even if it would mean bakruptcy. This option would be an incentive for those who can afford it to buy insurance. The same would apply to any other expensive thing he thought worth buying. And yes, charities could help those who absolutely are not capable. And yes, various State programs could assist the truly needy. And yes, the Constitution would be spared the further destruction. And the principle of individual freedom from all-powerful government would be a little more preserved.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

On reading the article I could see an attempt at balance, but, to me, it was very heavily slanted toward the mandate as a solution to medical care for the uninsured who can afford it.

I saw an article that took a quote from the moderator(obnoxious by the way) and the supposed reaction of a few in the audience having no idea who they may have been and attempted to use that quote and reaction to characterize the sentiment and stance of the candidates

and further.....

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I’ve never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.


BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.


mission accomplished however

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

Originally Posted by PaulS
Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?



Lordy...Lordy

So Scott, was that exactly my quote or did you selectively edit it? You also seemed to have edited out the following which implies that there was no audience response (but left in the other times where the audience responded) (Quoted from ABC news):

After a pause, Blitzer followed up by asking “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted “Yeah!”

Here is my quote - Don't know but wasn't it asked at a Repub. rally what should happen if someone was dying with no insurance and someone yelled "let him die" and the whole crowd started cheering? Lordy Lordy, where have all the compassionate cons. gone?

So when I posted the statement, I qualified it by saying "Don't know, but" - which means I was unsure of the exact statement. It turns that it did happen - with the mod. saying "let him die?" and some in the audience saying "Yeah" instead of the cheering that I said. So the bottom line is that you have some in the audience who were happy w/the statement "let him die".

Scott, you sometimes remind me of a gnat.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by scottw

soooo...you should be able to provide an example....you don't even have to read it yourself...just post a link, to anything...like Bryan....lots'a stuff tossed about on this page without much to back it up and from the people that always demand...backup

He would prob. agree that he has insinuated that a few times. Admittedly, he prob. would say that about some of the Cons. also.

I enjoy his posts, very well written as he puts a lot of thought into them. Very knowledgeable about the Const. I think the tone of this forum has worn him down recently.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He would prob. agree that he has insinuated that a few times. Admittedly, he prob. would say that about some of the Cons. also.

I enjoy his posts, very well written as he puts a lot of thought into them. Very knowledgeable about the Const. I think the tone of this forum has worn him down recently.

Glad you changed from I "have said repeatedly" that libs hate the Constititution to I have "insinuated that a few times." I know that I have said, not insinuated, that the original progressives of the late nineteenth to early twentieth centuries despised the Constitution. And I provided their own words to demonstrate that assertion. And, yes, I did point out that Republicans were among the first progressives.

I don't equate Republican with today's "conservatives." Nor do I equate all those who are called liberal to "progressive." Most of today's conservatives are Republican or Libertarian, though many Republicans are somewhat progressive. I believe there is a divide between most of those who vote Democrat and the core of todays Democrat party. I believe that core is politically "progressive" and that most of its voters are not aware of that progressive nature or even what it is.

I don't think that most Democrat voters are aware of the progressive destruction of the Constitution. I believe they are mostly, as most Americans are, constitutionally illiterate and accept Democrat policies to be constitutional. That's why I asked you, very sincerely, what you thought on the matter. I am curious if you think that the Constitution has been, essentially destroyed, and if you do, if it matters.