Texas is still at it

Jesus christ, both states and people have rights, this is just becoming a ridiculous strawman argument, anyone with common sense knows the difference between individual rights and state vs federal political rights.

 

Right.

 

or to the people.....I would interpretate that to mean the "People" have the right to petition the government to draft a "Health Care Plan" for this nation. And, in the last presidential election they did just that. The People spoke, and Obama won by a wide margin with the promise to bring health care to America.

End of story.

.

 

That's one interpretation, and I think the "people" may yet have something to say.

 

So if we know the difference, why are people still using that term, given that the difference is that states do not have "rights"? "power"="privilege". There is a huge difference between a right and a privilege. The only reason to use an incorrect term that means something different from the correct one is to try to shift the basis of the discussion. But of course, there is no basis in states rights, because they don't exist.

Individual, when did you say states have rights? when you used the term, a term which is designed to make states privilages sound much broader. If you didn't use it, I apologise, but I know someone was using it earlier in this thread, thought it was you. If the boot fits, wear it, if not, whoever else was talking about "states rights" should be wearing it, of course.

 

And by "people," I assume you mean the minority who lost the election, the same sore losers who yelled "******" at our elected representatives and spat on them; great bunch of guys.

.

 

I simply mean the people who vote, not fictitious characters created to assuage the ignorant.

 

Are you suggesting that my characterization of the anti-health care people (TeaBaggers) is "fictitious?" Video of these actions is likely posted somewhere on line; and, they seem to be proud of this behavior.

The rise of the Tea Party is inversely proportionate to the decline of educational quality.

.

 

/

 

Yes. I've seen some videos of the actions of the TEA party movement, and the anti-health care people and the only improprieties I've seen are the ones that have been exercised by their opponents.

That may be true, considering the number of so-called intellectuals involved in todays government. Beliefs are difficult to teach as people, even with little education, can often tell when they are being taught lies.

 

Better get your keyboard checked.

 

Are you saying that Congressmen shouldn't legislate while black, or liberals shouldn't criticize the TeaBaggers for their despicable behavior? You do realize that spitting on someone is considered an assault by law? Are you condoning assaults on elected officials?

??????

.

 

Here's what I said, posted below this response, once again. Did I mention "black" or "liberals"? I find the use of the word "teabaggers" to be somewhat childish. The so called "spitting" you are implying appears to have later been refuted. I've not seen ANY assaults on elected officials, other than some mild, yet deserved, verbal confrontations.

"I've seen some videos of the actions of the TEA party movement, and the anti-health care people and the only improprieties I've seen are the ones that have been exercised by their opponents."

What is it you don't understand below?
"That may be true, considering the number of so-called intellectuals involved in todays government. Beliefs are difficult to teach as people, even with little education, can often tell when they are being taught lies."

 

Who else are their "opponents?"

So?

Not refuted, just not proved. Do you have a problem saying that these actions are wrong, completely true or not?

How about broken windows, threats, death threats, even threats against family members of Congressmen. Is this OK with you?

Belief is a state of mind, it cannot be taught. Who is teaching lies? This is an ambiguous statement.

.

 

You assume there are no blacks or liberals in the TEA party.

It's your choice if that's how you wish to promote yourself.

I get most of my news from European sources, but it appeared that the person who was said to have been assaulted was the one who refuted it. Perhaps the U.S. media finds reporting that, not to be newsworthy?
Beating of a black man by SEIU members with video, biting the finger off another man, Black Panthers harassing voters at polling stations, etc. You have a problem saying those actions, confirmed true, and not prosecuted, are wrong?

By whom?

Belief CAN be taught. Never taken a Psych course?
Who, would open a can of worms that would only lead to increased argument and anger. Each of us needs use our own judgment in making that determination.

 

Why is it, in America people are so willing to give up their freedoms for a government handout.
The United States Constitution extends to all citizens in the United States those rights given to us by our Creator. This constitution does not say that the government will pay all of our bills, on the contrary.
The 10th amendment gives those rights to the people. Only those government duties extended to the Federal government and then to the States are covered.
Nowhere in the constitution is a bailout promised, health care promised, or even success.
No those areas were given to the people.
All our government exists for, is the protection of the country and the defense in time of war. Nothing more.

 

This is the age of "The world owes me a living."

 

If you want to live in a society you need to work for the betterment of everyone, otherwise you should go live on a farm in the middle of nowhere. The constitution actually provides for the federal government to promote the general health and well being of the people, so I'd say health care is now considered a pretty big part of the well being of the people as is interstate road maintenance, libraries and police.

But so tell me, you keep ignoring answering the question of what freedoms we're giving up.

 

Just where in the he*l do you find that in the Constitution?

 

Actually in the very beginning in the preamble

In the 21st century, adequate health care for everyone I think falls under general welfare just like police and fire departments do.