Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: SAMSON123 on December 29, 2009, 10:55:33 AM
-
-
I saw that clip.
The leftists cant grasp this in their desire to have everything declared a right. Right to health care, right to food, right to housing, right to my cash, etc.
-
he is spot on, healthcare is not a right, it costs, just like a pair of shoes. and if you want a pair of shoes you get a freakin job and you pay for the shoes, you want healthcare get off your dead asses , go to work and pay for it, instead of waiting on others to pay for it for you. i dont see how a grown male can call himself a man that refuses to work for anything he wants
this is exactly right, you have a RIGHT to work, you do not have a RIGHT to expect others to work to support you....
-
I do realise that his argument is too simplistic, but how in that rant does he not realise that he's advocating turning needy people away from hospitals?
Yeah, that doesn't go against humanity..
-
I do realise that his argument is too simplistic, but how in that rant does he not realise that he's advocating turning needy people away from hospitals?
Yeah, that doesn't go against humanity..
Again - this is so over your head you dont realize it.
Do you have a right to a house? A right to food? A right to a car?
-
Again - this is so over your head you dont realize it.
Do you have a right to a house? A right to food? A right to a car?
hey shit head, do you realise how many people are unable to afford healthcare even though they work multiple jobs?
I do know I'm not the most informed person on this, but then again I posed a simple question. You're acting like a straight dick.
-
hey shit head, do you realise how many people are unable to afford healthcare even though they work multiple jobs?
I do know I'm not the most informed person on this, but then again I posed a simple question. You're acting like a straight dick.
I bust my ass but cant afford a decent house in Westchester County, N.Y.. Should the government take money out of your paycheck so that I can have a house where I want?
-
thats why people USED to migrate to america, because of the chance to EARN wages, now people migrate here knowing they will get handouts, and if they dont their is a victim role they can play and intern get special treatment, or the people that are already here that refuse to work and EARN wages know that they will be taken care of, and they are so used to it now that they think its a god givin right
u're taking a small segment of the population to represent a far larger statistic: are you saying that of all the tens of millions of people currently uninsured are illegals?
I bust my ass but cant afford a decent house in Westchester County, N.Y.. Should the government take money out of your paycheck so that I can have a house where I want?
I honestly don't see the parallel. Wants and needs.
-
u're taking a small segment of the population to represent a far larger statistic: are you saying that of all the tens of millions of people currently uninsured are illegals?
I honestly don't see the parallel. Wants and needs.
Shelter isnt a need? What about food? Should that be a right too?
Should the govt buy me a gun since I have a second amendment right to gun ownership?
-
no i am saying that if someone in america who is legal wants it and is realy able to work to get a dam job and pay for it, and that illegals shouldnt be able to get jobs and be deported cause they drive down the wages which is why americans are working 2 and 3 jobs and still cant afford healthcare
I don't think anybody can disagree with that. Wages need to go up so people can afford healthcare, and the illegal problem is definitely connected to all of this. Then again, who ever talks about the real problems?
-
He makes a compelling argument, but like Haider says, ...it's an all too simplistic one.
Take the altruistic humanitarian aspects out of it and simply look at the pragmatic and selfish look at it.
As a Canadian, the concept of people living in a prosperous civilized society and not having healthcare is anethema to me, but aside from that... forget altruism, and look at practicality.
Many of the same people screaming about universal healthcare and the prospect of sharing the costs, have never had a fire in their home, but they are paying for fire departments to put out fires in the homes of their neighbours. Why is that? ...so that when their neighbours house catches fire, ...it doesn't spread to their own.
Universal Healthcare is really no different. I don't want to be catching deadly tuberculosis or other preventable and treatable deadly communicable diseases, because someone didn't have access to healthcare.
The people who scream about not wanting to pay for someone elses healthcare don't seem to fathom that that is EXACTLY what they are doing right now, ...except they are paying through the nose.
It's the same with the police. People share the cost for law enforcement. They pay for police to lock up criminals and put away bad guys. Whether they've needed the police themselves is irrelevant. you pay to have the bad guys locked up, so they'll be off the streets and not breaking into your homes. If one does, the police are there for when you need them. Until you do... they are there for your neighbours. It's no different.
As a concept, I am firmly on the side of universal healthcare. How your country goes about implementing it... well that's another story. Your system as it stands is unsustainable and is a train wreck waiting to happen.
-
I don't think anybody can disagree with that. Wages need to go up so people can afford healthcare, and the illegal problem is definitely connected to all of this. Then again, who ever talks about the real problems?
Wrong 1000%. Health care is so expensive mostly due to govt intervention in the first place.
-
Wrong 1000%. Health care is so expensive mostly due to govt intervention in the first place.
I think insurance company greed has a lot more to do with it. ;)
-
Shelter isnt a need? What about food? Should that be a right too?
Should the govt buy me a gun since I have a second amendment right to gun ownership?
shelter is a need, not a decent house in Westchester County, N.Y ;)
I'm just saying there's alwasy going to be a small segment of the population that is going to need help. I don't care about the right/goods debate; denying people hospital visitation seems unusually cruel and inhumane.
-
Health care is not a right but money for war is? Not one of you complained about going to war in Iraq, Afghan, And now talk of Yemen for national security. That is all well and good but what exactly is there to defend if more people are dying in America through lack of insurance than any 'terrorist' threat ever?
You're all for going to kill OBL (i am too) but that takes priority over citizens of America dying every year in greater numbers than anything he's ever done to us? Really? This is your logic? Lets spend money killing foreigners and let Americans die rather than spend money on Americans to live.
-
Health care is not a right but money for war is? Not one of you complained about going to war in Iraq, Afghan, And now talk of Yemen for national security. That is all well and good but what exactly is there to defend if more people are dying in America through lack of insurance than any 'terrorist' threat ever?
You're all for going to kill OBL (i am too) but that takes priority over citizens of America dying every year in greater numbers than anything he's ever done to us? Really? This is your logic? Lets spend money killing foreigners and let Americans die rather than spend money on Americans to live.
It would seem to be 'The American Way' :-\
The challenge is that when your only tool is a hammer, ...everything starts looking like a nail.
-
He makes a compelling argument, but like Haider says, ...it's an all too simplistic one.
Take the altruistic humanitarian aspects out of it and simply look at the pragmatic and selfish look at it.
As a Canadian, the concept of people living in a prosperous civilized society and not having healthcare is anethema to me, but aside from that... forget altruism, and look at practicality.
Many of the same people screaming about universal healthcare and the prospect of sharing the costs, have never had a fire in their home, but they are paying for fire departments to put out fires in the homes of their neighbours. Why is that? ...so that when their neighbours house catches fire, ...it doesn't spread to their own.
Universal Healthcare is really no different. I don't want to be catching deadly tuberculosis or other preventable and treatable deadly communicable diseases, because someone didn't have access to healthcare.
The people who scream about not wanting to pay for someone elses healthcare don't seem to fathom that that is EXACTLY what they are doing right now, ...except they are paying through the nose.
It's the same with the police. People share the cost for law enforcement. They pay for police to lock up criminals and put away bad guys. Whether they've needed the police themselves is irrelevant. you pay to have the bad guys locked up, so they'll be off the streets and not breaking into your homes. If one does, the police are there for when you need them. Until you do... they are there for your neighbours. It's no different.
As a concept, I am firmly on the side of universal healthcare. How your country goes about implementing it... well that's another story. Your system as it stands is unsustainable and is a train wreck waiting to happen.
Your analogy is dead wrong Jag.
You dont have a right to the fireman showing up to your house to put out the fire. If your house goes on fire, and the fireman dont do anything, you cant sue the govt for negligence.
Our rights descend from the Constitution and natural rights from God. Our rights is one of negative liberties in that it is what the govt CANT do to you, not what it has to do on your behalf.
Only people completely ignorant of our legal system, history, founding documents believe health care is a right.
-
Health care is not a right but money for war is? Not one of you complained about going to war in Iraq, Afghan, And now talk of Yemen for national security. That is all well and good but what exactly is there to defend if more people are dying in America through lack of insurance than any 'terrorist' threat ever?
You're all for going to kill OBL (i am too) but that takes priority over citizens of America dying every year in greater numbers than anything he's ever done to us? Really? This is your logic? Lets spend money killing foreigners and let Americans die rather than spend money on Americans to live.
Under the constitution, the govt has the power to raise money for national defense, not health care. Show me where in the constitution you have an individual right to others paying for your health care.
-
Under the constitution, the govt has the power to raise money for national defense, not health care. Show me where in the constitution you have an individual right to others paying for your health care.
Show me where a constitution can not be amended or changed to fit the will of the people?
-
Show me where a constitution can not be amended or changed to fit the will of the people?
Fine go get 2/3 of both chambers and 75% of the state legislatures if you want a constitutional right to health care.
-
yes i would like to see in the constitution , the declaration of indepenance or the bill of rights here in AMERICA where is proclaims healthcare a right..
Ah but you did not read what i said did you? I said show me where it can not be amended.
Besides it could well be said that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are heath care related. If you are sick and can not afford health care you die so there goes life a basic right which could have been extended had you had health care. You aren't exactly happy are you if you die or are sick and unable to get health care to treat what ails you. It's all interpretation. As in the right to bear arms. I could say well it's my right to have actual bear arms couldn't i? I mean it's an interpretation.
-
Ah but you did not read what i said did you? I said show me where it can not be amended.
Besides it could well be said that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are heath care related. If you are sick and can not afford health care you die so there goes life a basic right which could have been extended had you had health care. You aren't exactly happy are you if you die or are sick and unable to get health care to treat what ails you. It's all interpretation. As in the right to bear arms. I could say well it's my right to have actual bear arms couldn't i? I mean it's an interpretation.
Oh I think the grizzly might have an issue there, ...and I don't think PETA would be all too happy either. :P
-
it says in the bible he who shall not work shall not eat, same applies if you dont want to work for things why should you get if for free? as much as some of you hate it, AMERICA, the consitution, bill of rights , and the founding fathers all came about around the christian system of beliefs as much as some of you wish it wasnt or dont like it that is how it is.
Oh crap... here we go again. ::)
I can't stand these johnny come lately's to this board who want to throw in old rehashed over arguments.
-
Oh crap... here we go again. ::)
I can't stand these johnny come lately's to this board who want to throw in old rehashed over arguments.
The founders set up a system that grants FREEDOM & LIBERTY to the citizens from govt abuse. The thought was that if the govt can grant you rights, it can also take them away.
Hence, we have a system specifically devised to control and check the govt from abuse.
Of course ofver time we have turned that concept on his head drastically, but that is and was the intention.
-
well k.c. at some point common sense has to dictate interpritation and it is at that point the people with common sense are seperated from those who dont
How about spell check? Can we separate the people on these boards who use it, from those who don't?
I swear you guys are giving me a headache from trying to figure out some of the mess you write.
<rant>ENGLISH MUTHA**CKER, LEARN IT!!! </rant>
ps: ...and learn to quote while you're at it. ;)
-
thats about the response i expected when someone like you jag reads something they cant refute ,
Oh but I have refuted it... many times, ...and quite soundly too.
Had you been posting here long enough, ...you would already know that. ;)
-
it says in the bible he who shall not work shall not eat, same applies if you dont want to work for things why should you get if for free? as much as some of you hate it, AMERICA, the consitution, bill of rights , and the founding fathers all came about around the christian system of beliefs as much as some of you wish it wasnt or dont like it that is how it is.
Really? You don't seem to know history too well. Ask Adonis to post on this. He'll show you the way. Church and state are separate and should always stay that way.
-
There is no right to healthcare. If we do it, we do it for humanitarian reasons. And, like any privilege, if you abuse it, it should be taken away. Those scamming the system should not be entitled to its use.
I don't get giving out all the foreign aid that we've given out yet refusing to help our fellow countrymen. It just doesn't make sense to me that we would try and take care of others before helping our own.
It sickens me to see a family have to file for bankruptcy because they were trying to care for a sick child.
That said, this current reform is not going to fix healthcare. IMO, things will be worse, much worse. I envision Barry 30 years from now sitting in a chair telling the interviewer, "Well, our intentions were good". And, we all know about the road to hell.
-
Ah but you did not read what i said did you? I said show me where it can not be amended.
Besides it could well be said that 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' are heath care related. If you are sick and can not afford health care you die so there goes life a basic right which could have been extended had you had health care. You aren't exactly happy are you if you die or are sick and unable to get health care to treat what ails you. It's all interpretation. As in the right to bear arms. I could say well it's my right to have actual bear arms couldn't i? I mean it's an interpretation.
LOL this is the problem you interpret the constitution with a non biased eye, you could interpret it anyway you want
I dont have a 62 inch flat screen HDTV hanging on my wall so my pursuit so im not happy Ill expect you to buy me one though KC, when can you have the check in the mail?
::)
The constitution is the constitution is the constitution the shit doesnt change from one day to the next or with political whims.
-
As a concept, I am firmly on the side of universal healthcare. How your country goes about implementing it... well that's another story. Your system as it stands is unsustainable and is a train wreck waiting to happen.
Serious question jag do you think this bill will help or hurt our current system?
-
There have been Supreme Court cases arguing similar issues. Plaintiffs arguing about expanding the bundle of fundamental rights included in the constitution to include a right to education, food, shelter etc.---
These are not fundamental rights and will never be fundamental rights. Forget about the slippery slope argument ( i.e. adding the right to have a college education, wireless internet, sex, recreational drugs all the way down until the concept of "fundamental rights" becomes utterly meaningless), from a legal standpoint adding these things are impossible. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and make judgements accordingly. Congress can never infer or legislate beyond the bounds of what the text of the constitution explicitly states. And who decides what the constitution says? The Supreme Court.
So from that standpoint, you would need two thirds of both houses and 75% of all state legislatures-- or its impossible.
So, for obvious reasons, amending the constitution is pretty much impossible from a logistical standpoint. Second of all, making these kinds of amendments will force the country to become communist, destroy our standard of living and pretty much make America inhabitable.
What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.
-
What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.
I truly believe this is one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives.
Liberals feel the govt should put them on the same level as others instead of providing a level playing field to all.
Conservatives feel the govt should provide a level playing field and you do with it what you do with it.
-
There have been Supreme Court cases arguing similar issues. Plaintiffs arguing about expanding the bundle of fundamental rights included in the constitution to include a right to education, food, shelter etc.---
These are not fundamental rights and will never be fundamental rights. Forget about the slippery slope argument ( i.e. adding the right to have a college education, wireless internet, sex, recreational drugs all the way down until the concept of "fundamental rights" becomes utterly meaningless), from a legal standpoint adding these things are impossible. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and make judgements accordingly. Congress can never infer or legislate beyond the bounds of what the text of the constitution explicitly states. And who decides what the constitution says? The Supreme Court.
So from that standpoint, you would need two thirds of both houses and 75% of all state legislatures-- or its impossible.
So, for obvious reasons, amending the constitution is pretty much impossible from a logistical standpoint. Second of all, making these kinds of amendments will force the country to become communist, destroy our standard of living and pretty much make America inhabitable.
What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.
Good post as always. Most people crying for health care as a right have zero clue about the constitution and the concept of negative liberties.
-
once again jag more typical response after you read something you cant refute, attack my spelling , lol well sorry i dont have time to go through and wait on the dam spell check window to pop up i have many other things going on seeing as i am at work so i can pay my own way and not depend on the government
If you don't have time to wait on spell check, ...then stay off the damn computer til you learn to spell. >:(
-
i was using that as a metaphor k.c not trying to imply that the church and state are not separate, however the very basic fundamentals of our constitution revolve are Christian believes, and nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does is say that healthcare or any other government funded program i.e. welfare Medicaid medicare is a right, do you see the metaphor now? and jag i hope it warms your butthole to know that i spell checked this just for you
Thank You. :)
...now, if only you could learn to use the quote function, ...it might even warm up my vajayjay. :D
-
There is no right to healthcare. If we do it, we do it for humanitarian reasons. And, like any privilege, if you abuse it, it should be taken away. Those scamming the system should not be entitled to its use.
OK, this is the part I don't get... how does one abuse healthcare? Outside of numerous and far too frequent visits to the gynecologist for thorough extensive bi-manuals, ...or in the case of some of the guys here... frequent prostate exams, ...how does one abuse healthcare? The only abuse of healthcare is by the doctors themselves who order unecessary tests or who bill for procedures and tests never performed.
I don't get giving out all the foreign aid that we've given out yet refusing to help our fellow countrymen. It just doesn't make sense to me that we would try and take care of others before helping our own.
It sickens me to see a family have to file for bankruptcy because they were trying to care for a sick child.
That said, this current reform is not going to fix healthcare. IMO, things will be worse, much worse. I envision Barry 30 years from now sitting in a chair telling the interviewer, "Well, our intentions were good". And, we all know about the road to hell.
I hear ya skip. {sigh}
-
LOL this is the problem you interpret the constitution with a non biased eye, you could interpret it anyway you want
I dont have a 62 inch flat screen HDTV hanging on my wall so my pursuit so im not happy Ill expect you to buy me one though KC, when can you have the check in the mail?
::)
The constitution is the constitution is the constitution the shit doesnt change from one day to the next or with political whims.
Spoken like a man who clearly was asleep during the Bush years. ::)
-
Serious question jag do you think this bill will help or hurt our current system?
From what I've gathered so far, there are aspects that will improve the system, ...and otherr aspects that are questionable at best. I do believe that reform is the way to go, however as Olbermann has stated, there is a very small tiny space between compromiseS & compromiseD. Check your keyboard. :D
-
There have been Supreme Court cases arguing similar issues. Plaintiffs arguing about expanding the bundle of fundamental rights included in the constitution to include a right to education, food, shelter etc.---
These are not fundamental rights and will never be fundamental rights. Forget about the slippery slope argument ( i.e. adding the right to have a college education, wireless internet, sex, recreational drugs all the way down until the concept of "fundamental rights" becomes utterly meaningless), from a legal standpoint adding these things are impossible. Only the Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and make judgements accordingly. Congress can never infer or legislate beyond the bounds of what the text of the constitution explicitly states. And who decides what the constitution says? The Supreme Court.
So from that standpoint, you would need two thirds of both houses and 75% of all state legislatures-- or its impossible.
So, for obvious reasons, amending the constitution is pretty much impossible from a logistical standpoint. Second of all, making these kinds of amendments will force the country to become communist, destroy our standard of living and pretty much make America inhabitable.
What liberals cannot grasp is that inequality is part of the human condition. The only thing the government owes you is an equal playing field-- the rest is up to fate, your parents and your own abilities.
Amending the constitution is NOT impossible from a logistical standpoint. It's been done many times in the past.
Destroying the poor standard of living and making America inhabitable is the goal.
I think the word you were struggling for was UNinhabitable. moron. ::)
-
Amending the constitution is NOT impossible from a logistical standpoint. It's been done many times in the past.
Destroying the poor standard of living and making America inhabitable is the goal.
I think the word you were struggling for was UNinhabitable. moron. ::)
Fool. America was a much better place BEFORE we adopted all of the current liberal social welfare garbage.
-
It's really pathetic when the only observations you add to the discussion are correcting other peoples typo's and punctuation errors.
I suppose when you have the IQ of pregnant racoon, running spell check is pretty much your only recourse if you want to contribute to the discussion.
Kudos on another stellar posting!
And yes, there have been amendments in the past-- Adding the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery is probably the only one of relevance these days. The only one I can remember is the one that was enacted and then repealed shortly after which made alcohol illegal.
If you think that from a logistical standpoint there is enough support from the population of this country to enact an amendment to the constitution making healthcare a fundamental right, you really are too stupid to acknowledge.
Until you come to terms with the fact that your fairy tale communist utopia is impossible, you are going to lead a very miserable and unfillfilling life (Which in your case would just be more of the same).
-
Spoken like a man who clearly was asleep during the Bush years. ::)
really i was against the patriot act, have called Iraq a mistake please tell me where I was asleep during the bush years ::) try to not let your idiotic bias get in the way here jag
-
From what I've gathered so far, there are aspects that will improve the system, ...and otherr aspects that are questionable at best. I do believe that reform is the way to go, however as Olbermann has stated, there is a very small tiny space between compromiseS & compromiseD. Check your keyboard. :D
LOL please dont ever, ever, ever ever ever quote olbermann to me
I agree reform needs to happen but dont fall for the classic mistake of acting simply for the sake of acting thats how we got Iraq and the spending bill and now this bill...
so all in all do you think this bill will do more good or more harm?