An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

I understand Mitt Romney was behind the idea in Mass (which hasn't turned out nearly as well as he'd like to have people believe) and earlier Nixon was. I'm not, and those 2 guys don't represent the best in conservative economic though imo.

What would Bill Buckley or Reagan do? that would be more along the avenue I'd be seeking

also - if Romney runs for president and runs against the bill he's a hypocrit of the highest order.

He doesn't need to do that to be a hypocrite. He already is one. He ran on a very liberal platform in Mass and was a completely different person on the national scene when he was a prez candidate. He also passed a bunch of legislation right before he left that was meant to look good but any close evaluation would show it was short-sighted/destined to utterly fail (and did so) so he could say he did something. We are still digging out from under all that mess.

 

[solovsfett]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Your argument reminds me of when I was in college in the 80s. I would -- as a fiscal conservative -- say I was glad people were looking at Welfare reform. The rebuttal I almost always got was that Reagan was a Fascist. (I know, you don't get a lot of nuance from 19-yr-olds; I'm not holding up a bunch of people I used to know as proof of one side or the other.)

But when I pressed them with what I thought were obvious flaws in the way the whole system was run, usually I'd also get a concession from them that there were indeed big problems. So you could sum up their position as, "Yes, there are in fact major problems, and they probably should be fixed -- or at least attempted to be fixed; but it's all part of Reagan's plan to turn us into a heartless evil country. You can't tell me he's not really a Fascist." etc etc etc

I'm glad you took the time to respond, but your argument now sounds as strange to me as the same version (from the other side) sounded 25 years ago.

fair enough.

I understand there are problems, I just don't like the rapid encroachment upon our liberties that Obama is bringing us. I know the boil the frog in water argument has been made and I feel if we let Obama get away with this we'll be cooked just like that.

I look at the Canadian response to Ann Coulter as just the beginning of where free-speech will be going under Obama.

I'm more concerned with his socialist ideas and ramming them down the country's collective throat, then with *some* of the fixes that Lesp brought up. I have a friend who's a doctor (anesthesiologist working for aurora) who's on the opposite side of the fence on this. he doesn't like the pay structure, amongst a whole host of other issues that I'm sure he'll write in here about at some point

If you want examples from me, though you may feel they're too general -

Obama - "the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, it doesn't tell you what the government can do for you, what the government should do" from wbez-npr 2001
in same interview he talks about the Warren court and how it was not radical, and how the ideas of social justice and redistributive powers were never taken up...
I don't have that link anymore but I'll look it up...

I just don't believe the government or any body should be taking up "redistributive powers" that's antithetical to what the founders gave us

If you look at the roundtable with republicans - the way he shut down mccain with his narcissistic and sophmoric response of "campaign's over john"
Like I said - Obama cannot tolerate dissent. Statists cannot tolerate dissent, because in their heads they're 100% right for the greater good.

I don't like Obama's intolerence to free speech. I don't like how unprofessional (to put it that way) he is when he just takes off on teapartiers, joe the plumber, sean hannity, whatever. President's should never be stooping to that level of discourse. I've never seen a president rip the people like this guy does

I personally have disdain for Saul Alinsky. I would suspect some people on this board have read rules for radicals either for edification purposes or because they're in agreement with that thought.

It's *very* clear to me that Obama is lifting whole sections of that book and putting them into practice now.

anyway .02

gotta go prep the paint thinner for tonight's game

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

 

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

The possibilities are endless about what they would say. You could start with them being described as having worked to start a Christian nation when most of them were Theists

I have a hard time when anyone starts saying this isn't what the founders would have wanted. The Founders lived in a different time, a different world, with an entirely different set of problems. There was a lot less complexity, a much clearer social order and class system and intelligent discourse was revered as kind of a sport.

I imagine the whole healthcare thing would just baffle them. In that age you treated with herbal concotions that were frequently applied/given with prayers or incantations (yep, you read that right), had no aseptic technique, no evidence based medicine and if someone lived or died (the latter was more likely) then it was an act of God or unexplainable event. How anyone can even guess what they would think is beyond me.

As to the other changes in government I am not an expert but I imagine they would be disgusted at our absolute lack of ability to debate or discuss anything in a civil manner using (horror of horrors) facts and intelligent argument. I know that things got heated back then but I am pretty sure most of them learned the art of compromise which we seem incapable of. They also seemed more motivated to solve problems and think past the next year when they made plans. They weren't obsessed with getting elected which may have made doing the right thing a bit more plausible

 

[Patman]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

my only issue with this is that they proscribed a set of individual liberties which are written into our constitution... by and large these elements have not been repealed by law. This seems to be the idea around nullifying the constitution slowly because "they would have done differently in our world" means that "we should do differently now"... its a clear walk from one to the other... its the justification to disregard their thoughts and opinions especially as they reflect themselves in our constitution.

This... this is the ideology Barack Obama walks in. The constitution doesn't matter because they aren't walking in our shoes and we are as smart as they are... heck... we are smarter than we are. This is where the liberal view on the constitution comes from and this is why they need it to be as malleable as humanly possible.

Is it wrong that with this thought of the founders on hand then the modern application of the same constitution is immoral because they wouldn't have thought this way in modern times?

The question here is about fundamental freedoms... don't argue to me that the "founders would think differently" assuming that those they would represent would invariably take on modern liberal and progressive views. Argue why the ideas of freedom that they promoted are wrong.

Bottom line is that you feel that we owe each other certain responsibilities for whatever reason... the rest drives immediately from that. The one thing I will say... the founders conception of freedom and liberty holds no matter the size of society. The progressive's conception of freedom and liberty fails when society becomes so small that there exists no people or skill to give them their "freedoms". There is no health care if society isn't large enough to have adequate doctors. There is no right to food if there are no crops and means to distribute food resources. Freedom and liberty shouldn't depend upon the needs of others... they stand out as absolutes for else they would not be rights.

----

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7529454/Hospital-wards-to-shut-in-secret-NHS-cuts.html

ah... the joys of single payer.

 

[Rimbaud]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

They'd be locked in a room watching porn all day and not get anything done....so I'm not sure they'd really say anything much.

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

They'd be locked in a room watching porn all day and not get anything done....so I'm not sure they'd really say anything much.

What are you talking about? Thomas Jefferson would be all over the African American ladies. In public!

 

[St. Clown]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

There's plenty of material out there to read to see what positions they took on the issues of the day, from personal correspondence to the Federalist Papers to the open debates pre- and post-revolution. These men didn't argue about how much government should do for the populace, they argued how severely government should be restricted from interfering in the day-to-day lives of its constituents.

 

[gounhwildcats]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

All the years of hearing Americans call Canada the 51st state, and now America is rapidly becoming the 11th province. Really pretty sad.

 

[Priceless]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

They'd wonder where all their slaves went, why there are metal dragons in the sky and what this weird series of tubes is all about.

 

[French Rage]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

I imagine the whole healthcare thing would just baffle them. In that age you treated with herbal concotions that were frequently applied/given with prayers or incantations (yep, you read that right), had no aseptic technique, no evidence based medicine and if someone lived or died (the latter was more likely) then it was an act of God or unexplainable event. How anyone can even guess what they would think is beyond me.

Let's not forget Washington died due to the well thought out practice of bloodletting.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

The problem with Lynah resurrecting the tobacco company argument (that they're doing the country a favor by killing people off early) is that it doesn't pass the common sense test. If people are living longer, healthier lives, either by not smoking or by getting regular care, when end of life comes, the treatments are different. If you live until 95, chances are doctors are going to recommend against surgery given your age. If you're 50 and in poor health, the notion that you could live another 30 years if properly treated is a far different and costly consideration.

There's also the hard to guage but real question of productivity. Is it better to have sickly people unwell for decades before an early death or healthy ones who live longer and stay productive?

I'm not talking about doing "favors." And we're not talking about not smoking, either. I'm talking about a dispassionate, objective, non-partisan, honest accounting of whether the % of GDP we spend on healthcare will go up or down now that 35M more people will be paying for health insurance and therefore using more health care resources. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that the total amount we pay for health care is going to come down, that's all. In fact, I think it is very likely to rise, and rise dramatically. Time will tell.

 

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Let's not forget Washington died due to the well thought out practice of bloodletting.

You mean that bleeding someone to let out the ill humors is bad??

 

[huskyfan]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

I'm not talking about doing "favors." And we're not talking about not smoking, either. I'm talking about a dispassionate, objective, non-partisan, honest accounting of whether the % of GDP we spend on healthcare will go up or down now that 35M more people will be paying for health insurance and therefore using more health care resources. I just don't think it's a no-brainer that the total amount we pay for health care is going to come down, that's all. In fact, I think it is very likely to rise, and rise dramatically. Time will tell.

this really is the issue. no, the cost will not come down. the cost of anything the government does never comes down.

 

[busterman62]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Politics>>>>>Principles.

I see it more as you can't solve every single issue with this legislation. That's what the doubters want to pro-reformers to address. As I've also said a lot, its not a Constitutional amendment. I can be adjusted as needed.

Q.E.D.

 

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Good Morning America had a really cool segment on this AM with 2 repubs- Bush's old speech writer and another who was spouting the same old rhetoric. The speech writer (missed the name) said that all the posturing for politics had caused the repubs to miss the boat and the legislation to pass while they whined without proposing anything useful. The bill was not going to be repealed. He said they should stop posturing and get to governing by addressing the parts of the bill they thought needed attention, that while they were posturing more and more things are getting enacted without their input. First time I have heard the voice of reason in a long time. Too bad they ended with the angry- Dems you sux guy. The other guy was believable and I would vote for him in a second.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Good Morning America had a really cool segment on this AM with 2 repubs- Bush's old speech writer and another who was spouting the same old rhetoric. The speech writer (missed the name) said that all the posturing for politics had caused the repubs to miss the boat and the legislation to pass while they whined without proposing anything useful. The bill was not going to be repealed. He said they should stop posturing and get to governing by addressing the parts of the bill they thought needed attention, that while they were posturing more and more things are getting enacted without their input. First time I have heard the voice of reason in a long time. Too bad they ended with the angry- Dems you sux guy. The other guy was believable and I would vote for him in a second.

From the description, I would have to guess the speech writer was David Frum, he's been in the news recently for an article he wrote (posted on this thread a few pages back). I agree he makes some decent points, repeal is a probably a silly strategy, but I strongly disagree with the "proposed nothing useful" part. Republicans had plenty of ideas, none of them were used. And you know what, I'm honestly okay with that. The Democrats won election on the promise that they would do this, now they've done it, and hopefully they will pay the consequences in November. Bipartisanship is vastly overrated in my opinion.

 

[leswp1]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

From the description, I would have to guess the speech writer was David Frum, he's been in the news recently for an article he wrote (posted on this thread a few pages back). I agree he makes some decent points, repeal is a probably a silly strategy, but I strongly disagree with the "proposed nothing useful" part. Republicans had plenty of ideas, none of them were used. And you know what, I'm honestly okay with that. The Democrats won election on the promise that they would do this, now they've done it, and hopefully they will pay the consequences in November. Bipartisanship is vastly overrated in my opinion.

Let me rephrase- he didn't feel that they proposed much and they did a horrible job selling it because they were too busy posturing.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

My only issue with "what the founders would want" is can we really say what they would want if they were exposed to today's world?

This suggests that there aren't any constants at all in this world. Ironically, a convenient way for self-aggrandizing politicians to impose their will on society.

 

[Rover]

Re: An Open Letter To All USCHO Crackpots and Knuckledraggers - by Rover

Let me rephrase- he didn't feel that they proposed much and they did a horrible job selling it because they were too busy posturing.

Exactly. My sense is that for a couple of Senate votes (the two from Maine maybe) and a half dozen House votes Obama would have gone along with Tort Reform, for example. The GOP had a chance to 1) come up with their own bill endorsed by their caucus and have it scored by the CBO, or 2) worked with the Senate Finance committee who negotiated for months on end to come up with a bipartisan bil. They did neither, so too bad. You can only reach out so far to people before you realize they have no intention to reciprocate.