RockneDrive

Sweeping and hasty generalization. The hypocrisy of one person doesn't transfer to or represent all people who are against socialized medicine and what they would have done in similar circumstances. Description of Hasty Generalization This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is not large enough. It has the following form: Sample S, which is too small, is taken from population P. Conclusion C is drawn about Population P based on S. The person committing the fallacy is misusing the following type of reasoning, which is known variously as Inductive Generalization, Generalization, and Statistical Generalization: X% of all observed A's are B''s. Therefore X% of all A's are Bs. The fallacy is committed when not enough A's are observed to warrant the conclusion.

The author's last comments drives to the heart of why 0bamacare is unconsitutional: To which I say AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, to be so young! Cheers.

From the article in the first post: And this: And finally:

Try reading the Constitution. Mandating auto insurance IS unconstitutional. If it's not specifally enumerated, the federal government can't do it - remember that pesky little amendment referring to that? And that all else is left to the people and to the states? If a particular state wants to mandate it, it can; if another does not, it doesn't have to, but if the fed mandates it, all of the states SHALL! Duh!

Yeah right! hahahahahahahahahahaha

Even Davy Crockett learned the hard lesson that charity is not a proper role of the federal government: NOT YOURS TO GIVE! http://fee.org/library/books/not-yours-to-give-2/

Most of that stuff falls into the military category. I don't see anything about free health care. If it's not enumerated, it's not their's to do. Where does it say charity is a legitmate function of the federal government? I'm with Madison on that!

[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

This a fallacious argument called poisoning the well: Yes some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves but that doesn't mean that they weren't brilliant statesmen and geniuses who founded this country which has been the envy of the world. They made it possible for us to be free and crafted a document to assure there wouldn't be the kind of tyranny they had to face. To attempt to dismiss their accomplishments because they owned slaves is a feeble attempt to ignore all of the good they did and that they made it possible for so many millions of people to live free from tyranny. Now the current administration is doing all that it can to bastardize the Constitution and take away our freedoms. That's why we need to kick this socialist bum and his buddies out next election.

The government the Founding Fathers envisioned was one with limited powers and not pervasive powers as we have today. They were skeptical of government power, not trusting of it. They outlined the proper role as one of being a protector of inalienable rights, not to be a mommy and daddy to everyone doling out benefits by extracting money from other people's earnings. They basically said that the federal government should have the following roles: 1. Protect individuals from foreign enemies. This is why it is appropriate to spend large sums of money on the military. 2. Protect individuals from those inside the country who wish to do harm to another individual or steal his/her private property. This is why we have a police force and other law enforcement. 3. To arbitrate disuputes among free individuals when they cannot agree on whose rights are superior. This is why we have a court system. These are the primary functions of our federal government as outlined in their writings. Add in infrastructure, highways, and interstate commerce and you have what the Founding Fathers desired and wrote about in our Constitution. Read the Federalist Papers to get more insight into what they had in mind. In those letters, they sought to explain the Constitution to others. Here are some thoughts from some of the Founding Fathers: “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.” – Patrick Henry “…a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” – Thomas Jefferson “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” – Thomas Jefferson “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Ben Franklin Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. James Madison If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 It is sufficiently obvious, that persons and property are the two great subjects on which Governments are to act; and that the rights of persons, and the rights of property, are the objects, for the protection of which Government was instituted. These rights cannot well be separated. James Madison, Speech at the Virginia Convention, December 2, 1829 The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. James Madison, Federalist No. 45, January 26, 1788 [T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. James Madison, speech in the House of Representatives, January 10, 1794

WWJD is such a trite statement. Nontheless, Jesus did not call governments to take care of the poor and feed the hungry, he called individuals. It is not the government's legitimate role to give charity. Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's. Jesus called you and me to do His work, he did not call Ceasar or his army or his minions to do that. The biblical role of government is as God's arm for civil justice and punishment, not to be a provider. Government is a protector and defender of rights, not a provider of benefits.

Condemning behavior is different from condemning people. Here is what I wrote: We are all called as Christians to condemn evil and immoral behavior as long as we don't do it self-righteously or hypocritically. Nothing wrong with that at all. By no means are we lowering ourselves to their level when we speak the truth any more than when Jesus called out the bad behavior of the Pharisee's and called them and their ancestors hypocrites and vipers:

Wanting to and actually helping someone is a noble and Christian thing to do. I don't disparage anyone who actually takes it upon themselves to reach into their own pockets to help someone; however, it is despicable and worthy of condemnation to reach into someone else's pocket to help others and that's exactly what liberals and Obama want to do. It's immoral and should be called out as such - that's the right thing to do, to disparage and condemn immoral behavior.

Good point! Libs think that everyone should be forced to believe the same way they believe regarding morality which is what they often accuse Christians of doing. For people who generally don't believe in absolute truth, it's ironic that libs wish to force their own notions of morality on the rest of us. It's perfectly fine for them to use the strong arm of government to coerce money from the rest of us who disagree with their twisted and distorted views of morality.

I never said that. Another strawman to beat up on? Those are your words. Try reading what I actually wrote next time.

I said "many" not all. You knew that yet decided to continue with the deception and distortion. Typical lib. Don't put words in my mouth.

:flypig::flypig::flypig::flypig:

Cali, the ad hominem king.

That lower income people pay more for health care as a percentage of their income than higher income earners is not a huge news story. Obviously!! Duh. So should the solution be to steal by coercive government power from those with higher incomes and give it to the lower income wage earners? That's essentially what our socialist-in-chief is proposing to do. Or perhaps those folks on the lower end of the income scale could go back to night school to learn a trade or profession to increase their salary and better their lives. That is the way it should be, not confiscating wealthier folks' hard-earned salary. Many people at the lower end of the income scale made a decision that school was not fun and they chose to quit school or not pursue a higher education. There are consequences to making bad decisions. Why should I or any other taxpayer pay for those poor choices? Health insurance is not a right.

I don't believe everything I read.

Source? Ridiculous. There is no way to know this and it's a myth that people are dying because they don't have health insurance. Here is something I wrote last year: Health Insurance vs Health Scare Supporters of socialized health care are claiming that there are 47 million Americans who are uninsured. Where this number comes from is questionable but assume it's true. There is a big difference between the number of people with no insurance and the number of people who get no health care. It has been reported in the news that of the 47 million uninsured Americans, the vast majority fall into three categories: 1. Illegal Aliens 2. Folks making at or above $80,000 who choose not to have health insurance. 3. Low-income folks who do not have health insurance but who nevertheless receive free health benefits such as from Medicaid and other government payments. The folks who support socialized medicine try and confuse everyone into believing that 47 million people don't get health care. This is untrue. Every person listed above receives health care but they don't have health insurance. So the entire debate is based upon a false premise that millions of folks don't receive health care because they are uninsured. And the democrats and Obama want everyone to believe that there are droves of people dying because they recieve no health care. This is a disingenuous and deceptive attempt by Obama and his minions to obtain more government control over our lives and has little to do with providing health services to people who need it. This is Health Scare. In summary, this scare tactic is being used by liberals, Obama, and the democrat congress who would have everyone believe that people are dying in droves just because they don't have health insurance. This is nonsense. We don't need a government plan that will drive out all private competition because of an unending supply of our taxpayer money. Then the entire medical system will be run like the Dept. of Motor vehicles or the VA Hospital (I know, I'm a veteran) which will lead to loss of choice, massive red tape, extremely long waiting times for critical testing and surgery, rationing of health care where the elderly are left behind because of cost/benefit will divert funds to younger, healthier people, and good doctors will choose other professions because their salaries will be capped and we will have "C" students doing surgery on us. All of this has been documented and we just have to look it up to see what other countries with government-run healthcare are like. Government is the problem, not the solution. We can reform health care without the aid of bureaucrats and put in place market-based solutions which will encourage competition, provide better service and lower health care costs. Yes we need reform but the government needs to keep its stinking nose out of the process because everyone knows what will happen when the only choice any of us will have is the government – one size fits all – no other choice!

Everyone knows that the so-called, only one government option, is a Trojan Horse where the government will eventually take over health care 100% with what Obama says he is for, "a single-payer system" - which effectively will drive private insurance companies out of business. No private company can compete with the government on a level playing field. The government can be inefficient and have cost overruns because it has an unlimited supply of taxpayer dollars and will effectively put everyone else out of business. Even John Kerry admits this: John Kerry admits single-payer will run private insurance companies out of business “I’m personally for single payer,” Kerry told Single Payer Action. “But we don’t have the votes.” But if you fought for single payer, wouldn’t you have the votes? “No,” Kerry said. “Some people are unpersuadable on the topic. They are ideologically in a different places and we don’t have the votes.” Just admit it, Senator Kerry, single payer would put the insurance companies out of business. “Yes it would,” Kerry admits as he gets on the elevator at the National Press Building. And that’s the reason why you don’t have the votes. “You make that determination,” Kerry said. Instead of taking single payer to the American people, explaining that much of the world has what we don’t have, and fighting and defeating the insurance industry, Kerry and liberal Democrats keep repeating the mantra — we don’t have the votes. Nor do they have the votes for a strong public option — or maybe any public option. It’s a defeatist attitude that is bound to condemn 60 Americans to death every day from lack of health insurance. And good ol' Barney Frank admits that such a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care: Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/30/barney-frank-yes-a-public-plan-will-lead-to-a-government-takeover-of-health-care/comment-page-1/ Obama explains how his plan will eventually lead to the elimination of private health care plans: http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-video-obama-explains-how-his-health-care-plan-will-eliminate-private-insurance/

Yeah, but I have a choice which insurance company. When the gubmint takes over health care, I won't. So it's called a death panel when insurance companies are involved in this but not death panels when the gubmint gets involved in counseling and end of life decisions?

It's in the bill. Read it. I thought you promised your last word a few posts ago. LOL!