Sam Brownback - senior Kansas senator
Rudy Giuliani - former New York mayor
Mike Huckabee - former Arkansas governor
John McCain - senior Arizona senator
Mitt Romney - former Mass. governor
Tommy Thompson - former Wis. governor
Ron Paul - Texas congressman
I support privatizing education. Public schools are 1% education and 99% brainwashing. It's not the gov'ts job to do that.Originally Posted by zraver
Bravo. Basic tenet of any state is to provide for the children. Free education, free health and any other measures necessary to ensure a roof over their head and food in their stomach. When they reach adulthood, they're ready to contribute and can be left to their own devices.
My gripe with the libertarians is their strict constuctionism to the exclusion of just about everything that would solve problems we didn't have in 1789.
I value the Constitution as much as they do and would never support weakening it. But I've never gotten a rational explanation from them why a government-run system to help low-income people get needed medical care weakens the Constitution, much less compromises our liberties.
If they have a realistic plan for bringing down and controlling the cost of medical care I'd be interested in what they have to say. But they're too fixated by every dot and comma in the Constitution to propose any solution except, every man for himself.
Something is wrong when the Constitution is used to excuse inaction on such a fundamental issue.
Holy cow are you kidding? You just summed up MARXISM in a paragraph.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people are entitled to free anything, especially since it's not free and paid for with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
This is what I mean about neocons!
Because the Constitution doesn't allow stealing of my money to redistribute to you?
Holy cow are you kidding? You just summed up MARXISM in a paragraph.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people are entitled to free anything, especially since it's not free and paid for with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
This is what I mean about neocons!
Wrong. Communism's key tenent is state ownership and control of agricultural land and manufacturing facilities. Even commies love their kids.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government may not give free help to those in dire need.
Even Benjamin Franklin acknowledged that medical care had to be organized to be successful. He organized the subscription that built the first free hospital in America.
That's pure sophistry. It's not stealing. It's taxation. I hate taxes as much as anyone, but I am not so blind as to believe that we, as a people, can have what we have and not pay for it, nor that we would be so blithe as to refuse help to people in true need solely because it might cost us something. So long as taxes are levied by our elected representatives and not by a dictator, we have a voice in how much we'll pay and how it would be spent. Granted, voters are notoriously ignorant of what Congress does with our tax money, but voters have the latent power to vote out wasteful spenders. That's what most of us republicans try to do.
Uh, I've been to the Soviet Union several times, and was a Soviet Studies major. Check out the 10th plank of the communist manifesto:
"10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc."
This definitely is a Marxist idea. It also came from Sparta, and Prussia, who made schooling of kids a means to enhance the power of the state. Just because we do it in America, doesn't mean it is not Marxist in origin.
The federal constitution does - please read amendment 9 and 10. All powers not in the Constitution are left to the states and the people. Of course these are the most ignored of all amendments, so I wouldn't expect you to know them. States can "help people" if their constitution allows it. And Ben Franklin's hospital was set up by the state legislation, not the federal government.Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the government may not give free help to those in dire need.
That's the problem with being an idealist. You're happy to throw out the babies with the bathwater.
Holy cow are you kidding? You just summed up MARXISM in a paragraph.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say people are entitled to free anything, especially since it's not free and paid for with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY.
This is what I mean about neocons!
Another one.
The state didn't exist when Franklin set up the hospital. The inference was that even a great patriot and signer of the Constitution saw the need for helping people who need medical attention.
I still say the Constitution does not prohibit giving free help to people in need.
In fact, you just acknowledged it. Problem is you don't read carefully. That's because you are all wrapped around the axle over your vision and don't give a damn about anyone else's.
So you studied the Soviet system. So what? Are you saying that collective ownership is not the central tenant of communism? Maybe you need to study Marx or review the great 5-year plans. What do those planks from the communist manifesto have to do with refuting what I said? So, the marxists called for free education, so what? Does that mean that free education is Marxist? Marxist breath air; does that make everyone a Marxist. You're grasping at straws.
No, he just lived it first hand.
Independent of what or whom? In my lifetime I have yet to see an independent President. They have all been Republicans or Democrats.Fred Thompson of McCain-Feingold-Thompson-Soros is a CFR member and I would never trust him to be independent.
That's not an explanation. That's a pretzel.
So, you are using an example from before the Constitution was created to say that the Constitution does not prohibit using state money to help people? It was the Pennsylvania legislature - so the colony rather than the state. Did they even have a constitution?Another one.
The state didn't exist when Franklin set up the hospital. The inference was that even a great patriot and signer of the Constitution saw the need for helping people who need medical attention.
Can you please site the clause in the U.S. Constitution that allows for this?I still say the Constitution does not prohibit giving free help to people in need.
In fact, you just acknowledged it. Problem is you don't read carefully. That's because you are all wrapped around the axle over your vision and don't give a damn about anyone else's.
Collective ownership is the core tenant. And forced mass schooling of children transfers ownership (not completely) of children to the state. The idea is that the government controls the kids, and they are schooled in order to serve the state or the collective. Now, I did freely admit that this idea did not only come from the Marxists - it also came from Prussia and from Sparta.So you studied the Soviet system. So what? Are you saying that collective ownership is not the central tenant of communism? Maybe you need to study Marx or review the great 5-year plans. What do those planks from the communist manifesto have to do with refuting what I said? So, the marxists called for free education, so what? Does that mean that free education is Marxist? Marxist breath air; does that make everyone a Marxist. You're grasping at straws.
Now, how many times can you toss around the word "free", when there is no such thing as a free lunch? How is education free? Where does that money come from?
Now, I'm all for helping out people, do it quite regularly. But is it the proper role of the government? Can government do it more effectively than private charity? And if the government is going to spend $ to help people, is it better to do it on a local (town/state) or federal level? Well the collectivist marxist would want to do it on the federal level, while our founders wanted it to happen on a local level.
Now, back onto education, it is one thing to have government funded education, which some states have had all the way back to the founding of this country (and does not violate the U.S. Constitution since they were all state based). But the turning point in education was when we switched to mass FORCED schooling. You had to go to government school. There was a lot of resistance to this on the part of parents and children, and in the end they had to lay siege to a town to force the kids at gunpoint into school
Did you know it was illegal to keep your kids home to homeschool in most states for much of the 20th century? Does that sound American to you? Does that sound like freedom? Or does it send the message that the kids belong to the state, as they did in the Soviet Union.
I was in the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia while in the Air Force, two weeks before they were bombed by terrorist - long before 9/11. I spent quite a bit of time in Saudi Arabia while in the military prior to 9/11, and we all knew that our presence over there was pissing people off. Giuliani tried to reduce a complex issue to a soundbite "they hate us for our freedoms". That may win him some votes from people that look at things simplistically, but it's irresponsible, and will put our country in further danger.
He said 'free' and it's NOT free. It is kind of the attitude that this money belongs to the state not to the people.
The 'free' help people get is paid for by someone's labor.
It's got to stop.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: