Ion01

The real point is that whether or not you think or current system is good or not, are you really willing to put it in the hands of a blatant lier. To put in the the hands of people who have an agenda and will do whatever it takes to reach thier goal, such as lie about thier intentions! Are you really willing to put in in the hands of poeple who are truely greedy? They, unlike a business, actually take your money and you have no choice but to give it to them.....its called taxes. In a free market you only pay for what you want. They have gotten rich off of your hard work and then they do this with it: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ And you want to turn over to them one of the biggest industries in the US? And you think they will be trustworth and responsible? Get real! And lets remember.....they have no right to do it under the constitution!

So that must be why we have the best healthcare in the world....why people come here from all over the world for the best medical.....Its so broken I am not sure we can even fix it!

"I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter," Obama said. But there's also the matter of a YouTube video from June 2003, when Obama was a state senator in Illinois and a longshot candidate for the U.S. Senate. Back then, he plainly indicated he supported a single-payer system. "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care program," Obama said. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/aug/12/barack-obama/obama-has-praised-single-payer-plans-past/ This is, or course, only one of many lies told by the president.

From federalist 41: For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. What this simply means is if everything congress had the power to do was included in the quote you provided why would the constitution them go on to define each power congress had? The quote you provided is a general statement that is then expounded upon with specifics later......and later we find nothing about providing healthcare or any such thing. We do however find the tenth amendment. Why then if what you quoted tells us all we need to know about the power congress has in this matter is it followed by all of this: To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. What you quoted is a small general statement to encompass all of the above..... therefore if it is not defined in the above it does not fall into the generalization or summary which you quoted. It is not a grant to provide healthcare!

thats general welfare not healthcare!! Read federalist 41. Here is a kind of summary. According to James Madison, "the most important and fundamental question" he ever addressed was the meaning of and relation between the general welfare clause and the enumeration of particular powers. This question is the most "fundamental" because the answer determines the very "idea" or "nature" of the U.S. Constitution. Commentators virtually agree on the answer Madison proposed and defended in Federalist 41, namely, that the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content. From this answer, it follows that the primary meaning of the national dimension of the federal Constitution is limited government, understood as a government with a limited number of powers or means. The thesis of this essay, however, is that, contrary to the commentators' claims, Madison argued that the clause was a substantive grant of power for the generally stated end and that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase "general welfare." Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends. The term welfare it self comes from the middle english word wel faren or to fare well....or a more commonly well-being. The original idea is that the government provides for this through protecting your freedoms to obtain such things. One word even used today in the definition of welfare is happiness. Well, it makes over half the country very unhappy to have public healthcare! So that means that are not living up to that if you want to take it that way. It is simply saying the are to look after our well-being by protecting, through such things as the military, our freedoms! Also, notice the use of the term general....meaning not everyone gets this "welfare" or well-being or even health if you want to got their. They "promote" it, as used in the preamble, by protecting our free market and the "general" person has healthcare and everyone can choose to pay for it or not have it! Also, by using the term "general" it prevents the use of it in specific terms such as congress providing for the health of people. Welfare can only be used in a general sense as a result meaning through the methods I have already talked about, such as protecting our freedom and free market!

justinb138 - Mad props! You said just about everything I would have said!

and now the choice is a national health service so 45,000 lives can be saved... If only that were actually a choice......not the government forcing everyone to pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On top of the fact that the government doesn't have the right under the constitution to do such a thing!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO2eh6f5Go0 This will give you an idea of what national health care really is.

And more lies and manipulation from MSNBC! The media have repeatedly stated how "angry," "hostile" and "ugly" town hall meetings across America are becoming. They are of course largely ascribing the nastiness to conservatives voicing their opposition to (among other things) President Barack Obama and Congress' proposed government takeover of the health care system. The press has been particularly offended by the "extreme" use of references to Adolf Hitler specifically and Nazis generally. One image they have repeatedly used as an example of this alleged right-wing extremism is a poster of President Obama - on whose face a Hitler mustache has been Photo Shopped - bearing the caption "I've Changed." We have compiled a video montage (at right) of just some of the recent news programs that have ascribed this Obama-with-Mustache poster to conservative town hall attendees. (The Obama-with-Mustache image itself appears just below the fold.) Story Continues Below Ad ↓ NBC's August 7 Nightly News comes as close as possible to saying Limbaugh printed and distributed the Obama-with-Mustache posters himself without actually doing so. As they show the image, reporter Kelly O'Donnell's voiceover proffers "Some anger on display gets stoked by the provocative megaphone of Rush Limbaugh" as they then immediately cut to video and audio of Limbaugh. On Sunday's Meet the Press, David Gregory's voiceover at the time of their Obama-with-Mustache visual is "but the rhetoric has become extreme." The voiceover lands on the word "extreme" when the Obama-with-Mustache poster appears, and they too then immediately cut to video and audio of Limbaugh. How's that for subtle? But there's a problem with this media narrative. For written at the poster's bottom is the web address "LaRouchePAC.com," the political action committee website for Communist and perpetual Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. No right-winger...... http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/12/nbc-cnn-msnbc-all-assign-communist-larouches-obama-hitler-poster-conse See the link for the whole story!

And here we find not just accusation but a complete disregard for the facts by MSNBC in order to make race an issue when it is not! If this is what they do in order to further thier agenda what other false and manipulated information have they feed us? Watch this video, at least through :40. It’s an MSNBC clip showing a man with an assault rifle outside an Obama rally. The tape is edited so that you can see only the lower half of the body. You cannot see his face. Then the commentator says: . . . there are questions about whether this has a racial overtones [sic] I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists, or to their legs. Now for the punch line. Remember how I noted that the clip was edited so you couldn’t see the guy’s face? Here it is: Above: white man with gun strapped to him Above: even clearer view of a clearly white man This white man is such a racist, he has himself done up in blackface! Racists P.S. I heard a radio program last night where Rod Dreher and an editor from the American Spectator both allowed Eric Boehlert and the liberal host to tar Republicans with the “they call Obama a Nazi!” brush. The American Spectator editor, to his credit, pointed out that Bush was called a Nazi for years, but nobody piped up to mention that the Obama/Nazi crazies always turn out to be LaRouche supporters. Allahpundit has done a great job reminding us of a few points we all need to keep in mind as the Eric Boehlerts and Tim Ruttens of the world try to paint Republicans as fanatics who uniquely demonize the president as a Nazi, call for him to be killed, and such: There were lots and lots and lots of death threats against Bush at anti-war rallies and such for years. Here’s one example; many, many more at the link: Pictures of Obama with a mustache have turned out to be wielded by crazy LaRouche supporters, time and time and time again. We have a Congressman who calls Republicans “the enemy” and says that Sen. Grassley’s criticism of ObamaCare was “an act of treason.” But never mind that. Republicans are the crazies! Oh, and the racists with guns. MSNBC told me so. http://patterico.com/2009/08/19/msnbc-guys-carrying-guns-to-rallies-are-racists-especially-this-guy-whose-skin-color-we-will-now-proceed-to-hide-from-your-view/

The uninsured were more likely to die is all it says not because or due to lack of health insurance! In fact I will help you a bit with your title. Americans dies every year due to the choices they make or made in their lives.

Thats hilarious. When my wife did her first tandem the instructor was saying things like that the whole time. Like when the chute opened he said "shew....it opened this time...." or when on the way to the plane he asked her what she was planning on doing, she said "jump out of the plane," to which he replied "well I have a parachute...what are you going to do?" She loved the jokes and it made it way more fun. I think we enjoy the video for the jokes more than for the jump.

The only variable that makes something dangerous our not is its usage. A car can and has been used to kill people well into the double digits, like driving into a crowd, a sword or knife or pot or pan or pencil or pen or airplane or cleaning agents or a wooden 2x4 can all kill people. However, it ultimately takes a person to make them all kill. It is the person who is dangerous not what the person uses. Cars can be driven without a single person dying but sometimes people don't pay attention or they want to run a bunch of people over....in either case it is the person that is at fault and is dangerous not the car. With out a person a car won't even go anywhere. Same with a gun. Without a person the gun does nothing. Therefore, your question is fundimentally flawed in that none of them are, in and of themselves, dangerous....therefore one cannot be "more dangerous" than the other.

No one is telling you that you are sick and tired! Wait....I get it....I think I see what I am missing now.......so when someone like glenn beck plays a video of a government official claiming that white people are intentionally poisoning black people with polution beck is the racist........or when beck plays clips of government officials saying Castro was a great revolutionary and things are better there than here beck is the racist (even though the government official is white)........ Man.....I don't know how I didn't see that this whole time. Its so clear.

Or it makes you a racist for making such accusations with no facts and what proposed facts you have are contrary to the actual facts. You form your opinion based upon beck's and obama's skin color making you a more likely racist where as beck has addressed many people of different colors, including whites, with facts and has never made a reference to their color. The only time he does is in defense of such accusation!

How dare you! First he does not make fun of blacks! There is no evidence of any racial pregidous at all. Second, to accuse his listeners of liking to hear blacks made fun of is outragious! Once again, stereotypical, attack the person not the message....and once again it is you and people like you who continue to bring up race, not glenn beck or his listeners and to accuse them and him or racism or any sort or descrimination of any sort with no facts only selective and twisted hearsay is sick and wrong. Glenn played the tapes of the white person from acorn who help the supposed whore too! He has attacked the message of numerous white people too and if you don't know who they are then thats just more proof of your ignorance. He has also said, many times, that he believes that all people have the same opportunities, including going to heaven (where as obama's mentor preaches the opposite) and he has and will address any falsehoods or attacks against the constitution no matter what that persons race, color or anything else. He has also said he will stand with anyone no matter what thier party or race if they stand for the constitution. For goodness sakes he has black people on his staff saying the same things he is! But once again either you don't know that or your choose to ignore that fact, and so many others, so you can retain your opinions and views despite the facts. How dare you make such accusations about such a large group of people you know nothing about. How can you fight racism with racism or pregidous with pregidous.....you can't....it only results in more racism and more pregidous yet this is exactly what you choose to do!

So complaining about people who are destroying this country through violating the founding and governing document of this country and by complaining about those who take away our freedoms means he doesn't love this country. I to do these things because I love this country and don't want to see it "fundamentally changed", I want to see it governed by the documents that were supposed to govern it. It is obama and the liberals who have been so critical of this country. Obama's wife said that until recently she was never proud of this country. What a great american! Those who love this country defend it and what it stands for and that means defending and standing for the constitution.....something those that are in power see a an obstacle that must be removed.....not meeting, and following in the footsteps of people who have wanted and tried to destroy this country and what it was founded on. (Cuba....ever heard of the cuban missile crisis?)

You mean to say glenn beck uses facts? Like just quoting or playing clips from Obama, Van Jones, Cass Sustein, Pelosi, Jeff Jones, etc........ How dare he!! Such hatred!

....and thats why glenn beck has always been at the top of the ratings and why he has always changed what he believes in order to fit into what was popular to hate at the time.......wait......nope......none of that is true......

So his love of freedom and this country and the people that make it up is really hatred...... and all the rediculous accusations and name calling by the democrats in the past and the current administration is caring and loving? Oh, make sure you don't use any facts or be very selective when you make your point.....we don't want people to know the truth.

Righty ignorance in all its glory, brought to you live, right here in Speakers corner. An ignorant statement like this clearly shows that you haven't a clue. Voter registration fraud is one thing. Voter fraud is entirely different and much more dangerous to the electoral process. When you get up to speed as to what is fantasy, and what is reality, get back with us. Here is a quote from an news article: Guess which left-wing group is at the center of the worst case of voter-registration fraud in Washington state history? Yep, you guessed it: ACORN. The same ACORN tied to massive voter fraud in Missouri. And Ohio. And 12 other states. It says VOTER FRAUD in MISSOURI, and OHIO and 12 OTHER STATES. Voter registration fraud is a type of voter fraud just like a square it is a type of rectangle! Looks more like lefty "ignorance in all its glory"! Along with ignoring everything else, ignoring all the facts because you think someone got 1 wrong.

no, they haven't

...oh....and lets not forget when racism is involved, such as when a black man was passing something out at a town hall meeting that union members who supported the healthcare bill made racial slurrs and beat up the black man, it is ignored by the mass media because it doesn't support the idea that these tea party members and such are racist....not to mention that there were black people and even black speakers at some of the tea parties.

I like how the article didn't mention the third acorn person that was "targeted" because they were white.....and that doesn't support the idea of racism. It also doesn't mention that glenn beck has black people on his staff and uses them on his show.....but those black people must be racist against themselves......It doesn't mention his constant "assualt" on people like Arlen Spector or Jeff Jones or Cass Sustein...... I also find it interesting that glenn beck, and others that are against the presidents policies, never mention color in relation to these types of things but yet those that claim to not be racist constantly bring up color. Who is the real racist..... Besides, even if it was racism that brought this information out it doesn't change how incredibly wrong acorn is. They have continually been convicted of voter fraud on top of all this. It doesn't change the fact that obama is "fundamentally changing america" (his words) into something else that is not governed by the constitution. It doesn't change the fact that his administration has talked about how great they think countries like cuba are and how they want to model ofter them. It doesn't change thier complete disregard for the constitution or this country or the people.

And now those people are banning words such as liar in reference to the president when in debate in congress. So the right to freedom of speech doesn't apply......of course it hasn't for a long time since things like "hate speech" is outlawed.....and of course these rules regarding not calling the president a liar, a hypocrite, cowardly, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, intellectually dishonest didn't apply when bush was in office. We want to be sure that no one in congress says anything bad about the great obama......and remember, if you even disagree with his policies your a racist

By the way: Most people would consider me to be a religious nut, however, this type of thing goes both ways. Hate speech is often used to silence the religious. In a free society we have the freedoms to think the other person is an idiot. I can beleive and say you are stupid for believing the psuedo science of evolution.....and you can say I am stupid for calling it pseudo science. But you and the government have no right to force everyone to learn about evolution.......in fact, no where in the constitution is the federal government given the power to educate our children or determine how and what our children should learn and, therefore, the federal government has no right to be involved in schools or place any legislation on school and our childrens education. Depending on the state constitution the state might but then I can always move to another state if I don't like thier laws on schools such as not allow me to send them to private school or choose what school I want them to got to.