In case you forgot

medicineman

medicineman

New Member
The Constitution of the United States of America

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. seems to me, the general welfare would include medical care, establishing justice would mean no one would be treated less than another
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Evidently you weren't aware that the Founders thought every word through very carefully before you posted that, Med. You've made a very common error, or intentional oversight, that supporters of a large intrusive government continue to make. Let me parse the words a little differently, Med:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defense, PROMOTE the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

So there you have it, Med. The Founders, in their wisdom, wanted the federal government to PROMOTE the general welfare and PROVIDE for the common defense.

That's why I continually post that the legitimate function of the federal goverment is to PROVIDE for the defense of the rights of the citizens.

And how can the federal government best PROMOTE the general welfare of the citizens? By staying the hell out of the citizens affairs.

Oh, and by the way, that would include promoting the preservation of our financial privacy too, which is exactly why the founders called for taxes to be collected via tariffs, duties and excise taxes. Did you notice in your study of the document that they didn't mention a tax on income?

One final thought ... do you, or do you not, agree that there is a difference between the words PROVIDE and PROMOTE?

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
One final thought ... do you, or do you not, agree that there is a difference between the words PROVIDE and PROMOTE?
Provide:to make a proviso or stipulation; to take measures beforehand;to supply what is needed;to supply for use. promote: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of: further; launch! Id say provide is to supply and promote is to get started; contribute is the key word here. If the feds contributed to health care or launched it and then contributed to it, then promoting would be applicable. You see it is a simple matter of semantics and how one views them. I say that Health care is a right not a priveledge and you say opposite. We'll never agree on this: From your point of view, if you can't afford an operation, just die. You should read my scrooge post, I think it fits your view on life!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
One final thought ... do you, or do you not, agree that there is a difference between the words PROVIDE and PROMOTE?
Provide:to make a proviso or stipulation; to take measures beforehand;to supply what is needed;to supply for use. promote: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of: further; launch!

Id say provide is to supply and promote is to get started; contribute is the key word here. If the feds contributed to health care or launched it and then contributed to it, then promoting would be applicable. You see it is a simple matter of semantics and how one views them. I say that Health care is a right not a priveledge and you say opposite. We'll never agree on this: From your point of view, if you can't afford an operation, just die. You should read my scrooge post, I think it fits your view on life!

So, in YOUR Constitution, it says: The Congress has the power to "Launch" and to "Contribute?" *lol* ... You are a riot in every post, Med. Funny stuff, guy.

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
One final thought ... do you, or do you not, agree that there is a difference between the words PROVIDE and PROMOTE?
Provide:to make a proviso or stipulation; to take measures beforehand;to supply what is needed;to supply for use. promote: to contribute to the growth or prosperity of: further; launch!

Id say provide is to supply and promote is to get started; contribute is the key word here. If the feds contributed to health care or launched it and then contributed to it, then promoting would be applicable. You see it is a simple matter of semantics and how one views them. I say that Health care is a right not a priveledge and you say opposite. We'll never agree on this: From your point of view, if you can't afford an operation, just die. You should read my scrooge post, I think it fits your view on life!

So, in YOUR Constitution, it says: The Congress has the power to "Launch" and to "Contribute?" *lol* ... You are a riot in every post, Med. Funny stuff, guy.

Vi
Click to expand...
Glad I could entertain you but if you read what I said, you could interpret it that way. I took the definitions of the two words from Merriam Webster, so it depends on how you interpret it, sort of like all you Christian geeks interpret the Bible to suit your thesis', you'll look through every passage in the Bible untill you find one that says what you need to make your point, just like a pentecostal preacher. I believe this is how you do your thinking. provide an Idea then go looking everywhere to find crap that will back it up even if it has nothing to do with the original Idea! As In, Heres the proof, and it's just more crap!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
Glad I could entertain you but if you read what I said, you could interpret it that way. I took the definitions of the two words from Merriam Webster, so it depends on how you interpret it, sort of like all you Christian geeks interpret the Bible to suit your thesis', you'll look through every passage in the Bible untill you find one that says what you need to make your point, just like a pentecostal preacher. I believe this is how you do your thinking. provide an Idea then go looking everywhere to find crap that will back it up even if it has nothing to do with the original Idea! As In, Heres the proof, and it's just more crap!
Click to expand...
Off topic again, Med. Obfucation is NOT winning a debate ... it is nothing more than spin.

Now then, do you still see the words "Congress Shall Promote The General Welfare In Order To Provide It" in the Constitution? Or have I finally convinced you otherwise? *lol*

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Off topic again, Med. Obfucation is NOT winning a debate ... it is nothing more than spin.

Now then, do you still see the words "Congress Shall Promote The General Welfare In Order To Provide It" in the Constitution? Or have I finally convinced you otherwise? *lol*

Vi
Click to expand...
Actually you have not convinced me, It doesn't demand you provide but it suggests you provide, so in that duel of semantics if you need force to make it happen then it doesn't force the issue, but it leaves the door open for intelligent people to make up their minds about such things and act on them! Greater minds than ours will make that decision!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
Actually you have not convinced me, It doesn't demand you provide but it suggests you provide, so in that duel of semantics if you need force to make it happen then it doesn't force the issue, but it leaves the door open for intelligent people to make up their minds about such things and act on them! Greater minds than ours will make that decision!
Click to expand...
Right-ta-ta, Med. And that which Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were The Ten Suggestions. *lol*

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
ViRedd said:
Right-ta-ta, Med. And that which Moses brought down from Mt. Sinai were The Ten Suggestions. *lol*

Vi
Click to expand...
How did we get so far afield? I believe in freedom and security as you do, I just believe in it for everyone, not just the wealthy!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
How did we get so far afield? I believe in freedom and security as you do, I just believe in it for everyone, not just the wealthy!
Click to expand...
Its pretty simple, Med ... honestly, it is. You believe in freedom AND security.

I forget which founder said it, but it goes something like this: "Those who want liberty and security will gain neither." In other words, when one looks to government for security, for the portion of security that is given, a portion of liberty is taken in return. You don't see this and I do. That's the main political difference between you and I.

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
for the portion of security that is given, a portion of liberty is taken in return. You don't see this and I do. That's the main political difference between you and I.

So don't you say the only purpose of government is to protect us, and if so, then aren't you giving up some freedom?
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
medicineman said:
for the portion of security that is given, a portion of liberty is taken in return. You don't see this and I do. That's the main political difference between you and I.

So don't you say the only purpose of government is to protect us, and if so, then aren't you giving up some freedom?
Click to expand...
Nope, I (and you) are actually gaining freedom. The purpose of government is to protect the rights of the individule from the tyranny of the majority. What YOU are after is the submission of the individule through the force of the majority. Huge difference, Med.

With all due respect, Med ... If you think about what I just said long enough, you will gain an understanding as to the disasters that socialism has caused down through the ages.

Vi
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
What YOU are after is the submission of the individule through the force of the majority. Huge difference, Med.
I think you have it wrong here. I am all for the individual as far as civil rights go, but the society as a whole should have more influence than a few individuals, on government, such as we have now where a few rich industrialists dictate government policies. If the "people" were running the country, (as the founding Fathers tried to make so), the government would be doing what it was intended to do, look after it's citizens welfare, ensure domestic tranquility, and provide for security! That is where you and I are different. you believe it's allright to have a few rich Bastards run the country with no responsibilities to the public, and fill their coffers to max overflow, as in no taxes on the rich! I say we should take back our country and throw the rich criminals in the Bastille!
 
Wavels

Wavels

Well-Known Member
med, IMHO, you have a blind eye for the opportunities afforded to the industrious individual in this country.
There are, in actuality, more opportunities for you too, med, to become a plutocrat!
It happens all the time in USA, even more so nowadays, with the advent of the internet.

Med, you ever hear of Napoleon Hill? It works better in modern America than ever before; this is indeed, the human pinnacle you love to disparage!
What the founders have done beyond their wildest dreams is to promote a climate within which the greatest amount of wealth has been created for the greatest amount of people in the annals of human history!
 
medicineman

medicineman

New Member
What the founders have done beyond their wildest dreams is to promote a climate within which the greatest amount of wealth has been created for the greatest amount of people in the annals of human history! I really don't think the founders had a plutocracy in mind when they revolted, in fact they revolted against what we have today, an unrepresentative government with a few rich guys (The King) taking all the loot. The system would be fine, if the rich guys would share. They won't and so you have a society where the rich are gettin richer and the poor, poorer. This is working up to be a third world dictatorship, or plutocracy of the few against the many. We're offshoring our whitecollar jobs and moving all the blue collar jobs (factories) overseas. Just remember what the French did in the Bastille days, and pray the American citizen doesn't have the guts to attack. BTW, It should read the greatest amount of wealth for the fewest amount of people, for that is the fact!
 
ViRedd

ViRedd

New Member
Med ...

I believe that in past posts, you've agreed that an income of $300,000+ per year deems a person to be rich. In order to redistribute that "rich" person's wealth, you would have that individule face the tyranny of the majority through government force. That is NOT what the founders intended at all.

Vi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top