Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 64 of 64

Thread: NOW do you agree that he's a socialist?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Totalitarian welfare state

    Quote Originally Posted by Chasboots
    Quote Originally Posted by Demarn
    1) Unlike Bush and McCain, Obama is far more likely to abide by the Constitution.
    Whoa! Hold on there, Sparky! In the 2001 radio interview that got some attention recently, Obama said the following:

    "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

    "And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted. "
    Looks to me like he wants to SHAPE the Constitution into something that meets with his ideals. I guess that's the change he's been trying to sell his sheep.
    Before addressing all of your concerns and the way you framed them so that it twists reality, we can address the above Obama quote the easiest.

    Obama's quote demonstrates what the constitution actually stands for and Obama's healthy respect for the founding fathers' intent.

    He says it straight out
    : The Warren court "did not break from the essential constraints placed upon it by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution," therefore, when people try to characterize the Warren court as radical, it just isn't true. The Warren court's decision in Brown v. BOE Topeka to desegregate schools was not radical, but stayed within the constraints of what the founding fathers envisioned.

    Chasboots, what you are arguing, perhaps without realizing, is that the Warren Court was radical, and therefore, the end of legalized, government sponsored, racial segregation was beyond the authority of the court in that case. Obama's arguing that it wasn't radical, but stayed within the essential contraints the constitution places upon the Supreme Court.

    Further, the Constitution is a document of "negative liberties", which is why Obama supports promoting change through the ballot box, not through the courts. THIS IS THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION!!

    Don't you see the irony here? Obama is actually more conservative than Bush or McCain in his understanding of the Constitution. Negative liberties are liberties that says what the government CANNOT do to you, and positive liberties are what the government MUST do for you.

    For example:

    Negative Liberties are: The government cannot deny you the freedom of assembly, or deny your ability to worship your own religion, or force you testify against yourself, or house troops on your property without your consent, or to search your house without a warrant, or to hold you for 20 years while they investigate a crime without due process.

    Positive Liberties: You have the right to an education, you have the right to health care.

    Obama clearly said in the rest of the quote that if people want these "positive liberties" they must vote for them in the ballot box, because these are not protected, promoted, or envisioned within the Constitution. In fact, he even said that liberals "still suffer" from the idea that they should promote these things in the courts. Obama's position is that they should not. If you want them, then you have to vote for them. That's what is called democracy, but don't expect, nor would it be appropriate, for the Supreme Court to try and create them.

    This is just another example of the "kooks" coming out of the wood work to slam Obama, without rational thought, without understanding of Constitutional law, and without an understanding of what "judicial conservatives" have traditionally stood for in the United States.

    Take Bush and McCain on the other hand: they support "signing statements", a power that Bush has used numerous times, but is no where to be found in the Constitution; they broke the law by ignoring FISA and claiming they didn't need Congressional consent (yeah, real support of checks and balances and limited government there ), they supported the ignoring of the War Powers Act, and they claim that White House officials can ignore Congressional subpoenas, they ignored the UCMJ, they ignored the Geneva Convention(a treaty that has the force of U.S. law), and the Republicans in Congress attempted to over-step their legal authority within the constitution to override a court decision in the Terri Schiavo case.

    Simply put, this administration, often with McCain's support, and always with Republican support, has been TRULY radical in undermining our constitution and the rule of law.

    So while you worry about fictitious, future, unrealistic fears, I worry about the REAL THREAT to our Democracy and our Constitution that has actually been committed and will likely continue to be committed if McCain is elected. :x
    Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. - JFK

  2. #62


    I don't think anyone has the "right" to healthcare OR an education! These are PRIVELEGES, not rights.

    It is the responsibility of the INDIVIDUAL to decide whether he wants to go out and BUY healthcare.

    If healthcare was a RIGHT, why isn't it FREE?

    (Of course it's not free, and it well shouldn't be! Someone has to PAY for medical expertise, supplies, hospitals, drugs, etc. )

    If education is a RIGHT, why do we shell out tax dollars to support schools? (because someone has to pay the teachers and staff, the folks who build and maintain the schools, so on and so forth).

    Is Obama going to offer these supposed "rights" of his for FREE? HELL NO!

    It costs money to provide them to people and so we'll be paying for them in the end, whether it's directly from our hands or whether they find some convoluted way to suck it out of our income at the end of the tax year.

    Have fun for the next four years, when the country is run by a senseless individual with senseless ideals.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2005


    Absolutely correct.

    Education isn't a right. Defense isn't a right. Roads aren't a right. Police aren't a right, and neither are firefighters.

    Rights, for the most part, don't cost anything.

    You have the right to free speech. Doesn't cost a thing.
    Freedom of assembly. 100% free, but you pay for the hall.
    Freedom to own a gun, or 2, or 100. The right is free, but you pay for the guns.
    Freedom of religion. Choose whatever you want.
    Due process, Habeus Corpus, etc. - those cost us a bit, but it's worth it.
    Freedom to drink. You buy the booze, but the right is free.
    Freedom to not be enslaved.
    Freedom to vote.
    Freedom to own property. you have to pay for it, but it's yours. For now.

    What most people these days consider - wrongly - as rights are Public Goods. The privilege comes in having access to them, but they in themselves aren't privileges. They are goods that we the people have decided are worth spending money on and sharing.

    The founding fathers were a lot smarter than the current clowns in DC. They had experienced tyranny first hand, and they realized that big government is inevitably bad government. No exceptions.

    So they allowed us to cooperate and buy things together, but these aren't "rights." Unfortunately, the ignorance of the 21st century is stronger than the Constititution and the wisdom of our founding fathers, so we are now viewing things like healthcare as a right.

    Such fools we have become.

    Primary education is a public good.
    Defense is a public good.
    Firefighting is a public good.
    Roads, and the permission to use them, are public goods.
    Town parks are public goods.
    Paying to have our food and drugs inspected is a public good.
    Securing our borders is a public good. it's also a joke, but I digress.

    This used to be taught in High School. You couldn't get a HS Diploma without being able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of who we are as a people, and how things work.

    Now we have candidates for the Presidency, with law and other degrees, too stupid to know these things - or too corrupt to care.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2006


    Quote Originally Posted by wordfeeder
    I don't think anyone has the "right" to healthcare OR an education! These are PRIVELEGES, not rights.
    Oh my goodness, that's exactly what Obama said in the quote!!

    The constitution is a document of negative rights, not positive rights, because in this country those "positive rights" don't exist, they are considered privileges. In other words, don't expect, and he doesn't support, the idea that the courts should come up with them.

    But if you want government to create public schools, you have to vote for them. However, the Warren court was not radical because in protecting an African-American's right to equal access they were within the essential constraints of its authority, because they weren't creating a constitutional mandate to public education, but protecting an individual's equal access to a public school. In other words, if you use public tax dollars to build a public school, all have the right to equal access, not that there is a constitutional mandate (a positive right) for the government to provide it in the first place.

    I "love" how you guys take things out of context, exaggerate, and spin to a point of unreality. Obama's quote was about protecting an individual's civil rights, and you think its about socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve447
    Now we have candidates for the Presidency, with law and other degrees, too stupid to know these things - or too corrupt to care.
    Steve, like Chasboots, stop being so cynical and pessimistic. The presidential candidates are not stupid, and not corrupt. And no one is proposing that health care be considered a right. The biggest expansion of government power in recent memory has occurred under the Bush administration, and even though I don't think Bush is "stupid", compared to his peers, he certainly isn't the brightest bulb in the pack. As for Cheney, his views of Presidential power are radical and dangerous. Obama/Biden offer a return to sanity.

    Besides Steve, there is no way you should ever be supporting any Republican, you sound more and more like a hard core Libertarian, not a "conservative". They are not the same these days.

    One last thing, most public schools do a much better job at educating students than at any time in our history. And the distinction between rights and privileges is a requirement in the state mandated curriculum guide. As a social studies teacher, I've never met another social studies teacher who didn't understand the difference.

    Not that we can't improve, there is always room for improvement, and we should strive to make changes that continue to lead to increased student achievement and understanding.
    Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain. - JFK

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts