Which side of his face was to the camera? A clue to his position on any given issue is found in which side of his face is showing. If its a straight on shot, he's not going to commit. Take your chances and wait and see. Think twice about wavering on national defense. A hard line with terrorists is the only approach we can take to keep them from bringing their activities closer to home. The economic crash we are working our way out of resulted from 9/11. What economic stability could we possibly enjoy with a war being fought on the home front. Prior to WWII, Chamberlain took a passive line with Hitler. Since Chamberlain failed to show any backbone, Hitler regarded him as a worm and marched onward. Churchill took a hard line. War was enviable, but under Churchill's leadership, England prevailed (with help from us of course). History has proven time and again the need to be firm. That is the only language aggressors understand. Democrats are notorious for raising taxes. Just as they are notorious about throwing money into well intended but failed government programs. Their rationalization is beyond all logic. And finally, hard at it is, you really don't want socialized medicine. Doctors have been slapped with huge malpractice insurance costs and insurance companies determining what level of care a Dr. can provide by refusing to pay for certain procedures or dramatically reducing the amount they will pay. Add to that the greed of pharmaceutical companies and drug stores. Need drugs, check out a Costco store, no membership is necessary. Or check out Costco online. Much cheaper !! Take matters into your own hands by following good health habits. Then if you do get sick, seek alternative medicine. Some think alternative medicine is hocus pocus, but it really works. Hubby has placed his health in the hands of MD's and continues to suffer. I go alternative and am in excellent health.
Why should I do anything myself if the government is going to provide for me. That isnât limiting empowerment? Again, you are viewing this issue through the lens of capitalism. A capitalist sees the ultimate motive for doing something as acting on material greed, selfishness, and need for accumulation of wealth beyond basic living. An argument can be made that a higher level of existence would be doing something for others, serving society over oneself. Yes, inside the individual. Unfortunately there are more takers than givers. See above. And with capitalism, the takers will take everything they can weasel out of the givers. Iâm viewing everything through the lens of a Constitutionalist. Capitalism and socialism have nothing to do with the constitution. The constitution is not an economic theory. The rights granted by the constitution, and the structure of government will work with either a pure capitalistic system, or a pure socialist system, but my opinion is that it works best with a system that is a mixture of capitalism and socialism with the emphasis on caring for all members of society equally. Obviously as a liberal, or one with liberal tendencies, you donât understand human nature. Pure nonsense. People take the path of least resistance. As I said before, necessity is the mother of invention. Remove the need, remove the thrust to take responsibility. With proper education and inspiration, people seek higher levels of existence than the "human nature" you suggest. I wager you find greater happiness on the whole with a man who devotes his life to helping others than a greedy bastard who cares for no one but himself. There is no one single âcauseâ. However, allowing Socialism to manifest itself in our political and social structure will cause the greater harm. Pure speculation. If the Constitution needs to be amended, which it has been, then so be it. But follow what is there. That hasnât been done. Thats the point Iâm making. Everyone wants to add their own meaning or disregard its intent, throwing out every conceivable absurd reason imaginable. Doing so erodes our liberties. Erodes our liberties? They didnât write the Constitution for themselves. The wrote it for every inhabitant of this country. Our job is to preserve it at all costs, for future generations. Our job is not to preserve the Constitution, but to preserve society. The Constitution serves society, not the other way around. ART, in addition to making a statement, I was asking you for your opinion. What part needs to change? Who is saying it needs to change necessarily? I am suggesting that it may need to be interpreted differently as our society grows and evolves. What you are not understanding is that essentially the constitution serves the values of our society. If those values change, then the Constitution either needs to change or be interpreted differently. You may not like the changes in value of our society, I may not like them, but rigidity of the Constitution will not work when values are changing. This who gay marriage thing is about values, not really about law or the Constitution. What do we as a society value? Personal freedom? Personal security? A concept of morality based on Christian principles? A concept based on secularism? My point is that values do change in a society, and if the Constitution will not change with those values, it will not survive the changes. The concept of Socialism is certainly unconstitutional. Your opinion only, not a fact, nor a case than can or has been made to overturn the actions by government that you consider "socialistic."
Kerry, may be anti-war....who cares. He served his time and saw what war truly was. Bush, since he is not anti-war, could we then consider him anti-peace? Sounds appropriate to me. What one would I chose. Hmmm. Someone who fights for the country yet also stands up for what believes, or someone who sends others off to die for what are found out to be LIES.
What a concept! Someone dare think God does not always take America's side. Elizabeth Bumiller of the NEW YORK TIMES asked Kerry: "President Bush has said that freedom and fear have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. He's made quite clear in his speeches that he feels God is on America's side. "Is God on America's side?" KERRY: Well, God will -- look, I think -- I believe in God, but I don't believe, the way President Bush does, in invoking it all the time in that way. I think it is -- we pray that God is on our side, and we pray hard. And God has been on our side through most of our existence.
Your comments tell me you have your point of view, that you are convinced is the "right" point of view. I don't agree. Your comments are nothing but opinion, lacking in fact.
ART its very frustrating to try to carry on a dialogue with someone who hasn't taken the time to study the course material. Thinking my comments are just my opinion gives full credibility to my assertion you haven't done your homework. Facts mean nothing to those incapable of understanding even the most basic of thought.
Your comments are fully ad hominem and an attempt to poison the well. Why don't you make an argument that doesn't depend upon reading what YOU suggest? Just make an argument based on YOUR understanding. If you want to quote the Constitution, we could debate what it REALLY means. Placing yourself as some authority on the Constitution is worthless to me. A well crafted argument is the authority, the rest is just opinion without an underlying well reasoned argument.
ad hominem indeed. An argument based on my understanding without referencing books written on the subject would certainly be ad hominem. As such are your remarks. Debates without emotion must therefore be based on logic. Logic requires research, research requires reading. You don't want to read, therefore you must want to baffle us with your BS because you certainly can't dazzle us with brilliance. Come to class prepared. In addition to the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, read the following: Democracy in America - Alexis de Tocoqueville History of American People Basic History of the United State (6 volumes) Story of Civilization (11 volumes) Tempting of America Making of America Development of American Nationality Books on the following; Thomas Jefferson John Adams George Washington Abe Lincoln Winston Churchill Unless you are willing to do the research, you least of all are equipped to tell anyone what the Constitution REALLY means. I'm not an expert on the Constitution, but still head and shoulders over you.
you're wasting your time trying to inculcate logic into ART. He has proven himself to be utterly incapable of logic. Before you become as frustrated as myself and others have become with him, I thought I should warn you. No matter how much evidence or how good your argument is, ART will never retreat from his myopic position. ART is stubborn. The best thing I've learned from frequent comunications with ART is the phrase ad hominen. I'm going to begin using it in the next few days.