Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 13:46:52 GMT -5
We are just ending eight years of a democratic president who sat on his thumbs doing nothing about dental care. He hardly sat on his thumbs. What he did was almost miraculous, given the Republican Congress. How can you even say that? it's easy to say. I can repeat if you wish.
|
|
|
Post by annaj26 on Nov 26, 2016 15:55:28 GMT -5
He hardly sat on his thumbs. What he did was almost miraculous, given the Republican Congress. How can you even say that? it's easy to say. I can repeat if you wish. Bush didn't give yu dental care, but I guess he got a lot done. He gave you a big old WAR.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 16:00:30 GMT -5
it's easy to say. I can repeat if you wish. Bush didn't give yu dental care, but I guess he got a lot done. He gave you a big old WAR. I don't think anyone from either party is going to do dental care I have a good plan from the state but the closest participating dentist is 135 miles one way
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 16:13:42 GMT -5
Bush didn't give yu dental care, but I guess he got a lot done. He gave you a big old WAR. I don't think anyone from either party is going to do dental care I have a good plan from the state but the closest participating dentist is 135 miles one way Why not? It is an integral part of basic health care. I believe that people have some basic human rights: Quality health care (which includes dental); safe and clean affordable housing; clean air and water; heat, hot water, and air-conditioning; healthy, nourishing food. Is this too extraordinary for a wealthy, first-world nation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 16:39:39 GMT -5
I don't think anyone from either party is going to do dental care I have a good plan from the state but the closest participating dentist is 135 miles one way Why not? It is an integral part of basic health care. I believe that people have some basic human rights: Quality health care (which includes dental); safe and clean affordable housing; clean air and water; heat, hot water, and air-conditioning; healthy, nourishing food. Is this too extraordinary for a wealthy, first-world nation? You may have misunderstood me...I believe every American citizen should have medical, dental, vision and hearing care.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 17:19:28 GMT -5
I doubt that any one argues that such things should not be available to all citizens, the debate is how to do it.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 26, 2016 20:21:14 GMT -5
The Constitution is, most definitely, significant. But, shouldn't it be significant to the well being of the citizens of this country, equally? Is the Constitution only for the rich and not the middle class or the poor?
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 20:54:12 GMT -5
The Constitution is, most definitely, significant. But, shouldn't it be significant to the well being of the citizens of this country, equally? Is the Constitution only for the rich and not the middle class or the poor? The Constitution is neutral in terms of people. It is specifically an agreement to define a national government and the relationship of that national government to the States and to the citizens. Its primary defined responsibility is to protect the citizens and their individual rights. Through the years those who are the citizens, has been expanded and as that expansion has occurred the citizens are related to as the same without regard to anything other than they are citizens. To the extent that I suspect that you are referring to actions of the national government applying favors and protections to selected groups of citizens, this is outside of the Constitution and in truth, is our responsibility (the Citizen) to allow it to occur. The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is we citizens who vote in the representatives who lack the virtuous character that should be part of their being. It is we citizens who fail in our part of ensuring the Constitution is followed. Why do we do that? Because we want the government to ‘give’ us things so we elect those who will do so. The Constitution is a simple document, it is easy to read. The buying of favors and protections from elected representatives is not part of the Constitution. Your concerns are real, but they are misplaced by being focused on the Constitution. Such concerns should be focused on those elected who do not follow the Constitution. Those concerns should be focused on those who are elected to office and then take a false Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the Constitution but have no intention of doing so. We (the citizens) can change this overnight by getting involved. But the people don’t do that as they seem to be only focused on getting free things from government, of getting special privileges.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 26, 2016 21:07:02 GMT -5
I suppose (we've been over this several times in the past). But, don't you think common sense would say "the people (voters)" can't always be trusted to choose wisely? I'm thinking of the large numbers this past election who chose not to vote as an act of resentment toward their favorite candidates not being chosen ... and other large numbers voting for womeone dubious out of resentment for being the so-called "silent majority" too long? Why do you suppose they didn't arrange for a check point of some kind during the nomination process?
Also, I'm assuming lobbyists were not part of the mix 200 + years ago and they are a large part of the problem today. (ditto tricks to tip the balance like Gerrymandering and using mass communication for fake news and other dirty tricks).
I'm pretty sure the FF's didn't envision the country as it is today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 21:15:57 GMT -5
I doubt that any one argues that such things should not be available to all citizens, the debate is how to do it. I have been chuckling to myself that all of us didn't see the forest for thr trees...thank you for pointing out the obvious.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 26, 2016 21:24:24 GMT -5
Chef, I truly hope the time doesn't come when your chuckling turns to distress.
That's an important point, Randy. But, from where I sit, it seems strange that the Constitution would block the federal government from assisting for good reason. Maybe they believed future Americans would have the wisdom and foresight to make changes to suit the situations as they arose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2016 21:29:43 GMT -5
The Constitution is, most definitely, significant. But, shouldn't it be significant to the well being of the citizens of this country, equally? Is the Constitution only for the rich and not the middle class or the poor? The Constitution is neutral in terms of people. It is specifically an agreement to define a national government and the relationship of that national government to the States and to the citizens. Its primary defined responsibility is to protect the citizens and their individual rights. Through the years those who are the citizens, has been expanded and as that expansion has occurred the citizens are related to as the same without regard to anything other than they are citizens. To the extent that I suspect that you are referring to actions of the national government applying favors and protections to selected groups of citizens, this is outside of the Constitution and in truth, is our responsibility (the Citizen) to allow it to occur. The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is we citizens who vote in the representatives who lack the virtuous character that should be part of their being. It is we citizens who fail in our part of ensuring the Constitution is followed. Why do we do that? Because we want the government to ‘give’ us things so we elect those who will do so. The Constitution is a simple document, it is easy to read. The buying of favors and protections from elected representatives is not part of the Constitution. Your concerns are real, but they are misplaced by being focused on the Constitution. Such concerns should be focused on those elected who do not follow the Constitution. Those concerns should be focused on those who are elected to office and then take a false Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the Constitution but have no intention of doing so. We (the citizens) can change this overnight by getting involved. But the people don’t do that as they seem to be only focused on getting free things from government, of getting special privileges. Nine Constitutions. You really like shoving it in, Randy. So what is it? People want jobs or people want free stuff? Or white guys want jobs and Blacks, Browns, and Muslims want free stuff?
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 21:53:35 GMT -5
I suppose (we've been over this several times in the past). But, don't you think common sense would say "the people (voters)" can't always be trusted to choose wisely? I'm thinking of the large numbers this past election who chose not to vote as an act of resentment toward their favorite candidates not being chosen ... and other large numbers voting for womeone dubious out of resentment for being the so-called "silent majority" too long? Why do you suppose they didn't arrange for a check point of some kind during the nomination process? Also, I'm assuming lobbyists were not part of the mix 200 + years ago and they are a large part of the problem today. (ditto tricks to tip the balance like Gerrymandering and using mass communication for fake news and other dirty tricks). I'm pretty sure the FF's didn't envision the country as it is today. The Founding generation were aware of all those things. The debates as to the ratification of the Body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights makes that quite clear. In truth, there was nothing new about any political activities as they had been historically active going back to the time of Magna Carta and before. Let’s say that we could agree that “the people (voters) can’t always be trusted to choose wisely?” You do realize where that leads? To at least some degree that is the reason for the Electoral College. For myself, I trust the people, even those who don’t vote, more than any politician or group. If the people cannot be trusted, then who will make the determination of the voting. A check point? The original idea was that those of a given State would determine what was best for their-selves. Remember that in those times, it was more common that citizens considered themselves as citizens of their States and not as citizens of nation. The idea of factions (political parties) crossing State lines was not considered a possibility. The idea that two political parties would be the focus of the nominating process was not part of their mindset. Sure, lobbyists were part of the picture then, they always have been. I realize that there is some who equate this to big money entities buying privilege, but the biggest and most influential lobbyists are the two major political parties. Their gathering power to their party is more important to them than the country or the people. Gerrymandering has also been around a long time and is a State controlled function. Mass communication as of today, wasn’t the same in the Founding Times but they had their own versions and they told such blatant outright lies that they would have made people of today blush with embarrassment. The big difference (in my opinion) was that in the Founding times a larger percentage of the people were involved in at least being made aware. The population was smaller and it was easier to know those running for office. Then, no citizen looked to the government to give them anything beyond the responsibilities delegated in the Constitution. Since around 1900 our government began to change and with those changes, increasing numbers of people have come to expect ‘stuff’ from government and post World War II that situation has rapidly increased to the detriment of the nation. However, through all of that the words of the Constitution have changed very little. The 14th Amendment have made the States almost a direct child of the national government. changing of Senators being popularly elected from being State legislature selected, is one of the worse things that could have happened. Except of course, if we take that next step of popularly electing the President. Then we can say that the Constitution is no longer meaningful.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 21:56:58 GMT -5
The Constitution is neutral in terms of people. It is specifically an agreement to define a national government and the relationship of that national government to the States and to the citizens. Its primary defined responsibility is to protect the citizens and their individual rights. Through the years those who are the citizens, has been expanded and as that expansion has occurred the citizens are related to as the same without regard to anything other than they are citizens. To the extent that I suspect that you are referring to actions of the national government applying favors and protections to selected groups of citizens, this is outside of the Constitution and in truth, is our responsibility (the Citizen) to allow it to occur. The Constitution makes no such distinction. It is we citizens who vote in the representatives who lack the virtuous character that should be part of their being. It is we citizens who fail in our part of ensuring the Constitution is followed. Why do we do that? Because we want the government to ‘give’ us things so we elect those who will do so. The Constitution is a simple document, it is easy to read. The buying of favors and protections from elected representatives is not part of the Constitution. Your concerns are real, but they are misplaced by being focused on the Constitution. Such concerns should be focused on those elected who do not follow the Constitution. Those concerns should be focused on those who are elected to office and then take a false Oath of Office to Protect and Defend the Constitution but have no intention of doing so. We (the citizens) can change this overnight by getting involved. But the people don’t do that as they seem to be only focused on getting free things from government, of getting special privileges. Nine Constitutions. You really like shoving it in, Randy. So what is it? People want jobs or people want free stuff? Or white guys want jobs and Blacks, Browns, and Muslims want fee stuff? Ariel, it is clear that you do not read with comprehension and that your sole purpose is as a provocateur. I second Mike's comments and add that there is no reason to answer you at all.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Nov 26, 2016 22:02:50 GMT -5
Chef, I truly hope the time doesn't come when your chuckling turns to distress. That's an important point, Randy. But, from where I sit, it seems strange that the Constitution would block the federal government from assisting for good reason. Maybe they believed future Americans would have the wisdom and foresight to make changes to suit the situations as they arose. You really misinterpreted the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. It establiished the national government for very specific functions. It do not stop any State singularly or in any groups from doing such things. This is not meant to be a country run by a singular government, rather it is a union of (then 13) 50 States which have assigned through the Constitution very specifically assigned functions. If you want a singular government controlling everything there are several other countries which operat just that way, but not here, at least not yet.
|
|