aleph_0 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 These people assume they have the right to do what they want with our health care. Perhaps, but that's not their message. They may or may not believe that they have no right to change a person's healthcare plan, but believe they have the right to provide whatever the hell they're providing. Whether they believe they have the right to take a person's healthcare plan away from them has not been discussed. Firstly, if someone says "You misunderstood, I am not going to do this", it is perfectly apt to reply "It is not your right to do it". I disagree. Let's say that I make some statement, you misunderstand me, and I say, "Oh no, I wasn't saying that I'm going to stop you from giving your speech on Tuesday," and you fire back, "You don't have any right to stop me!" That's not apt--that's overreaction to something I never said I had a right to do in the first place. The full message of the administration is that they have the right to change the plan, and that they have been misunderstood about whether they are going to exercise that supposed right. I think that's the general message of liberals at large, not specifically this administration, and I don't think that message is communicated particularly by this reform. Now if the statement were, "You have no right to use my tax dollars for other people's healthcare," or even "This reform is a threadbare first-step in destroying all private healthcare, which is unlawful, immoral, and a fundamental perversion of the function our government is supposed to perform," I would find that content perfectly apt. But it's like the government announced, "We're not saying x" and the guy responds by saying, "So you're saying x, and you have no right to!" I agree that they have no right, and I agree that they probably think they have the right, but the way of coming around to the topic is what seems off to me. That's all I was pointing out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Note: I was just nit-picking and never intended for it to be a full-blown debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 I don't find this marine to be much more honorable in his position or his integrity than the oafish congressman who he yelled down. Watch the Hannity interview. I assume everyone was judging his particular little town-hall speech, not all his views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted September 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 Perhaps, but that's not their message. They may or may not believe that they have no right to change a person's healthcare plan, but believe they have the right to provide whatever the hell they're providing. Whether they believe they have the right to take a person's healthcare plan away from them has not been discussed. It is their message, because it's implicit and foundational to their argument. It's exactly that premise -- an altruistic based premise -- that leads them to believing what they are doing is right. So, it is that point that needs to be challenged and then everything comes down like a house of cards. And in the context of America, which was founded on individual rights, it is an omnipresent idea. Arguing over some detail of the plan would be worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
synrose Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 The Marine strikes again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve D'Ippolito Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 .... and he got his ass handed to him, this time. The congresscritter was prepared. (Mind you the congresscritter is *wrong.* But he won the exchange.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted September 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 .... and he got his ass handed to him, this time. The congresscritter was prepared. (Mind you the congresscritter is *wrong.* But he won the exchange.) No ... the Congress critter used sophistry. The same-old jargon disconnected from reality. The Marine won, he just didn't get the last word. I loved the way he poked fun at the fact they are busing in thugs and then basically said in your face. That was good stuff!!!! Come on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Grathwohl Posted September 14, 2009 Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 No ... the Congress critter used sophistry. The same-old jargon disconnected from reality. The Marine won, he just didn't get the last word. I loved the way he poked fun at the fact they are busing in thugs and then basically said in your face. That was good stuff!!!! Come on! No, the Congressman definitely came out of that argument the victor. He was definitely wrong, but he's smarter than the marine. The marine, the dolt he is, said he "believes" in the Constitution. Who doesn't? He used the 10th amendment as a crutch for his inability to actually define what is philosophically and morally wrong with socialized medicine. The Congressman, therefore, is operating on a similar moral premise. He utilized his false premise, however, to actually construct an argument. Of course, this argument was illogical outside of the confines of the false moral premise, but among all the nitwits in that audience, the Congressman was the winner of that debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thales Posted September 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2009 No, the Congressman definitely came out of that argument the victor. He was definitely wrong, but he's smarter than the marine. The marine, the dolt he is, said he "believes" in the Constitution. Who doesn't? He used the 10th amendment as a crutch for his inability to actually define what is philosophically and morally wrong with socialized medicine. The Congressman, therefore, is operating on a similar moral premise. He utilized his false premise, however, to actually construct an argument. Of course, this argument was illogical outside of the confines of the false moral premise, but among all the nitwits in that audience, the Congressman was the winner of that debate. "He's smarter than the marine?" I'll bet the marine is much sharper. All the congressman said was "there is a debate over the 10th Amendment." That's not an argument, that's sophistry. It’s what a lawyer disconnected from reality would say. And the 10th Amendment is the law of the land, so it is pertinent to law makers. The marine rejected the idea that there should even be a Medicare. After that the congressman had the microphone, so there was not much the Marine could do. As to what is morally wrong with socialized medicine, he made it clear in his prior statement that it was not the Congressman's right to tell him what he can and can not do with his health care. That's the moral argument. It's not complete, but it's there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.