It is ok to disagree with anyone but African-Americans weren't portraying Bush as Hitler or anything inflamatory in protests.

Portraying the president as a witch doctor is racist....plain and simple.

 

Uhh.... those 'many' 'Christian Fundamentalists' are in the total minority and have no power in our country. And they don't control 'the button'. The Muslim Fundamentalists rule their countries, and will soon have the bomb.

 

You need to step out of Cali sometime. Check out the South....GA, TN, MS, Al...etc...there are a lot more than you think. These churches are huge and have a big following. The religous right weilded somebig power not that long ago....remember Newt and 1994?

 

You kidding right? I don't care if it was white, black, brown, yellow or green.....they protrayed Bush as Hitler and much more.

My point is, percentage wise......Black folks vote strictly more on the color of skin than White folks. Why is that?

 

General welfare?

You know the intent of the founding fathers when it suits you? A more thourough look into the intent of the general welfare clause may not support your opinion as stongly as you might think. It is my understanding that the gneneral welfare was ment to encompass general interests of Learning, of Agriculture, of Manufactures, and of Commerce. If you view this clause as encompassing health care, wouldn't you have to include housing, food, clothing, jobs, ect. ect.? The list could be expanded to encompass every aspect of our lives.

So, if the general welfare means that health care is a right, God, religion and virtue are all integrul to our lives as well. Right?

It's really a simple question to ask, what's the problem with Obama? It's a simple way to look at what a lot of Americans are feeling today. If you believe that it's a problem with Obama, you are missing quite a bit about what's actually going on.

 

Everyone knows that the meaning of words have and will change over time. The word welfare was meant and used differently then many Americans use it now. This is the definition of "welfare" out of a 1828 Noah Webster's American Dictionary of The English Language. This is how "welfare" was defined only 40 years after the constitution was written.

WEL´FARE, n. [well and fare, a good going; G. wohlfahrt; D. welvaard; Sw. valfart; Dan. velfærd.]
1. Exemption from misfortune, sickness, calamity or evil; the enjoyment of health and the common blessings of life; prosperity; happiness; applied to persons.
2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applies to states.

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word "welfare" is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

So to answer your question..
Healthcare a right? No. Never has been, and until the words on paper are changed by some new amendment it never will be. Is it nice to have? Of course, many things are nice to have, but then again you have to be able to afford the nice things to have them. Many people would claim that Obama is leading the United States to socialism. Many things that have been implemented under other presidents(even republicans) have been a form of socialism. Social Security is a form of socialism, and has been in effect for quite some time now. Everyone wants the government to control certain things, and you will find its only when it conveniences that individual.

My opinion is that Obama is going overboard with his spending. No matter which way you look the situation, the United States' "pocket book" cant handle it. We are trillions in debt, and a president that is going to come in and spend more money than all other presidents in the history of the United States combined just is not going to fly. There is no such thing as spending your way out of a depression or a "slum". Printing more money just defaces the value of our dollars and sooner or later you wont be able to give them away. Where do you draw the line?

There are soo many things to be said about the current issue, but I am not going to write all of you a book. I am not going to sit here and bash Bush or Obama because they are both very intelligent individuals. If you would come to me and ask me if I would have voted for Obama I would have said.. Hell no! But would I have voted for McCain? Nope. This country needs "change", but we dont need it all RIGHT now. Obama is pushing his luck, and I have a feeling that like it was said before me that he is going to find himself hurting in 2010.

 

GREAT WORDS!!!!

 

I agree, and I thought that all the apologies for the whole global warming issue was a joke as well. Stupid Cafe standards. So much for running straight pipes.

 

I don't think they hate us....but idk...its hard to tell cause ive heard many were thankful but the liberal media not going to show that obviously!

 

HHAHA!!! i kno once socialism takes over where all gonna be forced to drive smart cars or sumthin!!!LOL Yeah was reading a mopar magazine (better than gm by a lil) and there was article saying that the guy who started all this global warming nonsense has sinse said we need to take a step back casue there is no actual proof. sumthin like he used this idea to make money. NE way he was a professor and guess who his best student was??........Al Gore...how much $ does al gore make off of his whole global warming prevention scheme or wwhat ever it is??? millions!

 

"but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

so how is the current system fair? The highest earners pay a lot more as a percentage to the feds than the lowest earners. You have to go by percent. That is the only way. And to say the "rich" can afford it is not acceptable. And no, you can't take "general wellfare" to mean universal health coverage. That is not what they ment when they wrote that. Otherwise we would have had universal health care a couple of centuries ago.

 

I am a little "iffy" on the global warming subject, and it shows. I can see the major profit in it, but in all reality seasons come and season go. Sometimes its hot and sometimes its cold. This is in no way what I believe, but some would say that the earth was formed some millions of years ago. Probably the same people that believe that most lakes were formed by glaciers ripping big holes in the ground. Those glaciers would have to have been melting and ripping up the earth long before all those "froot loops" decided that our cars, trains, and any other carbon promoting substance on the planet was causing the earth to super heat itself. Wouldn't you think that it would have to have been global warming that caused that in the first place? Technology did not allow for my "clunker" to ruin the world with its emissions at the time. There are so many angles and views of situations regarding global warming and all that entails, and they use the worst of it to make you think its worse than it it really is. Its a load of hogwash as is many other things. You either like it or you dont.. and I dont. Just my opinion

 

Lol you forgot libia. When we went into iraq, he coward and towed the line. now that obama is in office he is emboldend. Same old terrorist of old. No one seems to remember that.

 

AGREED. I dont believe its right for you to punish people who are successful in their lives, by making them pay more taxes. Most people would say they are rich.. who cares? I do, because its wrong. However, those taxes have to come from somewhere, and my pocketbook does not allow for me to cover what those big guys are paying so I guess they have to bear the load for awhile :o

 

Having a flat tax doesn't work for the simple fact that the lowest earners truly can't afford it.

Think about it this way...

If Family A makes $20k a year and has to pay $2k a year in taxes, they are down to $18k.

Conversely if Family B makes $150k a year and has to pay $15k a year they are down to 135k a year.

It is a whole lot easier to live on 135k than 18k for a family of 4. Plus that family A probably doesn't have any health insurance either. The highest earners will still live better than the lowest earners.

You can make the argument that they should work harder or not have had the kids or whatever you want but still that is their situation.

That is why it hurt the poorest the most when gasoline hit $4.30/gallon last summer...the poorest aren't debating whether that vacation will be affordable...they are debating if the Ramen Noodles are affordable.

Now I will agree that President Obama is trying to push too much through too fast and nothing is working for him right now. Part of that is out of necessity though.

Regardless of blame, the economy was sour and is getting worse...the more unemployed people there are, guess what the fewer with health insurance.

When looking at what is a right and what is a privilege to have, I guess it is in the eye of the beholder. Given the case in MN this summer where the courts forced that kid to get chemotherapy even though he didn't want it, makes me feel it has become a right. The care costs money and what if his mom didn't want him to get it due to the cost? No one can force you to go out and buy a truck...no one can force you to get big rims and tires. Someone (government) can force you to get treatment. It isn't like car insurance...you don't have to own a car...you can't exactly say...I don't want to own my body. You're stuck with it.

Here is my problem...those that are too lazy to go to work get free healthcare (Medicade) and most that work decent jobs have employer sponsored insurance. It is those that are the "working poor" that have none. I would much rather pay for the "working poor" to have insurance than for those too lazy to get up from daytime TV and get a job.

As far as Iraq...I think you will find that the situation is much like Cuba. Yes there are some in Miami that despise Castro but most have come to live with it and go on. There is a strong group that is happy they were liberated. Overall though I am sure that most would rather not have the chaos and live within the laws of Saddam.

How would the US like to be invaded by outsiders because our government is oppressing our right to have smog producing straight pipes. Heck lets put lead back in the gasoline too!!!! Sure there are a few on here that would find it liberating but if they caused all kinds of chaos and destroyed our country in the effort, I think most would be very upset if they were losing their lives and daily bombings were happening all for our liberation. While I realize my example is extreme...most of the Iraqis would rather be able to send their kids to school and such than to have them killed the second they walk out the door.

I think the fundamental differences are so broad that no one could bring the two sides together.

The way I see it is that Bush put things in place to take away our civil liberties in the name of safety. Obama is taking away our financial liberties. Either way, we are slaves to our government and no matter what, no one will be happy.