Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have called and emailed my representatives and told them I was in favor of a Public Insurance Option. Congressman Anthony Weiner is rallying on behalf of my fellow New Yorkers and myself when he speaks out for the Public Option to break the Health Isurance Industrial Complex monopoly. Still don't see how it is possible to break the monoploy without the help of government though.
if your state wants give you public option healthcare that's fine.That is your states right or choice.if that is what the people of your state want.Example Mass. health care. that was what people their wanted.It is not the federal goverments job to do that .
if your state wants give you public option healthcare that's fine.That is your states right or choice.if that is what the people of your state want.Example Mass. health care. that was what people their wanted.It is not the federal goverments job to do that .
I have addressed your comments and questions in good faith. Could you please address mine?
"Why is there the insatiable desire to force others to comply with their ideas? Is it not enough to band together and form only voluntary associations? If not, why not?"
I have addressed your comments and questions in good faith. Could you please address mine?
"Why is there the insatiable desire to force others to comply with their ideas? Is it not enough to band together and form only voluntary associations? If not, why not?"
Humans desire to control something and the belief that they are right,as well as they know whats better.Just a guess. as for your other question don't know the why.
He may have called for that on radio but he was trying to become emporer by stacking the court and letting himself run for more terms.What a person says ansd what they do9 ogten are two different things, Notice he quickly took rights away from japanese citizens and his security act was really something else.
Has reading so declined in this country even the simplest of sentences and phrases escape the comprehension of the average reader?
The OP claims in his headline, "FDR's call for a "Second Bill of Rights" then proceeds to quote these enumerated rights but either ignores their introductory paragraph or completely misreads it:
"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed"
.
One does not "call for" something new, but instead points out that which pre-exists, the perceived right to the enumerated socio-economic conditions. The very fact that he refers to the Second Bill of rights idiomatically can only lead one to understand that he was not calling for the enactment of a Second Bill of Rights but was instead speaking of rhetorically about fulfilling his vision for a just and equitable society.
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It'd be better if you'd just called me a "dumbass", i would of respected your opinion more so.
FWIW- I understood the premise very much so. You may of heard or understand the concept of truisms. It tends to open dialogue when a title isn't perceived as biased right off the bat.
What no one is asking is whether the government should be able to aggressively force individuals to comply with whatever the government decides are ideal societal conditions? Or even if any group of people should be permitted to attack others for their own benefit? Imposing these "ideals" through aggressive force, whether they are defined by a dictator or a majority, upon an individual who has no liability whatsoever fail any definition of "justice" in a rational mind.
Megalomaniacs are always able to "justify" their oppression of the masses because they "know" they are superior to every one else. What the "enlightened" always fail to acknowledge is that they are no better than any other person. When they impose their fantasies upon others through force they need to appoint themselves to the level of a God. All of the brutal dictators, psychopaths, criminally insane, possess a unique quality that the "common man" does not in their minds. This "superiority" leaves them perplexed as to why their lowly fellow man does not bend to his will. This is why the "intellectual elite" are the most brutal of all and also why they actually posess the least intellect of all mankind.
"Justice" in their mind only occurs when the entire world complies to their own personal fantasy. They cannot comprehend that all men are equally free to see themselves as the supreme rulers of their lives. All of the qualities that they claim to possess are at the same time absent from everyone else. They believe only the foolish behave differently than they would have them behave. Only they deserve the freedom to live as they see fit. Everyone else in the world is something to be manipulated to fit their visions. This is the strange scary quality that we see in most politicians that is often elusive to place our finger upon. Anyone who lives their lives trying to manipulate others through force are somewhat delusional.
Sure they usually attempt to appear noble and profess to be trying to help the masses. In their sickness they actually believe this to be true. The reality however is that they are playing out their little mental role of gods over man. Politicians are not alone in this illness though. Really, any person who endorses or supports collectivism, both Republicans and Democrats, are as mentally ill as any totalitarian or brutal murderer. It is their unwavering faith that they are justified in ruling over others, actually punishing others, for not serving their own personal interests.
Nothing exists in the world except their glorious vision of how other humans can be manipulated to serve their interests and beliefs. Not one of them believes in freedom or the inherent right of people to exist peacefully if they don't conform to their private fantasies. So FDR is no worse that Lincoln or Wilson, or any other "leader". He was no worse than the people who vote for Dems or Repubs in their desire to wield government power against their neighbors. He was simply doing and saying what comes naturally for delusional megalomaniacs of all stripes.
These people don't believe that rights are naturally inherent of man, nor do they believe that they are created by government for that matter. They actually, whether they admit to it or even realize it, believe that the rights of others are something that they themselves bestow upon others when they personally approve of those particular rights. This is the problem with both "right", "left", and "center" people. They all assume that they are rightful rulers of others.
Look at the vast number of posts on this forum to confirm the mass mental illness of all of the totalitarians here. Nearly everyone is trying to impose their will upon others as if they have a right to do so. Government to these people is simply the weapon of choice for their immoral aggression upon their fellow man. In politics their really is only two schools of thought among all people.
One position is taken by the mentally ill dictators among us who always use government force to impose their personal will on others. This is done by both the "left" and "right", and everyone in between, varying only in who the particular vicitims and beneficiaries of their personal decrees will be.
The second position is taken by the consistent and humble people who only seek to ensure the maximum possible freedom for all. These people do not see themselves as superior to others or claim the right to run other people's lives by their personal whim. They do not seek to act aggressively to force others to comply with their personal interests. They simply seek to live and let live. They seek only the protection against the aggression of others. They hold that the government, any group of people, or individual, is immoral when using force against another for any other reason than defensive force. That government, groups, and individuals are never just in using force other than to defend the freedom of the individual.
If that is beyond a person's reason, than that person is a delusional megalomaniac and closet totalitarian. C'mon people, take the meds, get on the freedom bandwagon! We are all equal humans and should easily be able to get along fine with one another if we put down the evil weapon of government and the silly notion that we are superior to our fellow man.
Now back to the regularly scheduled program of the "Battle of the Dictators"...
Ah, the anti-statist view...
Why do you think the "godverment" is an entity of its own in the U.S?
I hear people from time to time that belong in the UAW bashing the UAW if it were a seperate entity unto itself. Strange, indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
