I'm a liberal and I'm here to learn

[rogerv]

Hi, gang,

I was a regular contributor to the Kerry Online Forum and am now a regular contributor to the Common Ground Common Sense forum. I am a liberal, but I'll be the first to admit, I don't have all the answers. In fact, many of hte questions that matter to me probably matter to you too. I'm concerned with questions about how to tame power, whether governmental or corporate. I'm concern with the rule of law and how we can get the powerful to take it seriously. I'm concerned with the erosion of civil liberties. And yes, I am concerned about some things you may associate with liberalism--social safety nets and taking care of those who fall through the institutional cracks.

I'm here because I think agreement is overrated and that critics can be your best friends: they keep you from getting sloppy or careless. At any rate, I think there are things I can learn from you. I don't expect you are all agreed on anything--I expect there is a lot of diversity of opinion here. If you are interested in what I have said over at Common Ground Common Sense, I'm using the same handle both places, and you should feel free to come over and look around.

Anyway, I'm new here. Anybody care to give me a tour?

[ApesForEvolution]

i thought it was kind of obvious why it's good for america. we should want everyone to have health insurance because it will keep us all healthier and save us money. both as individuals and as a nation. are you saying we're better off throwing money away on administrative costs, instead of using that same money to make sick people better? why do you want to throw money away?


>>>

Are you really this dense and uninformed?

[scannell]

Gee, I'm only wrong on 95% of what I believe? I'm doing better than I thought!

Actually the 5% is only that part about your kids.

[riri]

But, even if you don't opt to buy into it--you still pay for it through higher and higher taxes. Similar to our public education system?

[Sunsong]

i thought it was kind of obvious why it's good for america. we should want everyone to have health insurance because it will keep us all healthier and save us money. both as individuals and as a nation. are you saying we're better off throwing money away on administrative costs, instead of using that same money to make sick people better? why do you want to throw money away?

No, that's only something that seems *obvious* to a leftist or a marxist. I see that you registered on Free Republic today. Why did you come here?

You have yet to make any coherent reason or give any evidence whatsoever that socialsim is good or why we would want to be like Canada or France?

Are you familiar with what tort reform is? Are you familiar with President Bush's healthcare proposals?

[ApesForEvolution]

No, it's frustration with children and parents who think the Internet is a toy...

[jwalsh07]

so what if a state did pass a law prohibiting you from living where you want? you would expect the courts to declare that law unconstitutional, correct?

Correct. Notice the C in Correct is capitalized.

so how is that different from the massachusetts supreme court declaring the law against gay marriage unconstitutional?

Because their is no right to gay marriage in the Massachusetts Constitution and 200 years of Massachusetts jurisprudence has recognized a marriage to be between one man and one woman as has federal jurisprudence. In fact the Massachusetts Constitution specifically states that all matters of marriage are the province of the legislature and the Governor. The courts were notably absent in that section.

if the state doesn't have the right to prohibit you from living where you want, why do they have the right to prohibit you from marrying who you want?

The institution of marriage does not discriminate. Any man, of age, can marry and woman, of age, though their are prohibitions depending on DNA. Now if the state said that homosexual men could not marry either hetero or homosexual woman that would be discrimination and violate the Constitution of Massachusetts and the US.

does anyone understand what i'm saying here?

Sure, you want courts to legislate when the legislation accrues to your benefit. No surprise there.

judicial activism is not inherently bad.

LOL, of course it is. The Judiciary, for the most part is an unelected branch of government and federal judges are never required to answer to the electorate.

states do not have the right to pass whatever laws they want. they can't restrict your personal freedoms. and if they try to, the purpose of the courts is to stop them.

Neither states nor the feds can abridge your inalienable rights, at least they shouldn't be able to. But their are rights and privileges and then there is license and it would do you well to learn the difference right after you learn proper English.

[ApesForEvolution]

Your ZoT watch is on RAT...

[Sunsong]

tort reform and savings accounts won't give insurance to people who are rejected by private insurance for pre-existing conditions.

Tort reform will lower the cost of healthcare. You have yet to enlighten us as to why socialism is such a great thing.

you're talking about canada as if their form of health care is the only option available and we have to do exactly what they do. which is silly.

I'm talking about Canada because they have socialized medicine and their country has gone to pot since they instituted it. You are correct that we have lots of options available. Are you familiar with President Bush's healthcare proposals. What I think is good for America is more along those lines.

are you familiar with kerry's health care proposal? it's the same one that congresspeople have access to. insurance that you're allowed to buy into if you want to, but you don't have to. you keep your doctor, etc etc. costs less than private insurance. will give everyone access to preventative medicine and prescription drugs regardless of pre-existing conditions.

So, I ask again- newbie -- what are you doing here? Are you aware that this is a conservative site?

[pharmamom]

The Shift key is your friend. It makes your posts easier to read. Repeat after me, "The Shift key is my friend."

You are right in that a single payer system would save on administrative costs. However, the cost to the free market would cancel out the savings in administrative costs. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people employed by the insurance industry and the millions of dollars invested in those companies by 401(k)s and mutual funds. You can't just wipe out the payor industry and go on your merry way.

[Sunsong]

You are advocating socialized medicine. I have asked you repeatedly to defend it and to give evidence and back-up for your assertions. You have not done so.

Me thinks you are a troll. Why are you here?

[riri]

Admittedly, no I haven't, where is it posted--this is a long thread.

[pharmamom]

And whose going to pay for Kerry's health care? Our taxes. The problem with giving anything away for free is that the recipients don't value what they are given. We all know we are going to get sick and old. Why don't we encourage savings to care for ourselves?

And are we going to offer everyone in-vitro fertilization, heart-lung transplants, expensive experimental procedures, etc?

[Just mythoughts]

"why is marriage different?"


MARRIAGE means joining of male and female. There is no legal authority by any man or woman to pervert the meaning of the word.

[jwalsh07]

there is no right to live wherever you want either. so back to my example: can the state prohibit gays from living wherever they want? if not, why is marriage different?

You are not versed enough in the Constitution to debate it. You have no understanding of what liberty is nor that the founders specifically meant liberty to be the freedom to live where one wants.

I explained to you why marriage is different but it was above your pay grade. I'd suggest, at a minimum, reading the Constitution, the federalist papers, the anti-federalist papers and 9th grade American History.

Then get back to me.