‘Repeal and replace’ already being repealed, replaced
“Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that’s roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama’s new health care law.
It’s fine to criticize the health law and the way Democrats pushed it through Congress without a single GOP vote, these party leaders say. But focusing on its outright repeal carries two big risks.
Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade. More important, say strategists from both parties, a fiercely repeal-the-bill stance might prove far less popular in a general election than in a conservative-dominated GOP primary, especially in states such as Illinois and California….”
Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, who chairs the committee responsible for electing GOP senators this fall, said in an interview, “The focus really should be on the misplaced priorities of the administration” and Congress’ Democratic leaders.
“The No. 1 concern of the public is jobs and people losing their homes,” he said. “The administration has been obsessing on this health care bill.”
As the story notes, GOP Senate candidate Mark Kirk of Illinois was promising two weeks ago to “lead the effort” to repeal the measure. “On Tuesday, when asked repeatedly by reporters whether he still wants it repealed, Kirk would say only that he opposes the new taxes and Medicare cuts associated with the law.”
That kind of sudden shift almost certainly was driven by in-house polls that tested the “repeal and replace” strategy and found it wanting. (h/t Steve Benen at Washington Monthly)
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
434 comments Add your comment
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
7:54 pm
Reagan Redux Could Pay for Health Care
http://www.truthout.org/reagan-redux-could-pay-health-care58074?print
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
7:54 pm
Bosch, let’s go back to my question to josef about what constitutes a right.
What do you think Bosch? My answer is that a right is something you can do without the active participation of another human being. Everything else is a service to be contracted for.
And you may find this interesting but since I know there is no way that people will ever do without their security blanket known as government, I agree that a healthy balance is needed. However, your idea of healthy and my idea of healthy would be very different. We are in a very unhealthy balance and getting worse in my opinion as government power grows exponentially.
I, for one, am very willing to take on any person or corporation should they do me or my family wrong through deliberate action or neglect.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
7:56 pm
“My answer is that a right is something you can do without the active participation of another human being. Everything else is a service to be contracted for”
Ok, given that definition…do you agree that there is a right to life? And if you do, how do you get around the fact that a baby cannot enjoy that right without the direct intervention of at least one adult willing and able to raise him to the age where he can be self-sufficient?
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:03 pm
That is because rights are not usually considered valid until the person reaches an age where society agrees that the person is an adult, Doggone. So technically, I do not specifically believe in an all-encompassing right to life, except as it can be enforced by the parents until such time they consider their child to be self-sufficient.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:06 pm
“So technically, I do not specifically believe in an all-encompassing right to life”
Technically? What about the right to life of an adult disabled to the point where they require assistence to, say, eat?
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:10 pm
Then they are not considered self-sufficient, Doggone, and are still the responsibility of the parents.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:12 pm
Dave R
If I may butt in while I’m considering what to do with this work project…
[[My answer is that a right is something you can do without the active participation of another human being.]]
I like to think I’ve a right to breathe clean air. Drink pure water. Heck, I even think I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
All that requires someone else to actively participate. Not foul my air. Pollute my water.
And also leave me the heck alone!
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:12 pm
“and are still the responsibility of the parents.”
And if they have no parents, or any other living relatives?
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:14 pm
Dave,
Funny thing is, I agree with you. Shocking, I know. But as Doggone pointed out, if we could only rely on people to do the “right” thing, we’d all be set. I agree with you that every single thing the govt. provides, could be done by private companies. The problem is, how powerful is our individual influence to provide services? We, as the government (and i think of our society as the government, me as the government) have the power to vote in those to lead and represent our collective ideas of what makes a decent society. And what are the services, that we, as a society, consider decent and basic? And are we willing to leave it up to the individual to provide those basic services? I, for one, think I could do that. I, at my core, am a total fan of Albert Camus, the Everyman’s existentialist.
But as a cynic, do not have that faith in other individuals.
But I digress. As a society, we define what we can and can not deal with, what we think as right and wrong.
And my response to this:
“My answer is that a right is something you can do without the active participation of another human being.”
To that core, to survive, we/i could do anything – but as a society, are we willing to see those who can’t die or suffer? People do the things they do to fit their definition of “surviving” – the core of it is….what are we willing to watch?
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:16 pm
Dave R. – as I see it, your definition of rights is now:
“a right is something you can do without the active participation of another human being. Everything else is a service to be contracted for.”
When “person reaches an age where society agrees that the person is an adult”
If you are “self-sufficient”
Got any MORE qualifications you want to add to your original definition?
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:18 pm
Braves looking strong this year.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:21 pm
Well Paul, you certainly have the ABILITY to breathe and to drink water, but finding such purity would be your responsibility.
Doggone, what would you have me say? Hopefully, the parents have taken steps to provide for that child, but failing that, that person would likely become a rare ward of the state.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:25 pm
“Hopefully”
Can’t you see that what you are saying, by qualifying your original statement, that if you are too disabled to be self-sufficient you have NO RIGHTS?
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:25 pm
No, Doggone. No more qualifications from me, however, I (wrongly) assumed that you would consider adulthood and self-sufficiency to be one and the same as I do.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:25 pm
Paul! Are YOU as excited as I am about the new “Clash of the Titans?”
RELEASE THE KRACKEN!!!!
Indeed.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:27 pm
But Dave, you, as well, as I, know that adulthood does not equate to self-sufficiency.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:28 pm
every single thing the govt. provides, could be done by private companies
hmmm,
-So there’s profit to be made in putting out fires at people’s houses?
-It’ll be sweet when can send a birthday card to mom at the minimum FedEx rate!!
-How do I get a private firm to repave my road or fix the potholes in my street? Instead of working on some other street? Write em a check?
-What about the interstates? We go to a total toll system?
-Food inspections will now be added to the price of the food we buy?
-How do the water testers make money?
-I think if a water works company wants to make money replenishing and delivering water they might want to raise the prices at the tap. Not sure how clean/smelly our workmates will be if they can’t afford their water bill.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:28 pm
And, again, what are you willing to watch?
stands for decibels
March 31st, 2010
8:28 pm
RELEASE THE KRACKEN!!!!
Oooh, you racity-racial Racist!
/whodat
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:29 pm
Yes, Doggone, your 8:25 would be correct. If that person could not care for themselves as far as feeding or taking basic care of themselves, they would not have rights, nor likely care if they did.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:29 pm
“I (wrongly) assumed that you would consider adulthood and self-sufficiency to be one and the same as I do.”
Yes, you assumed wrongly. I do not think that a child has ALL of the rights of an adult, but I would not agree that they have NO rights. And I would not agree that a disabled person has NO rights.
As I see it, and I’m not certain I can say exactly what I mean…but I’ll try: rights are whatever the society agrees they are; that the society is willing to defend for each and EVERY member of that society; and that apply to all members of that society…subject to the qualification that children under a determined age of adulthood cannot participate in ALL of those rights until they become adults.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:29 pm
Dave R
I’ve a feeling if we were on septic tanks and mine leaked into your water supply, or I decided to start a home smelting business and fired up toxic gasses that blew over your home… that if you told me to fix my septic tank and shut down the smelter… if I said “you want clean water? you want pure air? Go find it – it’s your responsibility” that you would have a less than ‘oh well” attitude.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:30 pm
Finn,
It all goes towards, what are we, as a society, willing to pay, what we consider basic services, and what we are willing to do ourselves to survive.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:32 pm
“If that person could not care for themselves as far as feeding or taking basic care of themselves, they would not have rights, nor likely care if they did”
You might want to take that interesting statement to a quadraplegic and ask him what HE thinks about it.
If such a person has NO RIGHTS, then why should we not just euthanize them and they will no longer be a burden to their family or to society?
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:33 pm
BOSCH
YES!!
Liam Neeson is perfect for that part. What a voice.
But he’d better keep his light saber holstered.
Finn
“every single thing the govt. provides, could be done by private companies”
I’m not sure who wrote that, but I’d think our experience with Hessians and Blackwater would put that idea back for reconsideration.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:34 pm
Bosch, today we do not consider self-sufficiency equivalent to adulthood, but rather assign an arbitrary age to grant that. Certainly some people could be self-sufficient at an earlier age, while, many others would need more time.
Libs would obviously need more time, as a general rule.:D
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:34 pm
We don’t need street lights, either. Everyone can buy their own flashlights if they want to walk around in the dark.
oh, and if you want to pick a fight with a small 3rd world country as Americans are wont to do, you’ll have to hire your own mercenaries and coordinate the whole shebang yourself. Have fun.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:35 pm
“but I’d think our experience with Hessians and Blackwater would put that idea back for reconsideration.”
Not exactly, I don’t think. The statement “could be done by private companies” hinges on the word “could.” Certainly they COULD be done by private companies, the question is: do we WANT them done by private companies?
theyeshaveit
March 31st, 2010
8:36 pm
Jackie said, “The Dems lost the seat in Massachusetts, yet the Sen. Brown(R-MA) is claiming to be his ‘own man.’ Wonder how he will vote on the next issue and if he will realize the voters want moderation and cooperation amongst our legislators.
November will stop the pontification.”
And let us not forget that Scott Brown supported Mitt Romney’s health care plan which included, among other things, the mandate to purchase health insurance.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:37 pm
Paul, I would address that problem to you specifically and if you chose to continue with your deliberate actions would seek redress through the courts.
Your earlier question was regarding “purity” – something not likely to happen on this Earth as long as humans inhabit it.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:39 pm
“every single thing the govt. provides, could be done by private companies
Paul,
That would be me. Everything could be done by private companies, but five times the cost, cause, ya’ know we gotta pay those CEOs.
RELEASE THE KRACKEN!!!
The new kracken looks so much more kick ass than the old one.
~~~~
Doggone,
As someone who saves the taxpayer from providing the care for two old disabled individuals, I’ll take your most recent comment with a grain of salt.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:40 pm
Sorry Doggone,
My last post @ 8:39 was in response to this:
If such a person has NO RIGHTS, then why should we not just euthanize them and they will no longer be a burden to their family or to society?
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:40 pm
Bosch,
Society? That means shared planning and shared ideals, some sharing of common spaces, etc, doesn’t it? In Daveland we will have none of that!!
Why the hell are we even here? Why have pride and citizenship? It’s every man for himself!
United States? United what? Unite this, cowboy!
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:41 pm
“We don’t need street lights, either. Everyone can buy their own flashlights if they want to walk around in the dark.”
For real.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:41 pm
Doggone, if that quadriplegic was aware of his or her issues, they could contract with another person / company to provide sufficiency. However, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc would not be infringed upon due to their condition, and they would have those rights.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:42 pm
Olbermann is about to do a segment on the Thurbert Baker impeachment. “The night the brains went out in GA” hehehe
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:43 pm
Doggone/GA
I saw the statement as being more of an advocacy type – of the ‘why have gov’t if private companies could do it?”
And when it comes to international relations and hiring mercenaries, I’m pretty much opposed down the line.
Dave R.
I took your point to be there was no right to clean air or water. If there’s redress through the courts, it would seem there would be a right to it, else why go through the courts? We define rights through our laws.
And please don’t keep up with the ‘but air’s not really pure’ line. You know what the concept is.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:43 pm
Finn,
I, once, divulged, into Dave’s version of Utopia for fun…..on a day….when I was bored……..to me, it was scary, but if that’s what we vote for, then I’ll be okay.
Again, we all have to ask ourselves……..what are we willing to watch?
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:44 pm
So, Doggone, you say, “rights are whatever the society agrees they are”.
So in your world, we are born slaves to others and remain slaves until the day we die?
Great society you live in. Me? Nope. I’m not playing.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:44 pm
if that quadriplegic was aware of his or her issues, they could contract with another person / company to provide sufficiency
LOL. lala land.
“Umm, hello. Good day I’d like to inquire about obtaining some services”
“Sir, how are you going to pay for these services?”
“Umm, with what’s in this here bedpan”
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:45 pm
” I’ll take your most recent comment with a grain of salt.”
I was meant to be. I was just trying to show Dave R. the ultimate conclusion of his statement that disabled people who are not self-sufficient have NO rights.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:45 pm
Bosch, I might like what they appear to be smoking in Daveland!
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:47 pm
And Paul, if a court were to determine that what you did was deliberate and sufficiently infringed on my property, then you would have to compensate me for that and/or cease your actions. If they did not, I could find ways to clean up your mess and if they were too expensive or time consuming, I could move elsewhere.
But my bet would be on a court finding you at fault.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:47 pm
Bosch 8:39
Thanks for the clarification. The way you presented it is a good example that just because something’s possible, it’s not necessarily wise.
Did you know the Kracken is real? Not computer generated?
They hide it in caverns in New Mexico. It’s a mutation caused by impure water…..
Didja watch V yet?
And I’m about getting ready to bag it in. Worked long enough. This keyboard time is wind-down time.
I think I’ve got a bottle of wine around here somewhere…. probably if I looked in that wine cooler thingie….
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:48 pm
“However, freedom of speech, assembly, religion, etc would not be infringed upon due to their condition, and they would have those rights.”
I accept that you are retracing your statement that they have NO rights.
“you say, “rights are whatever the society agrees they are”.”
No, that is not ALL that I said. My statement has to be discusse in it ENTIRETY. Not just a little piece of it that you choose. It’s all tied together and can’t be separated.
“So in your world, we are born slaves to others and remain slaves until the day we die?”
Nope, I never said that. I never said anything like that. Try again.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:48 pm
Doggone,
“that disabled people who are not self-sufficient have NO rights.”
And should just be euthanized? Again, it goes back to what we were talking about earlier. When you put health care into a black and white venue, like our free market friends (Dave, I wrote friends), things don’t work out so well for the weak.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:49 pm
“retracing” – sorry, should be: retracting
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:49 pm
Finn,
“I might like what they appear to be smoking in Daveland!”
Oh Jesus, me too.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:49 pm
But my bet would be on a court finding you at fault.
But Paul’s got bank and has hired the entire OJ Simpson defense team and you show up with your court-appointed middle-of-the-pack law school graduate. You won’t like the outcome of this.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:50 pm
“And should just be euthanized?”
Bosch, of course not! Don’t get me confused with Dave R. It was HE who asserted that non-self-sufficient disabled people have NO RIGHTS. Though he has now retracted THAT particular statement.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:51 pm
Doggone/GA
I like carrying things to their logical, yet absurd, conclusions. As Albert with his solution to abortion (kill the mother!!!!) in Birdcage:
“Albert: Oh, I know what you’re going to say. “If you kill the mother, the fetus dies, too.” But the fetus is going to be aborted anyway, so why not let it go down with the ship? “
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:52 pm
Paul,
No, I haven’t watched it yet. But damn I’m excited about that new movie. “Release the Kracken” can be used in so many contexts!
Jackie
March 31st, 2010
8:52 pm
@Dave R
Had to go on a small auto malfunction, however, my last comment concerning GIGO and the CBO.
Regardless of the number, they project what the results will be given all the parameters associated with the legislation. So if you have a truth table concept employed, regardless of the number, the results will always be true because they are only analyzing the results based on the parameters given.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:52 pm
“I like carrying things to their logical, yet absurd, conclusions”
Yes, me too…and I like to watch the other “debator” try to squirm out of admitting that logical conclusion.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
8:53 pm
Kracken is a plumber with no belt??
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:53 pm
Doggone,
Please, don’t ever think that I, would, for any moment, get you and Dave confused for one another.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
8:54 pm
Dave R 8:47
Again, you’re assuming a right. You initial point, I thought, was I had no right to clean air or water. “Go find it” you said, or something to that effect. But by going to court, you are seeking to enforce a right conferred through law.
So it seems you accept a whole host of rights that are dependent upon the participation of others.
Even your right to ‘property’ depends on the active participation of others.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
8:54 pm
Doggone,
Or your thoughts……… again, you spoil me…..
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:55 pm
What this discussion is trying to get at is that government should be the court of LAST resort, not first resort, and it is inherently lazy of anyone to look towards others for their life, liberty and property without first doing everything they can to secure it themselves.
Our society has become the opposite of that, and anyone with an objective brain cell in their head can see that we rely far too much on government to solve our individual problems today. Government is now the court of FIRST resort, not last resort. They provide a safety net for virtually every bad behavior on the planet, and the lazy sit back and allow someone else to pay for that while never having the need to take advantage of the very programs they fund.
It is a mindset that will doom this country in less than 50 years if allowed to continue, and I for one will not play any game where I do not set the rules for myself. I don’t care what other rules the rest of you like to play by, but as long as you don’t make up rules for me that I don’t like, you’re welcome to play as well.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
8:59 pm
“Please, don’t ever think that I, would, for any moment, get you and Dave confused for one another”
OK! sorry about that!
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
8:59 pm
No, Paul. We can certainly differ on what is considered clean and what parameters can be used to determine a level or purity as well as a level of responsibility on your part to not adversely affect my property. That is what a court would decide upon if we could not agree.
getalife
March 31st, 2010
9:00 pm
Did ya impeach the AG yet?
Hillbilly Deluxe
March 31st, 2010
9:00 pm
The law of the jungle works pretty good if you’re a lion or a tiger. If you’re an antelope or a wildebeest, not so well. As much as we might like to think otherwise, everybody here is in the prey animal category.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
9:00 pm
Dave R.
I’ve long maintained that when it comes to issues of power and money, the vast majority of people will do whatever is not specifically prohibited by law. “Morality be damned, if it’s not against the law and it’ll make me a buck, I’ll do it.”
So I like laws. Lots and lots of ‘em. And they all tell me what I have a right to. And I am big about going to the other side and attempting to settle things based upon what’s right and seemingly moral. But failing that, that’s what courts are for.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
9:00 pm
And Paul, please tell me how my right to property depends on the active participation of another. This should be good.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
9:03 pm
Doggone, you have a corner on the market for “absurd”, but you have nothing on “logical”.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
9:03 pm
Dave R. 8:59
Not really. Courts will decide it only if it’s a matter of law. Again, you’re assuming a right based in law. What I understood your position earlier was “What do you think Bosch? My answer is that a right is something you can do without the active participation of another human being. Everything else is a service to be contracted for.”
What I’m pointing out is, all these laws (which is what the courts are all about) are dealing with rights which do in fact require the active participation of others.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
9:05 pm
Dave R.,
“please tell me how my right to property depends on the active participation of another”
Forgive me for intruding, but It doesn’t.
But that means you’ll be totally self-sufficient, and I mean, TOTALLY, self sufficient.
And that doesn’t include the fact that your property is in the vicinity of a thriving municipality. Damn. You sound like those crazy militia folks.
FinnMcCool
March 31st, 2010
9:05 pm
Obama now in favor of drilling and so the Republicans now have to be against that.
clockwork. Yawn.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
9:06 pm
Coming from someone who admits to liking lots and lots of laws, it is nothing less than I would expect of you, Paul.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
9:09 pm
Dave R. 9:00
Are you trying to be difficult? I already addressed the right to your enjoyment of your property depends upon my not polluting the water or the air. Your right to that REQUIRES my active participation. Your only redress to my actions is through the courts – and that works ONLY if there are laws prohibiting my actions.
In fact, all laws (conferring rights in one form or another) are laws because people actively participated to make them.
This is getting a bit silly.
Now, upon rereading your post, if “a right is something people CAN do’ meant but one way to have a right, not the only way, I can go along with that. Where we are differing, I think, is the idea it’s the only way.
Dave R.
March 31st, 2010
9:10 pm
Bosch, I now run up against the single advantage cats have over dogs.
If I had cats, I wouldn’t have to take them out right now to do their business.
Other than that, cats are useless.
But I’d better get my three rescued dogs out for their nightly constitutional. Good discussion, even if we disagree on which means of sufficiency we prefer.
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
9:12 pm
“and anyone with an objective brain cell in their head can see that we rely far too much on government to solve our individual problems today. Government is now the court of FIRST resort, not last resort.”
And I think you are guilty of taking an example of a relatively small subset of our society and reasoning that faults of that segment to ALL of our society. Something I vehemently disagree with.
Paul
March 31st, 2010
9:12 pm
Dave 9:06
It’s those very ‘lots and lots of laws’ you would rely on to take me to court to get me to stop polluting your water and air.
So how can you imply you don’t like them?
Paul
March 31st, 2010
9:14 pm
Well Dave, it’s been fun, but the corned beef is cooked and the veggies are done.
And Bosch, I FOUND THE WINE!
Pleasant evening, all -
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
9:15 pm
“please tell me how my right to property depends on the active participation of another”
Your right to property depends on society’s willingness to help you defend that right. If society is not willing to assist in that defense, then you are in the same position in which you placed that quadraplegic…you have NO rights and anyone, including society and/or the government can take that property at any time.
Bosch
March 31st, 2010
9:18 pm
Doggone,
“And I think you are guilty of taking an example of a relatively small subset of our society and reasoning that faults of that segment to ALL of our society. Something I vehemently disagree with.”
TESTIFY!!!!!!
Damn, I wish I’d wrote that.
~~~~~~~~
Dave,
Get a laser pointer, and you’ll soon discover the reasons for owning a cat. And they make you real.
I’ve enjoyed the exchange, as I often do with you…..
~~~~~~
Paul!
Um, I found the wine long ago…..um, I gotta go to bed.
Life sentences
March 31st, 2010
9:25 pm
The concept of individual rights is so new in human history that most men have not grasped it fully to this day. In accordance with the two theories of ethics, the mystical or the social, some men assert that rights are a gift of God – others, that rights are a gift of society. But, in fact, the source of rights is man’s nature.
There is only one fundamental right: a human being’s right to their own life. All the others are its consequences or corollaries. The right to life is the source of all rights.
Thomas Jefferson, the brilliant author of The Declaration of Independence, laid down the principle that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” This provided the only valid justification of a government and defined its only proper purpose: to protect man’s rights by protecting him from physical violence.
Thus the government’s function was changed from the role of ruler to the role of servant. The government was set to protect man from criminals – and the Constitution was written to protect man from the government. The Bill of Rights was not directed against private citizens, but against the government – as an explicit declaration that individual rights supersede any public or social power.
Thomas Jefferson knew that to violate man’s rights meant to compel him to act against his own judgment, or to expropriate his values. Basically, he knew there was only one way to do it: by the use of physical force. There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of Jefferson was to draw a distinction between these two—by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first.
Several years after authoring The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson said in his first inaugural address, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity.”
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Impeach Drunken Fool obozo! Just sayin...
March 31st, 2010
9:29 pm
Democrats are taking aim at the tea party movement. In a recent fund-raising email, the Democratic National Committee called those who attend tea party events “narrow minded . . . nut jobs” and “vile two-bit wing-nuts.” Democratic leaders routinely denigrate tea party participants and President Barack Obama dismisses them as an extremist “strain [that] has existed in politics for a long time.”
I am a narrow minded nut job and you are an ex-democrat senator, just sayin…
DoggoneGA
March 31st, 2010
9:34 pm
“Doggone, you have a corner on the market for “absurd”, but you have nothing on “logical”.
When you can’t refute the argument, insult your “opponent” I guess that’s what I get for expecting a DISCUSSION. All I get is an insult.
Ace
March 31st, 2010
9:46 pm
How do you know you are not a vile 2 bit wing nut ? Just askin’
AmVet
March 31st, 2010
9:48 pm
Jeebus, Jobus and Maria, mystery meat plagiarizes, wait for it…Ayn Rand. As though it is sacrosanct…
theyeshaveit
March 31st, 2010
9:58 pm
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Impeach Drunken Fool obozo! Just sayin…said: Democrats are taking aim at the tea party movement. In a recent fund-raising email, the Democratic National Committee called those who attend tea party events “narrow minded . . . nut jobs” and “vile two-bit wing-nuts.” Democratic leaders routinely denigrate tea party participants and President Barack Obama dismisses them as an extremist “strain [that] has existed in politics for a long time.”
I am a narrow minded nut job and you are an ex-democrat senator, just sayin…
Now, how is it that a “narrow-minded nut job” gets on the address book for the DNC’s email? Or, perhaps, you have a social media account? And you’re tweeting with the Dems?
Brakeman
March 31st, 2010
10:39 pm
Headline: “Jesse Enters Rehab as Sandra Lays Low ………….”
Uh, …………… nevermind.
Who dat?
March 31st, 2010
10:42 pm
“Braves looking strong this year.”
I posted a Philly website report on the Braves. The sports writer said the Phillies need to be concerned with the Braves. They do indeed look very strong.
Who dat?
March 31st, 2010
10:43 pm
“The new kracken looks so much more kick ass than the old one. ”
You gotta be kidding me. It looks like Michael Bay puked out a giant fish with teeth.
Brakeman
March 31st, 2010
10:53 pm
Headline: “Obama to throw out first pitch”
Gee Whiz ……….. I hope he doesn’t throw it like a girl like he did last year. How emabarrassing.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
March 31st, 2010
11:54 pm
Doggone
**When you can’t refute the argument, insult your “opponent” I guess that’s what I get for expecting a DISCUSSION. All I get is an insult.**
Now you know how 99% of the people that you respond to feel.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
March 31st, 2010
11:57 pm
Obama throws like a girl.
http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=Obama+baseball&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701&vid=0001552365288
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:12 am
Holey F$%%ing Sh#^! In 389 posts not one “conservative” has responded directly to Jay’s posted subject matter. What does this say about the “conservative” movement…other than it may need Metamucil.
In 389 posts not one “conservative” is brave enough to broach the subject matter? Pathetic….
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:20 am
Did Hannity or Rush tell the “conservatives” to back off the efforts to repeal healthcare reform? Perhaps Beck poured the concept through his tears.
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:27 am
Brakeman ~ Headline: “Obama to throw out first pitch”
Good to know you are concentrating on the subject Jay has put in front ofus.
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:29 am
Drain The Swamp (NIF),
“Obama throws like a girl.”
Nice sexism….why are you avoiding Jay’s topic?
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:35 am
Obviously the “conservatives” are afraid of responding directly to the topic presented. Such virile subjects…
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:39 am
“conservatives” are weak…and evidently, like to sleep.
jewcowboy
April 1st, 2010
2:43 am
Ronnie liked naps, “W” avowed taps.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
April 1st, 2010
2:46 am
jewcowboy
Why are you throwing a tantrum at 2:30 in the morning?
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
April 1st, 2010
2:49 am
jewcowboy
**“conservatives” are weak…and evidently, like to sleep.**
Put down the crack pipe and try to relax. Once it wears off, you will be able to sleep.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: Impeach Drunken Fool obozo! Just sayin...
April 1st, 2010
5:25 am
This is gross-
BAGHDAD — Iraq’s political disarray deepened Wednesday when a potential kingmaker withheld his support from both big election winners and said he would ask his supporters to make the choice in a referendum. -Urinal
The terrorists and the AJC don’t like who won the Iraq elections so now they whine and moan…….together, ew!, just sayin…
I Report :-) You Whine :-( Impeach Drunken Fool obozo! Just sayin...
April 1st, 2010
5:47 am
400!