Do people want a Public Option???

kev9100

Good point. But to be fair, many polls show support for a Public Option. Like this one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0210977220091203

I suppose you think reuters have a Liberal Bias as well eh??:D

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

Good point.

Would you have accpeted anything I posted from a boldconservatives.com? [i have no idea if such a site actually exists mind you]

But to be fair, many polls show support for a Public Option. Like this one.
http://www.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSN0210977220091203

I suppose you think reuters have a Liberal Bias as well eh??:D

You and this thread would have had more legitimacy if you had posted that in your first post instead of the bold progressives one.

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Would you have accpeted anything I posted from a boldconservatives.com? [i have no idea if such a site actually exists mind you]



You and this thread would have had more legitimacy if you had posted that in your first post instead of the bold progressives one.

Yeah, but im a noob here so how about a bit of leeway?:D And it depends upon how the question was phrased, but I like to think I would have yeah.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

Yeah, but im a noob here so how about a bit of leeway? And it depends upon how the question was phrased, but I like to think I would have yeah.

I'm just yanking your chain a little bit.:D

Personally about the HealthCare and the Public Option is concerned I'm beyond caring anymore. We're getting it whether we like it or not. Though giving the people the honesty and transparency that the President promised when he was candidate Obama would have eased peoples fears instead of all this closed doors and votes at 1 in the morning stuff we've been getting.

kev9100

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Though giving the people the honesty and transparency that the President promised when he was candidate Obama would have eased peoples fears instead of all this closed doors and votes at 1 in the morning stuff we've been getting.

To be fair, I dont see how you can blame Obama for that. The reason for the late votes and the back door deals is because of Republican stalling tactics and the insane amount of power certain Senators possess.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

To be fair, I dont see how you can blame Obama for that. The reason for the late votes and the back door deals is because of Republican stalling tactics and the insane amount of power certain Senators possess.

Yeah the Dems run all 3 branches of the Govt have a supermajority to boot and it still those evil and nasty Reps stalling everything. :rolleyes:

Dude the boldprogressives link diminished your credibility. Dragging out that pathetic excuse isn't helping your cause.

Pocono Joe

kev9100 wrote: »

To be fair, I dont see how you can blame Obama for that. The reason for the late votes and the back door deals is because of Republican stalling tactics and the insane amount of power certain Senators possess.

People need to stop blaming Republicans... it's getting very old. The Democrats have their supermajority of 60. The Republicans can't do a thing. The problems lie within the Democrat party and thier token Independent.

kev9100

Well if the Reps are the good guys in this story can you explain this little nugget?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/12/17/cbs-dems-tantalizingly-close-health-care-republicans-use-stall-tactics

And by the way, while I accept I should have used the Reuters link instead, I wonder how much do you think this particular link damaged your reputation?

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/10/19/how-much-obamacare-costs-the-average-family/

Because as well all know Dick Morris is one of the most respected and non-partisan political commentators working in the US today.:p

p.s I fully agree with you guys when you say the Dems are incompetent as well.

JohnMc1

kev9100 wrote: »

p.s I fully agree with you when you say the Dems are incompetent at times as well.

Neither side is really the "good guy" People need to stop thinking of Politics like that [That and like its some kind of sport of my team vs your team]

Both sides have screwed us over throughout the years. Obama is getting it thrown back in his face becuase he promised he would end that and he's just brought more of the same into his office.

Manic Moran

kev9100 wrote: »

I am afraid you are wrong on this point. While there is no mention of the right to free education or of Social Secuirty in the Constitution, there is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that...<snip>

And back on topic, looky what else is in the UDHR (Article 25):

It is perhaps worth noting that UDHR has no legally binding effect within the US. No less an authority than the US Supreme Court has said as much (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 2004). It's not the only time the SCOTUS has rejected 'foreign' treaty law as binding within the US, witness the case of that Mexican chap sentenced to death a little over a year ago.

No, rights in the US -- and AFAIK, throughout the world -- are not limited to "natural rights" (i.e., moral rights or inalienable rights). There are also legal rights (civil rights or statutory rights), and the right to a trial by jury is most certainly a right recognized and enumerated by the US govt in the Bill of Rights (6th amendment -- ratified at the same time as the protections of freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, etc.):

I would submit that they are simply variations on a theme. The right to jury is an offshoot of the right to freedom of movement: It places restrictions on the ability of the government to interfere. The right to prevent the housing of soldiers in you house restricts the ability of the government to invade your house and castle. The right to arms restricts the ability of the government to deny people the ability to defend themselves (and their other freedoms). And so on for all ten of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights: They lay out restrictions on what the government can do in order to prevent infringement on the individual's rights. The 'right' to healthcare and education, on the other hand, are no such thing: They are basically mandates on behalf of the government to do something active which does not risk mitigating a person's rights.

NTM

LostinKildare

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is perhaps worth noting that UDHR has no legally binding effect within the US. No less an authority than the US Supreme Court has said as much (Sosa v Alvarez-Machain, 2004). It's not the only time the SCOTUS has rejected 'foreign' treaty law as binding within the US, witness the case of that Mexican chap sentenced to death a little over a year ago.

Unless I'm missing something, Sosa v Alvarez-Machain doesn't even mention UDHR. And UDHR is not a treaty, "foreign" or otherwise, so I don't see how this is relevant. Rather, it is a declaration, not law, and for that reason it is not enforceable. Just as the guarantees of rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence are not enforceable.

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would submit that they are simply variations on a theme. The right to jury is an offshoot of the right to freedom of movement: It places restrictions on the ability of the government to interfere. The right to prevent the housing of soldiers in you house restricts the ability of the government to invade your house and castle. The right to arms restricts the ability of the government to deny people the ability to defend themselves (and their other freedoms). And so on for all ten of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights: They lay out restrictions on what the government can do in order to prevent infringement on the individual's rights. The 'right' to healthcare and education, on the other hand, are no such thing: They are basically mandates on behalf of the government to do something active which does not risk mitigating a person's rights.

With the right to bear arms, for example, yes you are correct that the govt is simply restricted from infringing a right: you can have guns if you want to, and the govt cannot interfere, but it is up to you to obtain that gun.

But with a jury trial you cannot organize and hold your own trial w/out govt interference, obviously. The govt produces the trial, and the constitutional amdmt specifies that you have a RIGHT to a specific type of trial (jury, speedy, public, etc) which requires that the govt "do something active," as you say. The right to counsel specifies that the govt must provide you with legal representation if you can't afford it. Really I don't see how you don't recognize that right for what it is -- an entitlement. But then again you mystified me with your stance on seatbelts too , so carry on. Perhaps we'll agree on something in 2010.

pagancornflake

JohnMc1 wrote: »

the boldprogressives link diminished your credibility. Dragging out that pathetic excuse isn't helping your cause.

Yeah, use sources like Dick Morris instead. That REALLY affects the case in a way that boldprogressives does not.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/10/19/how-much-obamacare-costs-the-average-family/

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/whos-really-paying-for-obamacare

Trouser_Press

pagancornflake wrote: »

Yeah, use sources like Dick Morris instead. That REALLY affects the case in a way that boldprogressives does not.

I can't bring myself to search back through this thread....but please tell me no one used Dick Morris as a source in an, um, serious way?

Manic Moran

Unless I'm missing something, Sosa v Alvarez-Machain doesn't even mention UDHR.

Souter's judgement, IV C.

But the Declaration does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law. See Humphrey, The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in The International Protection of Human Rights 39, 50 (E. Luard ed. 1967) (quoting Eleanor Roosevelt calling the Declaration “ ‘a statement of principles … setting up a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations’ ” and “ ‘not a treaty or international agreement … impos[ing] legal obligations’ ”).23 And, although the Covenant does bind the United States as a matter of international law, the United States ratified the Covenant on the express understanding that it was not self-executing and so did not itself create obligations enforceable in the federal courts.

Really I don't see how you don't recognize that right for what it is -- an entitlement.

It's not so much an entitlement as a pre-requisite. Before the government can deprive the individual of his right to liberty, certain safeguards must be met. The provision of legal counsel and a jury trial being considered part of a satisfactory safeguard to that right. It's convenient to say "you have the right to an attorney", but in reality, I submit it's more a case that the government has the obligation to provide the attorney if requested.

NTM