Ok… liberals have no clue!!! Today we have the latest in a series of kids singing the praises of Obama and liberal political policy. This time… kids sang live on CNN.. check it out:
A few weeks before that we had the “mmmm mmmm mmmm Barack Hussein Obama” Kids do their little number:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpbxHe5zyrU&annotation_id=annotation_924244&feature=iv
During the campaign we had this little ditty come to light from Venice California :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI
Also during the campaign we had this wonderful free style march from young men declaring how Obama inspires them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp2VFN-w9d0
LIBERALS!!!! This freaks Americans OUT!!!! Don’t you get it!!! If you want to pass your agenda…. Don’t do this!!! Think about it!!! Are you doing this because you think it’s cute… or is this part of your plan to indoctrinate the children into your socialistic scheme? Either way… don’t mess with our kids. Why don’t you liberal teachers teach our kids how to read, or about science or about history… stop trying indoctrinating our kids into your Liberal Socialistic Mentality. This is what liberal fascist’s states did during rise of Hitler. Be careful parents… don’t let a lib get your kid.
October 8th, 2009 at 7:52 am
Interesting article. It appears that you are saying that liberals should have no influence on their childrens political beliefs (calling it socialist and fascist). Isn’t that a fairly standard socialist theme to not educate and influence children to ones political persuasion? Isn’t it actually more “socialistic” to tell others to not influence or teach their children their beliefs. If you went on a blog that was calling conservatives stupid for teaching their kids about Jesus (more importantly calling them socialist for doing so) wouldn’t you have some problems with that? And most importantly do you think that saying that “liberals have no clue” and that they are following the path of Hitler will change their belief? Isn’t the point of this blog to pursuede others to the way of Jesus and to try to abolish abortion? This blog entry does neither of those two… My thoughts
PS I’m absolutely sure that if a conservative parents child was being told to sing these songs in school and they disagreed it would not happen. It happend with the parents consent.
October 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am
the bait being laid out with this video is that it was done without consent. if you notice, this looks to be a private school, in which case all the kids’ parents most likely approve of the indoctrination if you want to call it that, and most likely signed waivers for their kids to sing the song.
we could look at it in terms of kids from a Christian private school singing a praise or worship song.
There is a large difference though in this case. What we are dealing with here is a very strong political force that is using this as a device to leverage their political will on the people. This political force is now shown to include CNN. One could argue this was just a human interest piece, however their online video excludes e a young man in the choir who opposes health care reform. as is shown in this clip from youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvANJbu96aw&feature=player_embedded
This was not a news piece as displayed on their website. This is bait and this is a political move.
We are in a war of ideas and ideologies, and the channels of information are the front lines. In this case its not the number of soldiers but the size of your market share that determines the outcome of the battle. Thankfully we have many blogs, and freethinking individuals in this nation who are seeing the signs of the times and have been hearing the distance drums of change. they have been preparing themselves and boarding up the windows, and now the battle begins. it could be very quick, or it could be very long, but a huge market share has just been thrown full tilt into the fray… and yes, children throughout history have been used as expendable commodities in battle.
May God be with us all, and direct our words and feet in these trying times. God disciplines those He loves, and tests us to show us our faults, and lovingly He molds into what he created us to be. It requires our consent though. It requires our acknowledging His sovereignty in all eternity.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:02 am
On a side note…I didn’t think that Obama was the first to initiate a broad healthcare plan,
Bush did here: http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/ss/07SOUProposal.htm
Clinton did here:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/20/health.rights/
HW did here:
http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/205.html
This is not a new issue. It comes around almost every election. The trouble comes when people are voting weather a Human life is worth your tax dollars to take care of. I ,until this point in my life, have never paid another persons medical bills (aside from medicare and VET) maybe now is the time that the fortunate can do something for the unfortunate by saving lives and building a healthier nation.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
ok i just watched the venice california piece… i’ve not see that… wow… what i see is a group of sincere people, who probably love their neighbor to the best of their ability, with deep hunger for hope and peace and unity…. these are all beautiful things and i believe that it is in the fulness of Christ’s salvation that we can reach these things… but they’re hope is being channeled into marketing scheme, one of the greatest marketing schemes to occur in this nation… a scheme in which they stole Bob The Builder’s catch phrase and elected a president… what i can’t get past is the sincerity in their faces, and the joy the seek… these are not bad people… they may be misled, as are many sunday morning church goers… but i don’t believe they are bad people and that makes me very sad, and maybe this is a small portion of the sadness our Father feels as he looks down on us day to day… what we need to do is, through peaceful and rational means, express the truth of Christ to this nation and the world…
October 8th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
bennett, i don’t know that you can say for sure that “it happened with the parents consent.” it if weren’t for the internet, public school classrooms would be a lot like Vegas… what happens in Mrs. Jones class, stays in Mrs. Jones class.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
I have no clue about the parental consent during these musical performances. In some you see the Parents there. Others… just the kids like the mmm mmm mmm B.H. Obama Song & the marching kids especially… which would make me think that there would be less to no parental consent. That is another problem; parents are not evolved in what happens in the classroom…. Josh is right… Vegas is a good example at times.
I am not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment. If you could explain yourself a little more I would love to comment.
Also, I thought a blog’s purpose was to inform. I’m not here to convert you or anyone to conservatism. I just plant seeds… logic gives the increase!
October 9th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Hey Josh: I think that it is probably reasonable to think that there was consent. From my experience you typically need parental (guardian) consent for print or television for any minor, but you could be right.
If the arguement is that a liberal should not be able to teach… I guess that is another arguement. Maybe it’s that liberals should not be able to teach children liberal ideologies? I would be in on that as long as all of the conservative (and Christian school) teachers were also to be held to the same standard. But I don’t think that is what this article is getting at either.
October 9th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
if there is consent, that that’s a non-issue. but it doesn’t take away from the creepiness… at least for me.
October 10th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I know the MMM MMM MMM B. H. Obama song was not with consent… when they show it on TV the kids faces are blocked out. The main purpose of this article is to show how liberals just don’t get it. Its creepy… it makes Americans uneasy when teachers are teaching kids songs that praise a politician.
P.S. I have no problem with Libs teaching liberalism to kids… as long as the kids are told that it can ruin their nation and is completely un-american…
October 12th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Andy: please teach me how liberalism is un-American and describe how it will ruin our nation. I am absolutely intrigued at your opinions of how a single party, conservative, capitolistic, system would work far better!
October 12th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
the Quakers were considered liberals when they fought to end slavery in the USA…
October 14th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Regarding parental consent: Parents of Kids Subjected to Barack Obama Indoctrination Song Want Principal Fired
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WLIBnWY1Ts
October 14th, 2009 at 6:32 pm
hello guys, it’s been a while.
Anyway, the point is, it’s kind of ridiculous that you have taken the totally inadvisable, radical, and altogether strange actions of a teacher or two and blamed those actions on what Mr. Cochran so eloquently called “libs.”
If I were to find a tea party protester claiming that the democratically elected president of the united states was a fascist or who subscribed to the “death panel” theory, it would be wrong for me to associate any of you with those feats of prodigious idiocy simply because you probably voted for the same candidate that he or she did. So Mr. Cochran, kindly don’t do the same to me.
Moreover, how can any of you as Christians oppose a single-payer healthcare program? How can someone who reads the words of Jesus Christ claim that letting millions of Americans die due to lack of quality care while millions more are mire in the depths of poverty as there medical expenses climb is better than one where the poor too are given access to doctors?
W
October 14th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
W,
you pose some interesting questions. as a believer in Salvation, i too wonder if Jesus healed everyone…
i believe He spoke more of Eternal LIfe, and dying to these earthly bodies than He did of preserving these earthly bodies… perhaps the humanist movement for universal health care signifies their ingrained fear of death…
Christians in America are not arguing against providing health care for the less fortunate, but rather are pointing out the areas of concern in the current government’s approach…
to require every American citizen have health care as Obama stated in a well broadcast speech is a drastic offense to the Constitution. The slippery slope of “preventative” health care has such ramifications of tax payer paying for massages, pets and relaxing vacations to soothe the nerves…
ultimately the definition of life is at question here… is it eternal or finite?
and what of Health? are we talking emotional, spiritual, relational or physical?
and of the monolith of drug companies… do we really want to create a giant slush fund for them to cash out on their drugs of the day? what we see with defense contracts today will be the drug contracts of tomorrow….
I believe Christians do care for the less fortunate and would support more democratic approaches to providing for the poor such as creating foundations and non-profit free clinics… perhaps if the money spent on advertising for health care were put into a foundation for actually providing health care, we would be well on our way to achieving this…
October 15th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Shane… very well said.
W… when libs like yourself say the following, “Moreover, how can any of you as Christians oppose a single-payer health care program?” I really laugh. Are you a Christian W? If you are… then how can you so willingly support a political machine that wholeheartedly supports abortion… and a president that won’t get rid of Partial Birth Abortion? And if you are not a Christian… what do you care what Christians support or oppose? Aren’t we fanatical, religious loons that pray to a God and use a Book as a Crutch?
October 15th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Mr. Simonsen- While I admire your long - run eternal view, I don’t doubt that you feel an obligation, while on this earth, to do good to your neighbors as Jesus commanded. Jesus spoke of Eternal Life, but he did not ask us to simply roll over and die so that we could experience it.
I’m glad to hear that you agree that we ought to provide health care to all. I agree with you, I’m not personally crazy about H.R. 3200 or any of the other congressional proposals. I advocate a single - payer system like the one in France, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Denmark, or the United Kingdom. The proposals fall short of that end because they don’t change that many aspects of the health care system.
But as to the proposals of the current administration themselves, I don’t find them terribly controversial. For the most part, his proposal would promote competition in the hc industry by removing the anti-trust exemption and creating a “health care exchange,” creating one national market instead of the fifty state ones that currently exist due to differing regulation. The public option would create a non-profit to also provide health care. A system of government subsidies would help the less fortunate have access to care. The aspect of which you spoke may be the most controversial; requiring health insurance sounds radical. But remember firstly that with the President’s plan, it will be less difficult to acquire such a plan and secondly that those without plans endanger themselves and are a burden on our hc system’s emergency rooms the same way those without car insurance are a burden one society. Our hospitals aren’t simply going to let someone just die if they show up hemorrhaging, and if that person didn’t have insurance, who pays for his or her treatment? We do, and that simply isn’t fair.
I think when we talk about preventive care, we aren’t advocating tax-payer paid vacations. We’re arguing that when people get plans that, while cheaper, they still pay for, they have access to treatments that can stave off more dire medical problems and help the hc system as a whole.
The “slush fund” you’re talking about is designed to promote research; it in essence already exists in the form of current federal grants. Yes, it’s prone to becoming too large or to dispersing money unnecessarily. But we already have a system with those problems; it’s just privately owned. We pay more for research and development of drugs as part of our doctor’s fees and insurance premiums. A public fund, while subject to the same problems, would pursue public welfare rather than profit through scientific innovation.
But I’m glad to have found someone equally dissatisfied with the status quo who acknowledges the need to ensure that all have access to care. With regard to this administration’s proposal’s, my message to you is this: understand that they are basically a series of noncontroversial reforms. They don’t go far enough; they might not be the best long-term solution. But they have the potential to be substantive improvements.
Mr. Cochran- We are not fanatical loons. And I resent the notion that as a Christian I must also subscribe to the so-called “pro-life” movement, which has used the reasoning that a human fetus possesses a soul, that a life form with as much a claim to sentience as a fruit fly is the same as you or me, to make hyperbolic attacks on a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. “To every child a mother!”
But what about my question?
October 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
to me the issue is not about health care but personal property, and the belief that the person’s body belongs to the person.
to create a system by which a person’s well being is dependent on the state, it gives the state a compelling interest to control the actions of that individual. it would give the state a compelling interest to regulate the person’s diet and medications. it could justify the state to fine someone for drinking soda or eating a cheeseburger. it could justify imprisonment for someone who chooses not to take a prescribed medication.
To infuse the state with a climate of moral relativism, then give the state direct access to the an individual’s medical care has incredibly dangerous implications….
The parallels between health insurance and car insurance are a further degradation of humanity. One quick argument,
public roads are owned by the public
risk is involved in traveling on said roads
because the risk involved extends beyond your personal property, the public demands that you ensure the ability to pay for any injury done to the public.
the public does not demand that you ensure the ability to pay for injury done to your own property(car or body) therefore you may carry only liability insurance.
anything beyond liability insurance is personal choice….
i would argue that the requirement for every citizen to carry health insurance is not a matter of ensuring the rights of the individual, but is instead a method of instituting the rights of the state.
to provide for the less fortunate is a noble cause that this nation has the ability to undertake. i believe we should do so, however, while maintaining the principles of personal freedom.
the government is a tool OF the people to ensure their general rights, not a tool to CONTROL the people.
October 18th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I completely understand where you’re coming from, but I think that you have failed to examine the alternative to my proposal that you criticize. I often hear conservatives (I don’t want to generalize you’re views, but that does seem to be the gist of what you’re saying) expressing their concerns about the increasing amount of economic power in the hands of the government, be it banking regulations, food safety regulations, labor regulations, or, of course, a government health care system. But the alternative to these regulations is more power in the hands of businesses that are accountable to their own profit rather than the government which is accountable to the people.
For example, you talked about a cheeseburger fine. But right now, insurance companies routinely turn away or impose higher premiums on the obese. In this link, http://www.wptz.com/news/21294957/detail.html, a baby was denied coverage for being too fat. The type of concern that you expressed already exists. The fact of the matter is, in the eyes of insurance companies, someone who is unhealthy tends to cost more to insure, and it’s unfair to pass on those costs to the healthy. In a governmental program, I personally would advocate something similar, but with the stipulation that only those whose bad health is there own fault (an obese person who became obese from lifestyle choices rather than one who suffered a glandular disorder).
As for the question of car insurance v. health insurance:
A driver on a road can incur expenses to other drivers in a collision, thus he or she must have insurance to offset those expenses. A person can incur expenses to hospitals and the health care system if he is in need desperate need of care, thus he or she must have insurance to offset those expenses. The real question is if you think that a hospital should turn away someone hemorrhaging blood or about to die simply for lack of insurance. As a christian, I imagine you don’t; I certainly don’t.
Of course, with a single-payer system, we wouldn’t be having this argument.
Yes, the government is a tool of the people to ensure their rights and promote their welfare, and in this instance, that is precisely what the government is doing. The general welfare is threatened by those without insurance who still have to be taken care of because they incur expenses on the medical system, so the government, or, more properly, the people collectively, have the right to mandate that individuals have insurance, assuming they make allowances for the poor.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:29 am
Well written W … couldn’t agree more. Weather you like or not we are all paying for the un-insured. When they go to a hospital and don’t pay, the hospital offsets that cost to the 10 customers that do pay. It comes out of our pockets somewhere…you just have to determine if it is going to be voluntarily or not.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
more videos found!
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/11/04/elementary-epidemic-11-uncovered-videos-show-school-children-performing-praises-to-obama/
November 5th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Who is this “W” that as a so called Christian compares a human Fetus to a fruit fly, are you kidding. Obviously you find a certain amount of shame in your views otherwise why not use you name. And partial birth abortion victums are not Fetuses, who needs enemies when thier are christians like you supporting infanticide.
I love that W and Bennett compare advocateing for gov run health care to christian charity, don’t you think stealing from people is just as wrong, cause thats what hr3200 is suggesting we do. If in fact you both believe what you preach sell you houses and investment properties and give the money to the government otherwise don’t advocate the government compelling others by force to pay for the heakthcare plan.
Just a side note W, Obama has no healthcare plan, just slogans, now the bill put forward by the congress is a joke, but you and bennett just keep sipping the coolaid
I will end by saying to “W” who are you, don’t be a coward
November 6th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Noah. Do you propose that we pay absolutely no taxes? That we have no socialized civilian protection? No socialized child welfare system?, or fire protection?, roads? By your own definition that is “stealing” Isn’t any socialized spending “stealing from the taxpayer”? Should we advocate that the government provide any services (tax payer funded)? Or should it be every man for himself.
November 8th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
I don’t like posting my name on the internet but if it’s this important to you, my name is Wilson. And I find there to be no shame in the purely rational stance that something that lacks consciousness and the complexity of, indeed, a fruit fly is not human. As for partial birth abortion, I never said I supported partial birth abortion. You said that, and I’m left to speculate that you put those words in my mouth because you don’t have an adequate rejoinder to the assertion that an early-term fetus is different from a live human being.
I’m very interested in how you use the word of God to justify denying healthcare to the poor. Jesus did not decry tithing as stealing; he praised it as an important part of his society. Tithing takes money from the successful in proportion to their success and uses it to keep the destitute alive. Sounds alot like a single payer healthcare plan to me.
Unfortunately, this quibble doesn’t really matter because H.R. 3962 won’t actually provide for all the poor, it will just make healthcare alot cheaper for everyone by promoting competition between businesses and with a non-profit healthcare organization, in addition to subsidizing healthcare for less fortunate to make it more affordable. So really, what you call “stealing” and what the rest of us call “being responsible” or “doing what’s right” isn’t even a very big part of this bill.
And a side note to your side note- yes, the president hasn’t issued a plan, because unlike his predecessor he’s decided to treat congress as a coequal branch of government. He hasn’t written a plan himself, he’s allowed congress to do that. And there are certainly concrete proposals; one recently passed the House.
W
November 12th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
W. your right you never mentioned partial birth abortion,my mistake, however arguing that the right of life is directly dependent on ones consciousness is a scarey notion, i believe most genocides in history culminated from similar logic.
The Tithe, which is never used in the New Testament, was a system for Isreal to pay for their government, much like a modern day tax. You said that system was according to success, it was not, Tithe means 10%, not the rich pay 55%, the middle class 35% and the poor nothing. Also the giving Jesus praised was just that giving not taking from people unwillingly. Again if you want to give 90% of your wealth away to the government then go for it but don’t compell others to do the same. The New Testament encourages giving but not titheing because that old testament system had been replaced.
Government run anything is not a wise use of money, im sure i do whats right but i want my investment of giving to count not be squandered, so for me giving my money to organizations with wise stewardship makes much more sense.
Finally on this subject. You make an argument for this bill by telling me all the civil rights it will stand up for and then at the end tell me ” oh by the way it wont even help the poor” so in fact your agreeing with me that the biil is useless at best.
Side note, i agree bush was as bad as obama, in terms of overstepping his bounds and growing government
Bennett, i do agree some taxes are a must, i will answer your question with a question. How much of your income would the government have to take before you called it stealng or considered it wrong, 40%, 60%, 90%, 100%?
November 12th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Well, I’m glad we can all agree about Bush. The patriot act, gitmo; I’m just glad it’s over.
As to the bill being ‘useless,’ that’s not quite what I said. I said it would help the poor somewhat with subsidies and make HC cheaper across the board for everyone.
You criticized the ability of government agencies to function, and let’s not pretend like there aren’t problems with the way our federal bureaucracy works. But many of those problems exist in the private sector as well. Indeed, Medicare is three times as efficient as the average private insurer and spends about half as much on administrative fees.
Finally, I understand that you feel as though this taxation is coercing you to support a program that you don’t support and feel that is unjust. On that point, I take issue. We have a government in order to promote the welfare of all. Don’t be illusioned- our economy is not “fair,” you and I both know lazy rich men and industrious poor ones. Yes, let the efficient and lucky be rewarded insofar as rewarding them promotes the good of all, but we should not live in a society that considers their well being to be any more important than that of anyone else. Taxes that are too high remove incentives that drive our economy forward, hurting everyone; they are therefore bad. But the taxes that a single-payer system would require would leave room for incentives while at the same time promoting the general welfare.
The real question is rather you believe that the second homes and vacations of the wealthiest 1% of this country’s population, most of which doesn’t work yet receive 37% of all income, are more important than the lives of the poor. To answer that question, consult the bible. I think you will agree with me.
W
November 13th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Noah: As I believe that you understand, it all depends on the services provided for that money. I we could choose what our money was being spent on that would be ideal, we are rather at the mercy of the leaders that the majority has voted into office. Would 50% be too much for me? I will answer honestly and say I think that it would be, because like you I don’t agree with the spending, however, if the services provided to me were reasonable of half of my salary, then no I would not think that it was stealing. The real problem here is that you can’t pick and choose what the government spends money on unless you rally enough people that believe in anarchy. I’m sure there are plenty of people that don’t think that we should have fire protection, it doesn’t mean that the few people that claim not to want it are being reasonable.
Here is a hypothetical, if your child was terminally ill and you had no money to pay for the treatment that would cure him or her, would you receive and use stolen medicine to treat him or her with?
My guess would be yes?. You have made the point before that self-defense trumps the sin of murdur, I would think that saving a humans life trumps the sin of slealing…?…
November 17th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I wish everyone had healthcare, and no one ever got sick, or died, i do, it breaks my heart. I have no doubt this programm will fail and in the process remove some our freedoms, in the name of justice. Government has to be run efficiently!!!!!!!! not just spend spend spend spend spend, this system is not sustainable, and only 35% of americans want this. Do you ever ask yourself why such a drastic step which will put one sixth of our GDP in the hands of the govenment must be taken with such haste? why not first try tort reform open up state lines for more competition as is the case in Arizona. Why not make lobbiests illegal on te hill? This current sysytem takes advantage of the poverty stricken by making them completely dependent on the state, in that way they assure thier constant flow of power, cause who is going to vote ot the hand that feeds you. Ask native Americans and Blacks how tat system of government welfare has helped thier communties out of poverty, oh wait….
November 17th, 2009 at 11:30 am
You guys should read some of the antifedralsit papers, this is exaclty what hey feared when the consitution was presented as an alternative to the articles of confederacy http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm
November 17th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
My friend, I think your data may be a little inaccurate.
You asserted that only 35% percent of Americans support the President’s program. I disagree, as does Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/majority-favors-healthcare-reform-this-year.aspx). It’s 56% for, 33% against.
Furthermore, I fail to see how this is “spend spend spend” or would “put one sixth of out GDP in the hands of the government.” You see, the president’s bill isn’t a universal healthcare bill. It only enacts a few reforms like the one you mentioned, opening up state lines for more competitions by creating a “National Exchange.” Indeed, this legislation’s costs will be negligible in a few years after start up expenses because the ‘public option’ is a nonprofit government corporation which will pay for itself with the fees people pay to use it. Obviously, ‘mak[ing] lobbiests illegal on te hill” wouldn’t be constitutional- both lobbiests and lobbyists have a right to petition their government just like you and me. Even someone who is opposed to the constitution shouldn’t dispute that point. And tort reform only robs from the people the ability to make effective law suits. Perhaps, improvements in our justice system would improve its ability to properly award damages in civil suits; however, we should never tie its hands in the endeavor of doing justice.
What I think is the most salient point you should take from this is that their is very little that is controversial in HR 3962- it’s mostly just some sensible reforms. I believe that yes, in due time, the government should provide health care to every American. It shouldn’t control doctor’s offices or hospitals, it should just provide care. The reasoning that such a system would “take advantage of the poverty stricken” by allowing them to have access to a doctor when they need one and not be mired in debt is devoid of any cogency whatsoever. I agree that the nation in which we live is fraught with socieconomic inequality and income stratification. It keeps minorities and poor whites in a state of poverty. That’s precisely why I think this nation needs to change; that’s precisely why I think this nation needs to ensure that every American, no matter the color of his or her skin or the level of his or her tax bracket, should have access to quality healthcare. I am sure it would save us quite a bit of heartbreak.
Finally, a question- Are you truly an opponent of the constitution? Do you think that the Articles of ConfederATION, which essentially created a 13 member UN, would be better? Really?
November 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm
I get the feeling i know you W…
The poll you refered to states that the American people want reform, which I also am in favor of. That does not prove they want HR3200, 3962 or any other version. Tort reform should be tried first!
This is the first huge step toward universal healthcare, which is completely wrong and attacks my and your freedoms.
And no i am not saying i prefere a confederation, what i said was you should read the antifedralist papers which foretold many of the problems and power grabs a centralized gvernment would eventually bring about. And no they wee nothing like a 13 member Un, you could mabey compare the system to the European Union.
Honestly is this Chrissi or Kevin?
November 22nd, 2009 at 2:31 pm
First of all, you should at least do me the courtesy of looking at my source before you dismiss it as invalid. If you scroll down to section 3, you can see that the major stipulations of this bill have the support of the majority of the American people; also, at the very top of the page, you can see that the question referred to the passage of the bill by the current congress. I doubt you favor the legislation that a strongly democratic congress is likely to come up with. Indeed, I think we’d both find it hard to believe that a full 44% of respondents are satisfied with the state of healthcare in this country.
Again, tort reform is not a good idea. No law should bind the hands of the judiciary in doing justice. If our justice system has been handing out unjust rewards, then perhaps it needs to be reformed. But it must always be able to punish the actions of some and to ensure proper compensation for damages done to others by those actions.
If a large business dumps toxic materials onto a creek upriver of my house and my land becomes contaminated, with tort reform, the damages in the suit I would file wouldn’t be significant enough to make the business move or hold it accountable for its actions. Because we don’t have tort reform, my creek is clean. For the same reason, when doctors treat me, they do so with care, because if their negligence were found to be unreasonable and a danger to my life, they could be found culpable in a lawsuit that, because we don’t have tort reform, could actually hurt them.
While you can blame some of the inefficiencies in our health care system on tort reform, though, of course, I would take issue with you if you did, you cannot possibly blame the larger problems on it- forty five million people don’t live in fear of becoming sick and subsequently enormously indebted simply as a result of their ability to win reasonable damages in a law suit.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
have any of you folks taken a good look at the obama logo from his ‘08 campaign? its an american flag with a lone sun on a blanket of blue… as opposed to 50 stars on a blanket of blue… could this be an allusion to a one state solution, as opposed to a 50 state union? also what is the significance of the sun, rising over the fields of america… did his campaign take him that seriously to depict him as a rising sun? … or was it a setting sun…
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:55 pm
FYI, the McCain/Palin logo also has one star on a blue background. What can you do?
http://images2.cafepress.com/product/299461552v10_480×480_Front.jpg
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 am
thanks atom. you’re very correct. what do you think the star signifies? i’ve always kind of wondered about our fascination with stars. are these logos just pretty to look at, or do they have some deeper meaning?
November 23rd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
W,
The reason I dismiss your polling data is that it is from july 14th,and could not possibly represent US approval of the current bill since it did not even exist, already by August 3rd those in favor had dropped to less than 50%
“Polling last week showed that 47% of voters favor the health care reform plan working its way through Congress while 49% are opposed. However, those who oppose it show more intensity: Just 25% Strongly Favor the legislation while 41% are Strongly Opposed”
from http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_recent_months
Most recently, November 23rd to be exact, polling shows support for the bill is down to 38% http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
So yeah i dimissed your information because it was no longer accurate, but thanks!
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Noah, do you have no idea what Kevin or Chrissi’s views on abortion are? I am shocked that you would believe W to be either of them with their polar opposite views as W’s as to what a Human Baby is. Do you not know that they are adopting to directly make a statement about how much they care for unwanted children of the world? Just because they don’t embrace the way you “defend the defenseless” doesn’t mean that they don’t have their own way of doing so.
that was a surprising assumption…
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
On a tangent, just so that it is clear where I stand. I enter this arguement (and many of my other arguements) because I believe that it is equally important to care for living people as well as un-born people. I believe knowingfully aborting a baby (define it as fetus if you wish) is not right. I believe that many people do this because they have not been informed of the scientific data of what those “cells” mean. While I agree that W’s comments make some sense to a very short period of time of the fetal development I typically believe that if you know you are pregnant it is definitely a human and so my conscience takes me to the point that I believe that abortion is wrong.
Because I believe in protecting human life, in all forms, I also disagree with many of the things that are said on this site that do not imply or refrence the protection of life. I see alot of your views as unbalanced because there is a judgement made about which lives should be saved and which shouldn’t. Just as it is troubling to you when Christians believe that abortion is OK, it is troubling to me when Christians believe healthcare is not important and urgent.
As I believe that many of the writers of this blog believe you cannot put a price on the value of a human being, but that is what is being done in the arguements against healthcare.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
so here’s a thought on abortion… in our legal system, all members are innocent until proven guilty, therefore all fetuses based on the evidence of their dna, should be considered human until proven otherwise.
what say the committee?
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Shane,
My feelings about campaign logos are that they do not hold much deep symbolic significance. I do not think that the Obama ‘08 logo was created by a panel of liberal elite trying to conceal clues to their hidden agenda and the same goes for the McCain logo. Rather, I think they were created by a group of graphic designers. Dan Cordell wrote an interesting article about branding the church which highlighted the emphasis of logos in marketing today.
November 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 pm
The topic of this conversation seems to have shifted from the issue of whether or not we should protect actual life, a topic on which all of us except Mr. Johnson and our other symbol-conspiracy-theory friend seem to agree, to that of the protection of nonexistent life, one on which we do not.
Mr. Simonsen- the committee find the proposal to be an false analogy, an inductive logical fallacy. The two situations are not analogous to one another; the consequent cannot be derived from the antecedent. With identical reasoning, I could assert that “because our justice system treats all people as innocent until proven guilty, our grocery stores should treat all milk as unspoiled until proven otherwise.” Just as with your statement, there is no reason for which the conditions of the antecedent apply to the consequent. Our justice system treats all people as proven innocent for a definite reason- it seeks to protect their rights. However, their is no definite reason for which a grocery store should treat milk as unspoiled (I would prefer if they checked) just as there is no reason we should treat fetuses as human.
The problem with the question “is a fetus human?” is the total lack of a consensus on what being “human” constitutes. In prior arguments, perhaps even on this site, I’ve had the biological “26 chromosomes, xy, etc” characterization of human; the assertion that if a cell is biologically human, it is part of a human. The problem with this argument is that it doesn’t assess what we need to understand: the mental/emotional/physical existence of a Human mind rather than the scientific classification with which I could classify a mole as human. The better question is: “does a fetus have sentience?”
To that point, the answer is an unequivocal and most emphatic no. Furthermore, contrary to what my Mr. Simonsen suggests, the burden of proof lies on the side of sentience, not that of non-sentience. It is irrational to assume that an object is sentient unless it can possibly be proven otherwise. I might as well say to you “this rock is sentient.” We have as much evidence to suggest that rocks are sentient as we do to suggest that fetuses are sentient.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Atom - you are right. It was designed by some graphic designers. Youtube videos here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etEP1Bhgui0 and part 2 here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukIMW833EPE&feature=channel
November 24th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
W- I agree with Protecting life just not state mandated State Health care, big difference!
Bennett- I simply asked if W was Chrissi or Kevin, which i find to be a perfectly good question considering both love to play the Devils advocate, or in other words tend to defend positions they themselves don’t believe. Additionally I don’t presume too know what they believe in regards to most things, just as i don’t presume to know what you believe, playing the Devils advocate, as you, Chrissi, and Kevin do, makes the task that much harder.
But no i did not believe they agree with abortion to clearly answer your question, i simply thought they might be arguing for arguments sake.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Ok Noah…I understand…makes sense.
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 am
W.
in the news a few weeks back was the story of a man who was in a coma for 23 years. there was no evidence that this mass of human dna was sentient, however he was kept alive. recently he came out of his coma, and remarked that he was conscious the during his 23 year coma. he had memories he was able to share with people who visited him.
what is to stop a mother from leaving a newborn baby in the woods for the wild animals to have there way? what is to stop her from killing this mass of loud and messy human dna? should she have the right to leave it behind and let it survive on its own?
and what of a family member who dies. why is it i am not allowed to freely bury their human dna in the backyard like a might bury a chopped off mole or a family pet? why am i not allowed to bury human remains in my back pasture but i am allowed to bury a horse? its just a mass of dna right?
December 3rd, 2009 at 3:22 am
Atom,
Why is it that Hitler chose the swastika for a symbol? why is it that the United States of America chose the Eagle as a symbol? are these arbitrary choices or do they have some deeper meaning?
i would argue that design choices of any logo are determined through a long process, and that the decisions are based on conscious and sub-conscious factors.
in reviewing the McCain Palin logo, i would suggest that the star is used to denote his military service. notably it is designed in such a way to be dissimilar to the stars used in the flags and logos of communist nations.
for a campaign as well crafted as the Obama ‘08 campaign, i would be hard pressed to believe they picked the prettiest logo offered. perhaps the presidential-like seal that was embroidered in the seats of his jet and used at campaign stops was an arbitrary choice as well
December 4th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Mike, Atom,
i watched the you tube videos that Mike provided, and left some quotes here from the video in case folks didn’t have the time to watch it…
“if it doesn’t stand for something, that means something to people, then it’s not going to work.” - Sol Sender
“The strongest logos tell simple stories, and simple stories that uh the leaders of an organization are comfortable telling… we want them to be able to say this means a sun rising over the horizon, the dawning of a new day in American politics.” - Sol Sender
“…we’re honored to work on it and very pleased that it helped to get his message out there as powerfully as it did.” - Sol Sender
According to the youtube info provided. Sol Sender was Creative Director for the Obama logo, and at the time was the owner of Sender LLC, the comapany that designed the logo.
the link below is a video i feel articulates my suggestions on the logo and provides some added insight…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c
December 6th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
More logical fallacies. None of those analogies have the same conditions as the question I posed to you. You talked about a man in a coma- that man was once alive, has brain function, and has been born. You talked about a baby- a baby has been born and has brain function. As for burying, you should show the body dignity because it was alive and did have actual brain function.
Every single part of that argument was a fallacy. Every single part. In order for an analogy not to be false- in order for it to not purport a logical fallacy- it must have the same condition of the thing to which it is being compared.An example of a true analogy, or a rational argument: “Why is it legal for me to cut a mole off? Because while a mole is composed of human DNA, it is not alive and lacks brain function.” Therefore, because it, like a fetus, is not alive and lacks brain functions, that analogy is not false and that argument is not a fallacy. QED.
December 6th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Oh and about this symbol stuff- the fact that the president used a symbol during his campaign does not mean that he is a communist dictator who intends to take over the world and destroy freedom. That assumption is a questionable logical leap of faith which you are taking for political shock value. In short, it’s completely ridiculous.
December 6th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
w. did you watch the video i attached? i would love to hear your thoughts on that video. i am not saying that obama has aspirations to be a dictator nor communist, i am simply asking what the logo might mean, and there are a number of thoughts from different people on this including the man who led the design team. here is the link once again to another man’s theories.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c
as for the logical fallacies. on what scale do we determine sentience? is it an IQ scale? or bio-rythm? is it spirit?
The argument posed by many pro-life advocates is that humans are spiritual beings, and that a fetus is a spiritual being at conception whether millions of missiles of sperm were involved or not.
i know of no logical or scientific fact that can dis-prove the spiritual, and therefore there is no argument against the spiritual quality of a fetus or human.
what we can only debate on is the relative nature of humanity, and this is where you get this idea of sentience being a factor. i say it is not.
i cannot create a logical argument on this matter, for i acknowledge that there is a great mystery to life and to the spiritual. faith is beyond logic…
i do however believe abortion in the US is less a religious matter than it is a matter of the US Constitution. The constitution was written by men who believed that we were created with certain unalienable rights and those rights being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
what you, w., are attempting to do is alienate the unborn just as the early greed mongers of this nation fought to alienate those with black skin…
in the end what is the value of a human life? should it be determined in economic terms? is it an asset or an expense? is it negotiable to the terms of our society? or is it sovereign?
December 16th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
As you put it, you “cannot created a logical argument on this matter.” I couldn’t agree more. You are saying, then, that your beliefs are based based on faith. As a Christian, I have no problem with faith in God and spirituality. But your abortion views are most emphatically not that. No God or spiritual guide has impelled you to believe that small lumps of cells are human, you have simply created that fact out of thin air. I might as well believe that the ocean was made out of spaghetti. I would have just as much justification for that belief as you do for yours, but my belief would not seek to deny the right to parents to wait until they are ready to have children even if they become pregnant.
As for your constitution argument, since its impossible to alienate something that isn’t alive, that argument relies on your central premise- that clumps of cells are humans- and of course that premise is entirely faulty. A fetus is not a slave because a fetus is not a person. The value of human life is inestimable, but plays no part in this discussion because embryos aren’t human.
December 17th, 2009 at 4:37 am
in 1857, in Dred Scott v. Sanford, the US Supreme Court ruled that black people could not become citizens of the United States, and that they were to be considered “… an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic…” as stated by Justice Taney. ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html )
150 years later we sit here and declare the same of what is created when two humans engage in intercourse. to state that an embryo is not human, merely because it is not fully formed, is to state that a fetus is not human, nor a newborn child, nor a five year old, nor an illiterate teenager, nor a nobel prized physicist who has failed to love…
i contend that embryo’s are human… prove that statement wrong and you have a case. i contend that this is unprovable, and thereby nullifies any argument against the humanness of an embryo or fetus.
therefore the rights of the unborn stand under the US Constitution.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
The slavery analogy doesn’t apply. It isn’t analogous and your constant reiteration of it comes off as a cheap attempt to create hyperbolic hysteria without any logical reasoning.
The reason that a child, or a five year old, or any of the other examples to which you pointed, don’t apply, because the reason a fetus isn’t human isn’t because it hasn’t achieved literacy or love, it is because that fetus doesn’t have sentience- it does not perceive anything. That is the bright line that determines whether or not something is human: whether or not it perceives reality and exists.
When you assert that because an embryo cannot be proven to be human, they must be human, you are making an argument to ignorance, or an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I cannot prove that a rock doesn’t have a soul, but I don’t consider the gravel industry to be genocide.
To your challenge: the evidence has already been submitted. Embryos are observably, demonstrably not sentient; the earth is observably, demonstrably not flat. But if you have a conviction to ignore logic and maintain that the world is flat or that an embryo is human, I have no way of preventing you from doing so. You have no reason for this irrational belief, not evidence to back it up.
Your irrational denial of reality, however, is not benign. It is the name of that strange, unsubstantiated belief that abortion clinics have been bombed and that teenage girls, bereft of a husband and completely destitute, have been forced to keep children they are completely unprepared to raise. All because you continue pervert the name of God by using His word to deny to millions the right to insure that their children are born into stable situations with families that can support them.
December 28th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Could you provide a better analogy, that someone on my side of the argument could use?
December 31st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
W, with your claim that a fetus is not a person, I’m curious to hear your answer to this pregnant woman’s question:
http://www.loveforthetruth.com/2009/03/12/love-for-the-truth-cartoon-3-12-09