Another Dem Congressman on tapeFollow

Jophed,

When our side wants something it's usually meant to protect the citizens from foreign aggressors. When your side wants something it's usually to pay for the people who refuse to work and take care of themselves.

Oh and Obama has done far more intrusive things than the wiretapping of the W administration. So not only does your side not care about defending this nation but it's willing to use stolen data on it's own citizens to take down those who oppose them.

Or, this could be written as:

When our side wants something, it's usually meant to wage a new war. When your side wants something, it's usually to help protect/care for those who can't protect/care for themselves.

See how perspective changes your dribble?

Drivel?

**** Morris has always been a Republican. He advised Clinton because they were personal friends.

Totally off topic but there's a fascinating bit in the book "Game Change" that mentions how President GW Bush would call Bill Clinton on multiple occasions during the 2008 primary elections to commiserate over the drubbing Hillary was taking and the narrative that Bill was injecting race into the elections. A bunch of "Don't let'em getcha down, Bill. I know you're not like that" sort of things.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2010 11:19am by Jophiel

Debo,

fixed:



You got that right. You're almost there.

I think you're putting words in her mouth. Changing the argument so it suites you, honestly.

What? Even you said this about her:



What is that if not asking what limits there are? She's asking about the slippery slope(tm), and he essentially says that the slope is endless.


Let's also be very specific. Here's the question she asked:

"If this legislation is constitutional, then what limitations are there on the federal government's ability to tell us how to run our private lives?"

His answer:

"I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life."

She follows with a long diatribe linking (improperly IMO) the issue to slavery, and also mentioning the 10th amendment process, then follows up with another question:

"How can this law be constitutional? But more important than that, if they can do this, what can't they?"

She is again very clearly asking about the limits to the power of the federal government in this area. Here's his answer:

"The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country"


You keep changing the words slightly to make it appear as though she was asking a different question than she actually asked. She was asking about limits and the only answers she got was that the constitution placed very few limits on the government, and that the government could do most anything. He didn't technically say it had no limits, but he was unable (or unwilling) to explain what those limits were.

That's the problem. If you don't see why that's an issue, I'm not sure how to respond to you. It's like asking a parent if they think there's a limit to how much force they can use when punishing their child, and they simply say "there are few limits" and "I can do most anything". Those are not very comforting answers, are they?

I did watch it. Twice, actually.



Yes, that was the actual wording. And I've shown how the government makes "rules" just to that effect. To which you said, "Well, yes, they can do that, but... but... that's different, because those rules are ok."

Then you decided to change it and say, "What she was actually saying is this..."

And you honestly can't see how these rules that infringe on us have been put into place to protect us or others from infringement...? What, do you think that the health care reform bill is put into place to help people in other countries get health care?

Do you get it yet?

And you think I can't keep up?

And his answer was "there aren't any"; and okay, he should have added "beyond what people will accept and elect representatives to implement." And that is true, as far as it goes. It's an incomplete answer - he could have gone on about what the Constitution specifically disallows vis a vis legislation; but that's pretty sparse ground.

"Everyone" got very angry because hardly anyone knows the limits of the power of Congress, and hardly anyone likes hearing the unvarnished truth when they wish that truth were otherwise.

Except that it's *not* the truth. The truth is that the constitution does limit the degree to which congress can infringe on the public. What got people riled up is that the congressman either doesn't believe that it does, or doesn't know that it does. What I suspect a lot of liberal leaning people don't get is that for decades most conservatives have sat quietly on the sidelines, not taking much action politically because they simply believed that no matter how "out there" the liberal agenda pushers seemed, they weren't really going to try to overturn what conservatives see as the most basic facts about our nation and our constitution. They'd hear people insist that they should get involved, but dismiss them as wild eyed right wingers exaggerating things. They'd accept the media portrayal of those making those allegations as having some sort of secret racist, sexist, or whatever agenda and just saying that liberals were trying to re-define basic concepts like rights in order to gain support for their own.


But in the last decade or so, a lot of conservatives have started waking up. They've started looking around and realizing that a lot of those crazy seeming claims about what liberals believed and were doing are true. And they're realizing that they are on the verge of losing their country. And they're angry about it. They are angry at the liberals for doing this. They are angry at themselves for not listening and taking action earlier. And they're angry at their media for largely ignoring and dismissing this process until this thing called the internet allowed them to start seeing it directly.


And when they see a congressman say something like this, it simply confirms all their fears. They were told that liberals don't believe in natural rights, but they didn't believe it. They were told that liberals don't think the constitution has meaning, but they didn't believe it They were told that liberals are willing to violate any principle to impose the rule they want, but they didn't believe it. Yet, here they see a congressman asked a question which to them is very straight forward and speaks to the most core values they hold about the constitution and the principles of rights that they believe in, and he's confirming that he simply doesn't believe in those principles.


It's the same thing I feel when I'm faced with someone who simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a difference between rights and benefits. My first reaction is disbelief. How can someone not know this? Then I start to wonder how they came to believe what they believe. Who taught them this? Why? And yeah. I get a little angry. What you're seeing is conservatives finally getting angry. And that's a good thing IMO.

Edited, Aug 4th 2010 4:46pm by gbaji