Indefensible.

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

 

No, that's freedom.

 

DK,

Don't take the bait and play the OT carousel of stupid arguments game.

Nice to see he's following my prediction to a T.

 

You completely contradict yourself on the Constitution. The Constitution, RE: a standing army = Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15: "To provide for the calling for of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions."

Which is nothing like the military system we have in place. The militia of each individual state, called upon to suppress insurrections and repel invasions. Hmmm...yeah, nothing like the current state.

 

I can't believe you just compared universal healthcare to communism.....oh no wait.....

 

And no sooner than I elucidate the ridiculousness of this argument, old tony comes along and endorses it.

It's truly pathetic.

And there's no sense in feeling guilty, IU90. Volunteer for a better candidate this time around. You likely can't help but vote for one.

 

It makes you wonder what the heck happened to "Compassionate Conservatism".

 

Chris Matthews (ok, consider the source) said conservatives looked at Reagan's 60 percent approval rating at the end of the term and considered it a waste. He had the power, you're leaving office anyway, why not use it. Look for a Bush approval rating of 12 percent by the time he leaves office.

 

And of course, folks like old tony and "great Americans" like Rush will now try and make this issue about immigration, because that's the only thing that seems to be ginning up the base these days now that the gay marriage dodge doesn't move the needle like it used to. That is, those that aren't like Crazy Jim Bunning, who'll no doubt try and make it a state's rights issue, since, well, I don't think he understands what's going on.


But my question is this:

Since we know it's cheaper to pay for preventitive care than for emergency care, isn't providing insurance for CHILDREN really just smart capitalism?

 

What part of "provide for the common defence" is so hard to understand? It's right there in the preamble. I mean you only have to read the first paragraph of the document to get that far, so please don't tell me I've assigned you too much reading.

 

You can argue it's smart. You can't argue it's capitalism. So, no, it's not smart capitalism.

 

And as I did in my last post, I refer to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.

Oh, and I noticed your last post that you can't argue it's capitalism as I was written this. Again, I refer to my earlier point about Adam Smith. Yes, you CAN argue it's smart capitalism. In fact, you can argue it's PURE capitalism.