Sometimes stupid loses

Peter N wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2011 21:25:21 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:
"Peter N" photo.maven @fakeverizon.net wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:15:43 -0400, "Pete Stavrakoglou"
wrote:
It's about our freedom to choose which the president would
eliminate if he could. If he could've shoved universal health
care down our throats he would have but he was willing to admit
that it wouldn't fly. But many will admit that this health care
bill is a start and that they want to "teak" it as time goes by
with the ultimate goal being universal halth care. It's the same
old argument, there are those that believe that government should
"take care if us" and then there are those of us who want to take
care of ourselves. Because there are some who can't take care of
themselves (and many are in that camp due to their own choices),
those of us who can can't be allowed to either.

Think of it as a governmental mandate of our moral obligation to
take care of our fellow human beings. Certainly you don't object to
that.


I certainly do. The whole concept of "a governmental mandate of our
moral obligation" to do anything is profoundly offensive to me. I
believe in a free society. I don't want government even advising me
on my "moral obligation," let alone mandating it.


You sound like you emerged fully formed from a George Orwell novel,
or maybe that you just badly need to read one. I suggest "Animal
Farm" as a primer, though I'm not sure you would get the point.

You want the freedom to commit acts of rape, armed robbery, fraud,
assault, etc???
Is murder OK?

The spirit of our Constitution is to allow whatever does not interfere with
the rights of others. IOW, if we have the right to life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness, and you want to do something that does not take those
rights away from anyone else, then you should be allowed to do it. All other
laws are, and should be unconstitutional. It is the business of the courts
to decide what to do when there is a clash in the rights of two or more
parties. IOW, if giving you your right(s) takes away one or more of my
rights, then someone has to decide whose rights are more important.