Health care debate reveals fundamental philosophical differences
It doesn't get any clearer than this.
These photos from today's front page illustrate the philosophical contrast in the debate over so-called health reform.
- William Kostnic wears a pistol Tuesday as he stands outside a town hall meeting on health care held by President Barack Obama. Obama spoke as anger flared outside his event and at congressional town halls across the country. (AP photo by Joel Page)
- Lisa Ball of Worcester, Mass., chants outside the town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H. (AP photo by Joel Page)
Pistol-packing Kostnic's sign is a less than subtle reference to a quote from Thomas Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
Ball's sign on the other hand is counter to the Founders reverence for life, liberty and property, which is embodied in George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights:
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
This entry was posted on Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2009 at 06:39 AM
and is filed under Thomas Mitchell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
Add a comment! 
7
Responses
to "Health care debate reveals fundamental philosophical differences"
The sad thing about this health care mess is that the Republican's objective has nothing to do with healthcare. The Republican playbook here is to squelch the Democrats legislative freight train.
Not unlike what happened to Clinton with putting a lawyer (Hillary) in charge. after Newt squished Hillary like a bug, the Republicans got some momentum and regained some control in the Congress.
The same game is being played here. The Republican's don't give a rat's butt about whether or not american's are insured. They just want to get out of the wilderness.
Unfortunately for the huge amount of uninsured American's, that strategy leaves them once again out in the cold.
So let's call it what it is. Politics.
Not reform, not debate, not discussion... just political strategies to try to gain or maintain power.
But honestly, if one more putz who is accepting Medicare or Social security screams about socialism my faith in the educational system of this country will reach new lows. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". Classic idiocy.
Not unlike what happened to Clinton with putting a lawyer (Hillary) in charge. after Newt squished Hillary like a bug, the Republicans got some momentum and regained some control in the Congress.
The same game is being played here. The Republican's don't give a rat's butt about whether or not american's are insured. They just want to get out of the wilderness.
Unfortunately for the huge amount of uninsured American's, that strategy leaves them once again out in the cold.
So let's call it what it is. Politics.
Not reform, not debate, not discussion... just political strategies to try to gain or maintain power.
But honestly, if one more putz who is accepting Medicare or Social security screams about socialism my faith in the educational system of this country will reach new lows. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". Classic idiocy.
George Mason also believed in owning slaves and "did not want the new federal government to be able to ban slavery where it already existed". (from Wikipedia)
I am sure Sherm would like to own slaves too, that's why we have laws against it.
I am sure Sherm would like to own slaves too, that's why we have laws against it.
Thomas Mitchell admitted to me in an email that William Kostric is his "hero."
Tom's just jealous of Bill's hat.
For real though what kind of pathetic asylum escapee wears a pistol on his leg to a presidential event?
If Bush was still in power and some dunce tried this, Dick "The Torturer" Cheney would have had his private hit squad scoop the guy up and give him to his private militia (Blackwater) and then would have rendered him to a Syrian 're-eductaion' facility.
Since rational people are in charge again, this gimp simply gets 15 minutes of fame (or infamy depending on your opinion).
For real though what kind of pathetic asylum escapee wears a pistol on his leg to a presidential event?
If Bush was still in power and some dunce tried this, Dick "The Torturer" Cheney would have had his private hit squad scoop the guy up and give him to his private militia (Blackwater) and then would have rendered him to a Syrian 're-eductaion' facility.
Since rational people are in charge again, this gimp simply gets 15 minutes of fame (or infamy depending on your opinion).
Angry, after some debate during the Constitutional Convention, the attendees determined that they could not legitimately delegate to the federal government the power to ban slavery, since that would essentially be the same thing as stealing a citizen's horse or any other property.
Like it or not, that was the principle.
They did, however, vote to stop slave importation 20 years in the future, as I recall, since that would fall under federal regulation of foreign trade.
Like it or not, that was the principle.
They did, however, vote to stop slave importation 20 years in the future, as I recall, since that would fall under federal regulation of foreign trade.
Winston,
This is not the forum for rational debate, but I will humor you.
To compare a human being to a horse or categorize a human being as property in and of itself is morally repugnant.
Like it or not? I pick not.
Too many cowards, not enough humans.
Washington certainly had the political juice to ban slavery. If he didn't who did? Oh wait Lincoln.
100 years later, a business failure on the scale of GW Bush, came to power and had the gall to abolish it. Of course it was only done as a political ploy to help the Republicans hold the nation together and maintain their disproportionate income streams, but it served its purpose.
If we could find a way for the neo-con perversion of the Republican party to profit off health insurance monopoly reform we would not be having this discussion.
But you play the hand you're dealt.
This is not the forum for rational debate, but I will humor you.
To compare a human being to a horse or categorize a human being as property in and of itself is morally repugnant.
Like it or not? I pick not.
Too many cowards, not enough humans.
Washington certainly had the political juice to ban slavery. If he didn't who did? Oh wait Lincoln.
100 years later, a business failure on the scale of GW Bush, came to power and had the gall to abolish it. Of course it was only done as a political ploy to help the Republicans hold the nation together and maintain their disproportionate income streams, but it served its purpose.
If we could find a way for the neo-con perversion of the Republican party to profit off health insurance monopoly reform we would not be having this discussion.
But you play the hand you're dealt.
Angry: My point is that all 12 colonies that attended the Convention rejected the idea of banning slavery, therefore the fact that Mason owned slaves does not negate what he said in the above quote, any more than Washington having slaves negated his appellation as the Father of our Country, or Jefferson's slaves negated his authorship of the Declaration, or Patrick Henry's slaves negated his "Liberty or Death" speech.
These slave-holding Founders were the products of their upbringing, and their positive contributions to our 200+ years of (relative) freedom are still praiseworthy.
These slave-holding Founders were the products of their upbringing, and their positive contributions to our 200+ years of (relative) freedom are still praiseworthy.
RSS
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.