WWTBAM Bored

Give it a spin!

http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

I'm sorry that Rush Limbaugh is a drug-addled gasbag.

You know, the funny thing is is that this whole episode has been overblown based on something he said, but taken out of context. What Rush said was (to paraphrase) that if Obama is going to pursue the policies that drive this country into socialism then, yes, he hopes he fails. It was not a blanket statement just stating bluntly he hopes he fails, without any qualifications. I am not defending Rush or what he says but just trying to point out how things can go so far overboard over something he said that was obviously taken out of context. But, that's the liberal media for you.

Do you not feel that way? If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

Sir_Galahad wrote: Do you not feel that way? If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

Well, yes and no. A lot depends on how you phrase the question.

For example, here's an IF question for you.

IF the only alternative to socialism was total economic collapse for at least a generation, would you still want him to fail?

Your answer would be to reject the IF part of my question: "But it isn't the only alternative."

And my answer is to reject the IF part of your question: "But I don't believe his goal is to transform this country into a socialist state."

He may believe that, in the current crisis, it may be necessary to take some measures that move the government a little further in one direction on the spectrum between pure free market (which doesn't exist) and pure command economy (which also doesn't exist).

That can be legitimately debated. But it is not the same as saying his goal is to transform the country into a socialist state.

And I do believe there are people who were prepared all along to screech 'Socialism' at anything he proposed.

Sidebar: There was an interesting opinion piece on Limbaugh in yesterday's NY Times. (I apologize if somebody already put in a link to this and I missed it: http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/0 ... -clown/?hp

Sir_Galahad wrote:If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

You are dense.

For sirge, this question is not loaded. It is the question. He does see it this way. Until you (not you, you, but the general you) can get that, there is no conversation possible. You will just keep talking at each other.

Sir_Galahad wrote:You know, the funny thing is is that this whole episode has been overblown based on something he said, but taken out of context.

It wasn't really taken out of context.

Rush chooses the way he phrases things very carefully, in a way that assures he gets maximum attention focused upon himself.

It was the type of rhetoric that was designed to inflame so that no conversation WILL be possible.

Rational, reasoned, courteous discourse is not what is wanted on the airwaves today. That doesn't sell.

The trick is to PRETEND they're after discourse, and then just yell a lot.

peacock2121 wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

You are dense.

For sirge, this question is not loaded. It is the question. He does see it this way. Until you (not you, you, but the general you) can get that, there is no conversation possible. You will just keep talking at each other.

I personally can't wait for the day that we eliminate the socialist police force, fire department and army.

I think they should all be privatized and for profit - don't you?

If we can't trust the government to get the easy things right, why would we want them in charge of these life-or-death matters?

---Jay

frogman042 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

You are dense.

For sirge, this question is not loaded. It is the question. He does see it this way. Until you (not you, you, but the general you) can get that, there is no conversation possible. You will just keep talking at each other.

I personally can't wait for the day that we eliminate the socialist police force, fire department and army.

I think they should all be privatized and for profit - don't you?

If we can't trust the government to get the easy things right, why would we want them in charge of these life-or-death matters?

---Jay

Maybe because those functions are ones that are explicitly accounted for in the Constitution as legitimate government functions.

You are arguing from the excluded middle. Limited-government Conservatives are not No-government anarchists. They aren't even Even-More-Limited-government libertarians.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

TheCalvinator24 wrote:

frogman042 wrote:

peacock2121 wrote: You are dense.

For sirge, this question is not loaded. It is the question. He does see it this way. Until you (not you, you, but the general you) can get that, there is no conversation possible. You will just keep talking at each other.

I personally can't wait for the day that we eliminate the socialist police force, fire department and army.

I think they should all be privatized and for profit - don't you?

If we can't trust the government to get the easy things right, why would we want them in charge of these life-or-death matters?

---Jay

Maybe because those functions are ones that are explicitly accounted for in the Constitution as legitimate government functions.

You are arguing from the excluded middle. Limited-government Conservatives are not No-government anarchists. They aren't even Even-More-Limited-government libertarians.

Excuse me for being dense, but where in the constitution does it talk about fire and police departments? I do know it talks about 'providing.... welfare'

My point was anytime anyone mentions health care I seem to hear cries of SOCIALISM!!!! I don't hear those cries for the government services I mentioned, and I would like to know why not? I personally think health care and education are indeed something that government needs to be involved with to some degree because if it is not done at all, done poorly or only granted to those who have the resources to afford it, all of society suffers, as much (if not more) if there were no police or fire departments.

Where I grew up we had no government fire or ambulance service - it was all volunteer (I spent 5 years on the volunteer ambulance corps) - I'm not sure the free market is necessarily the best for those services, but once a professional, for profit ambulance service, the volunteer one dried up. I'm not sure that the community as a whole benefited.

I think it is reasonable to have a discussion as to which of the services (fire, police, health, education) should be private or should be public, but it seems to me calling any talk of national health insurance socialism in particular, or any government program in general socialism, is just a way to sabotage any rational discussion.

So my question is in what way is health care socialism if government gets involved but police and fire isn't? Why do those who are screaming socialism at everything President Obama is doing not screaming about those services? Finally, do you think having knee-jerk reactions (which I believe yelling socialism is) is productive and adds to the dialog?

BTW, those aren't rhetorical questions, I really want to know.

Thanks,

---Jay

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

No, because Frank's right. That is not his objective.

Mona Lisa Vito: Nobody could answer that question!
D.A. Jim Trotter: Your Honor, I move to disqualify Ms. Vito as a "expert witness"!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Can you answer the question?
Mona Lisa Vito: No, it is a trick question!
Judge Chamberlain Haller: Why is it a trick question?
Vinny Gambini: [to Bill] Watch this.
Mona Lisa Vito: 'Cause Chevy didn't make a 327 in '55, the 327 didn't come out till '62. And it wasn't offered in the Bel Air with a four-barrel carb till '64. However, in 1964, the correct ignition timing would be four degrees before top-dead-center.
D.A. Jim Trotter: Well... um... she's acceptable, Your Honor.

SportsFan68 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

No, because Frank's right. That is not his objective.

And how do you know this, Sprots? Because he says so? He's a politician! I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I am just trying to read the tea leaves like everyone else. And, it's obvious the way I'm reading the leaves is different from everyone else. I hope I'm wrong. But I prefer to err on the side of caution and skepticism.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:If Obama's goal is to transform this country into a socialist state, would you not hope he fails?

You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

It IS a loaded question to those that don't share your viewpoint on Obama, SirG.

It is as loaded as asking "If Obama intends to install a military dictatorship, don't you hope he fails?"

Or "If Obama intends to provoke a war with Russia, don't you hope he fails?"

Or even "If Obama intends to get a young intern in the White House and rape her, don't you hope he fails?"

You could ask all sorts of questions hinting at nefarious motives on the part of Obama, and they would all be "simple questions".

But the intent and bias of those questions would be VERY clear. They're meant to "trap" the opponent instead of discussing issues with him.

The questions are divisive and unproductive towards building rational and courteous political discourse.

Good for talk radio...bad for political discourse.

Jeemie wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

It IS a loaded question to those that don't share your viewpoint on Obama, SirG.

It is as loaded as asking "If Obama intends to install a military dictatorship, don't you hope he fails?"

Or "If Obama intends to provoke a war with Russia, don't you hope he fails?"

Or even "If Obama intends to get a young intern in the White House and rape her, don't you hope he fails?"

You could ask all sorts of questions hinting at nefarious motives on the part of Obama, and they would all be "simple questions".

But the intent and bias of those questions would be VERY clear. They're meant to "trap" the opponent instead of discussing issues with him.

The questions are divisive and unproductive towards building rational and courteous political discourse.

Good for talk radio...bad for political discourse.

Thank you

Jeemie wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

It IS a loaded question to those that don't share your viewpoint on Obama, SirG.

It is as loaded as asking "If Obama intends to install a military dictatorship, don't you hope he fails?"

Or "If Obama intends to provoke a war with Russia, don't you hope he fails?"

Or even "If Obama intends to get a young intern in the White House and rape her, don't you hope he fails?"

You could ask all sorts of questions hinting at nefarious motives on the part of Obama, and they would all be "simple questions".

But the intent and bias of those questions would be VERY clear. They're meant to "trap" the opponent instead of discussing issues with him.

The questions are divisive and unproductive towards building rational and courteous political discourse.

Good for talk radio...bad for political discourse.

Megadittos!

Sir_Galahad wrote:

SportsFan68 wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote: Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

No, because Frank's right. That is not his objective.

And how do you know this, Sprots? Because he says so? He's a politician! I'm not saying he is or he isn't. I am just trying to read the tea leaves like everyone else. And, it's obvious the way I'm reading the leaves is different from everyone else. I hope I'm wrong. But I prefer to err on the side of caution and skepticism.

Because I have seen no evidence of it, other than his following of the path paved for him by the Bush administration. I don't believe Bush intended to turn the U.S. toward socialization with his support of the AIG bailout, same with President Obama and his support of the latest round.

This discussion would be helped by nailing down some definitions, especially of socialism, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen. I think that national single-payer health insurance is the same as Medicare, and people who are yelling "socialsim" at single payer aren't yelling it at Medicare. Same with the bailouts -- most of the people who are yelling socialism at Obama's bailout weren't yelling it at Bush's.

SportsFan68 wrote:I think that national single-payer health insurance is the same as Medicare, and people who are yelling "socialsim" at single payer aren't yelling it at Medicare. Same with the bailouts -- most of the people who are yelling socialism at Obama's bailout weren't yelling it at Bush's.

You are wrong on both counts.

They are and they were yelling at these things.

Limbaugh castigated Bush over expanding Medicare benefits with the prescription drug plan, AND his bailouts towards the end of his term.

In THAT regard, Limbaugh is consistent. I don't know if SirG is.

SportsFan68 wrote:This discussion would be helped by nailing down some definitions, especially of socialism, but I'm pretty sure that won't happen. I think that national single-payer health insurance is the same as Medicare, and people who are yelling "socialsim" at single payer aren't yelling it at Medicare. Same with the bailouts -- most of the people who are yelling socialism at Obama's bailout weren't yelling it at Bush's.

Medicare is socialism.

Bush's bailouts were socialism.

And I've been yelling.

Both walk and quack like socialism.

Now, should there be a little socialism mixed in with our capitalism? Is it possible? I say yes and yes. But that is where the arguments begin; where the lines are drawn on how much socialism, and where does that end and capitalism (or charity) take over.

Jeemie wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: You're still the master of the loaded question on the Bored.

Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

It IS a loaded question to those that don't share your viewpoint on Obama, SirG.

It is as loaded as asking "If Obama intends to install a military dictatorship, don't you hope he fails?"

Or "If Obama intends to provoke a war with Russia, don't you hope he fails?"

Or even "If Obama intends to get a young intern in the White House and rape her, don't you hope he fails?"

You could ask all sorts of questions hinting at nefarious motives on the part of Obama, and they would all be "simple questions".

But the intent and bias of those questions would be VERY clear. They're meant to "trap" the opponent instead of discussing issues with him.

The questions are divisive and unproductive towards building rational and courteous political discourse.

Good for talk radio...bad for political discourse.

Perhaps, but when you state that your intent is to "redistribute the wealth" do you not consider that socialistic? Now I agree that I am taking one small snippet of what he said, but, to me, that is an awfully big snippet. I don't recall reading anyplace regarding a military dictatorship, war with Russia or interns in his White House. But there is no question as to his intent for the former. Yes, it all boils down to what you believe his intentions are.

I read an article in the Washington Post which quotes Obama as saying "I’m going to keep on making the case that government action in these circumstances is entirely appropriate and not at all inconsistent with the primacy of the free market and capitalism. I have no interest in expanding government, contrary to what some critics might say..."

Some could argue that his actions belie his statements. Do you believe what you hear or what you see?

I am just one tiny fish in the huge ocean. And, believe it or not, I am always prone to give the benefit of the doubt; when there is doubt. For me the jury is still out. But, based on what I hear, read and see, the circumstances and events of the day are pulling me in one direction. But I always try to keep an open mind.

BackInTex wrote:Now, should there be a little socialism mixed in with our capitalism? Is it possible? I say yes and yes. But that is where the arguments begin; where the lines are drawn on how much socialism, and where does that end and capitalism (or charity) take over.

Here's where I say a little "socialism" injected into capitalism is healthy.

When we have situations like now, where we have factories and businesses that make useful things where the buildings are still standing, and the inputs are all still there, but yet they are idle because capitalism dictates that the owners can't make a profit running them.

I'm reminded of the 1930s, where capitalism dictated that it was a "good thing" that grain rotted in silos, fields were plowed under, and pigs were slaughtered while people stood in bread lines, in the name of "price support".

When our reason tells us things are wrong, but capitalism "tells us" that those things are "right", then it's time for a little "command economy injection".

Because, unfortunately, the big weakness of capitalism (at least as it is currently structured) is that all too often, it can't tell the difference between useful economic activity/benefit (especially long-term) and short-term "virtual" gain.

And I am a staunch capitalist that says these things, BTW.

How and when to do such things becomes a little dicier, of course.

frogman042 wrote:Excuse me for being dense, but where in the constitution does it talk about fire and police departments? I do know it talks about 'providing.... welfare'

My point was anytime anyone mentions health care I seem to hear cries of SOCIALISM!!!! I don't hear those cries for the government services I mentioned, and I would like to know why not? I personally think health care and education are indeed something that government needs to be involved with to some degree because if it is not done at all, done poorly or only granted to those who have the resources to afford it, all of society suffers, as much (if not more) if there were no police or fire departments.

Where I grew up we had no government fire or ambulance service - it was all volunteer (I spent 5 years on the volunteer ambulance corps) - I'm not sure the free market is necessarily the best for those services, but once a professional, for profit ambulance service, the volunteer one dried up. I'm not sure that the community as a whole benefited.

I think it is reasonable to have a discussion as to which of the services (fire, police, health, education) should be private or should be public, but it seems to me calling any talk of national health insurance socialism in particular, or any government program in general socialism, is just a way to sabotage any rational discussion.

So my question is in what way is health care socialism if government gets involved but police and fire isn't? Why do those who are screaming socialism at everything President Obama is doing not screaming about those services? Finally, do you think having knee-jerk reactions (which I believe yelling socialism is) is productive and adds to the dialog?

BTW, those aren't rhetorical questions, I really want to know.

Thanks,

---Jay

The Constitution provides only for the powers (and duties) of the federal government. It explicitly provides (because some people did not 'get it') in the 9th and 10th Amendments that anything that is NOT a 'power' of the federal government is instead to be left to the states or to the people themselves. What you should be able to do is run a checklist/flowchart against the Constitution:
1. The federal government (Congress, Executive, Judiciary, whoever) wants to do X.
2. Ask: where in the Constitution does the federal government have the power to do X?
3. If the power is found in the Constitution (there in Article A, Section B, Clause C, whatever), then go ahead and do X (following the processes and the procedures outlined int he Constitution).
4. If the power is not found in the Constitution, then you don't do X.

The Constitution expressly provides for a military force for national defense. The separation of powers comes in to play here, with the President being the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, but it is Congress that has the sole power to declare war. Truman managed to get around that by entering into a 'police action' in Korea, so that technically there was no such thing as the 'Korean War,' it was just a 'police action.' And what some people (obviously inaccurately) think of as the longest war in American history-- the Vietnam War-- was also not really a war, since Congress never declared war, although they did, in the beginning, acquiesce to everthing Johnson wanted to do, and then found themselves stuck with it afterward for the balance of Johnson's term and until the very end of Nixon's first term; that's also pretty much what happened in Iraq. And for a bit of a digression that supports the point I am trying to make (I do have one): isn't it interesting that when we do NOT follow the mandates of the Constitution-- when, for example, we go to 'war' without actually having Congress exercise its proper Constitutional responsibility to formally declare war but instead give a President pretty much a blank check authorization to go to war on his own-- isn't it interesting that these 'wars' are the ones that ultimately prove the most divisive, and most costly in terms of what we, as a nation, lose? Declared wars have their issues, of course, but we are STILL arguing about Vietnam-- more than thirty years later-- and isn't it just possible that part of the problem there is that we didn't do it 'right' as required under our system?

The Constitution does not provide for the federal government to provide police or fire protection (or medical insurance), and those functions are not properly the functions of the federal government... and except to the extent that the federal government intrudes from time to time, police and fire protection remain, for the most part, functions of local government (the FBI to an extent does involve 'police protection,' but their role is limited solely-- or is supposed to be limited-- solely to federal crimes. To the extent that they go beyond that, they are messing around with things in which they should not be involved... and to get back to the digression in the previous paragraph, isn't it exactly when the federal police power started affecting us that people started complaining about the Bush Administration violating civil liberties and behaving improperly? Once again, exanding federal power beyond the express limits of the Constitution leads to lots of bad stuff).

Arguing about whether some action taken by the federal government is 'socialist' or not is irrelevant: the real issue is whether or not something is part of the federal government's charter (the Constitution), and if not, then it should not be done. On the flip side, the state governments have full power under the Constitution to do anything that they want (subject to the limitations contained in their own constitutions), so if the states want to provide police and fire protection-- whether directly, in the form of state police, or indirectly through the cities and counties and boroughs and parishes and whatever-- they can and they do these things. Same with health insurance: if under a state's constitution the state has the power or authority to do something about health insurance, and it does not violate some over-riding provision of the US Constitution, then they can do that.

If you want the federal government to do stuff that is outside its mandate under the Constitution, then what you should do is amend the Constitution so that it has that power. When you just do it anyway, you are just asking for a lot of trouble: you are defeating the whole purpose of having a Constitution, and you are rejecting the entire concept of a 'government of laws' (by ignoring the supreme law of the land).

Something to consider: the Soviet Union had some of the most 'liberal'-- in the sense of protecting liberty and freedom-- constitutions of any nation in history ('constitutions' because they periodically rewrote their consitution to make it even more 'liberal'). But their governments routinely ignored anything that they did not like, so that their constitutions were all just pieces of paper. For example, their constitutions expressly provided that any of the contituent 'republics' of the Soviet Union could withdraw at any time... but tell that to the people who were murdered or exiled when they actually tried to do it. Freedom of speech was absolutely guaranteed, but Solzhenitsyn went to the gulag because he referred to Stalin as 'the mustached one' in a private letter. Again, if you are not going to honor the mandates of your constitution, bad stuff happens.

And Rush Limbaugh is still an idiot.

Sir_Galahad wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

Sir_Galahad wrote: Thank you but I am not that smart. I thought I had asked a simple question. Can you not give me a simple answer? A yes or no will suffice. There is no intent to define what "is" or "if" is. I just want to know,

If Obama's objective is to transform the United States of America into a socialist state, do you hope he succeeds or fails? There is no hidden or underlying question. It is simply a fundamental question. Can you not answer it?

It IS a loaded question to those that don't share your viewpoint on Obama, SirG.

It is as loaded as asking "If Obama intends to install a military dictatorship, don't you hope he fails?"

Or "If Obama intends to provoke a war with Russia, don't you hope he fails?"

Or even "If Obama intends to get a young intern in the White House and rape her, don't you hope he fails?"

You could ask all sorts of questions hinting at nefarious motives on the part of Obama, and they would all be "simple questions".

But the intent and bias of those questions would be VERY clear. They're meant to "trap" the opponent instead of discussing issues with him.

The questions are divisive and unproductive towards building rational and courteous political discourse.

Good for talk radio...bad for political discourse.

Perhaps, but when you state that your intent is to "redistribute the wealth" do you not consider that socialistic? Now I agree that I am taking one small snippet of what he said, but, to me, that is an awfully big snippet. I don't recall reading anyplace regarding a military dictatorship, war with Russia or interns in his White House. But there is no question as to his intent for the former. Yes, it all boils down to what you believe his intentions are.

I read an article in the Washington Post which quotes Obama as saying "I’m going to keep on making the case that government action in these circumstances is entirely appropriate and not at all inconsistent with the primacy of the free market and capitalism. I have no interest in expanding government, contrary to what some critics might say..."

Some could argue that his actions belie his statements. Do you believe what you hear or what you see?

I am just one tiny fish in the huge ocean. And, believe it or not, I am always prone to give the benefit of the doubt; when there is doubt. For me the jury is still out. But, based on what I hear, read and see, the circumstances and events of the day are pulling me in one direction. But I always try to keep an open mind.

SirG- I am not necessarily disagreeing with you.

However, there are more constructive ways to discuss those issues rather than using loaded questions to do so.

In many ways, the use of loaded questions is the sign of a "weak" debater because it represents an attempt to define the terms of the debate in your favor before you've even begun to debate.

It takes more work on the debater's part to make convincing arguments if the audience isn't being predisposed by how the initial questions are framed to think one way or another.

Rush is a shrewed talk-show host, but IMHO, not the greatest debater in the world.

wintergreen48 wrote:If you want the federal government to do stuff that is outside its mandate under the Constitution, then what you should do is amend the Constitution so that it has that power. When you just do it anyway, you are just asking for a lot of trouble: you are defeating the whole purpose of having a Constitution, and you are rejecting the entire concept of a 'government of laws' (by ignoring the supreme law of the land).

Nah! That's too hard and time-consuming.

Just do what the federal government has been doing for years...say that they have powers that are "implied powers".

Health care is an "implied power" under the "provide for the general welfare" clause. There you go!

Sir_Galahad wrote:Perhaps, but when you state that your intent is to "redistribute the wealth" do you not consider that socialistic?

Bush redistributed the wealth.

He redistributed it up.

Sir_Galahad wrote:Some could argue that his actions belie his statements. Do you believe what you hear or what you see?

Ooooh... the infamous FOX News weasel words have returned. Who are these "some" that you speak of, anyway?