it is easy to be PA with mcsame and ob issue now

@ TayoD i understand your arguement and the technicality therein.

Please ignore the insults its all in the passion of debate. When the founding fathers of the US constitution talked about the "right to life" my question to you what were the intents of that right?

You quoted the Universal declaration of Human rights i recall that there are about 3 conventions that breaks down each article properly. Please go back and read those conventions am sure the intent of health care being a right is clear. Obama was a constitutional law lecturer do u honestly think McCain has the intellectual ability to distinguish the issue(s) better. Abinitio on this based on their careers i will listen to Obama's argument more closely put ideology or party affiliation aside can McCain intellectually argue this right vs responsibilty with Obama

Deviating a bit from the issue of right or responsibilty, lets look at health care in itself as a service and a service provided by the priate sector. My arguement to you is this, the private sector is profit driven and sole aim centers on higher returns to share holders, should preservation of human life be tied to profits, we are not talking about car or home insurance here we are talking about preservation of human life.

I read a phd thesis and one the arguments was that the private sector does not have in its genes any form of social responsibilty and rightly so, they have to be forced and coerced by the government. I will ask the guy if i can put it online, your argument on 100% private health care will seize.

In my opinion there should be a solid government alternative and then let people choose. The british NHS still remains a model, they celeberated 60 years recently d same arguement u are making were exactly d same arguements made 60 years ago and today the NHS is a success, has its problems but is a success. The notion was simple health care on a need to basis and not based on affordability Did anyone here watch that BBC documentary?

I don't think Obama is totally against the private health care, but let the govt provide alternative plans.

And since the free market handles every thing well lets just hand over everything defense, roads, street lights, councils, cities everything, we really don't need a govt or maybe an extremely lean govt that really can't do anything. This classical economics Adam Smith notion of the invincible hand has been debunked in academic cycles as far back as Keynes the notion that the market will regulate it self has been shown to be nonsense, i really can't understand how people still hold on to that ideology.

I have raised a lot of issues but the summary is that the motivations of private enterprise conflicts with that of the health sector, there are no emotions in private enterprise its all profits and again rightly so, but in health issues you need such flexibilty and human emotions and pity, you are dealing with human life, thats why government should be involved in that sector.

chamotex:

And na which day Tope come be Political Analyst or did u copy and paste this from somewhere

you people keep looking at her chest
and talking about it
she is more than "manchesters"

Tayo-D:

@RichyBlack,
I am not too surprised y the manner in which you entered this discussion. I still believe the best of you that one day, you will learn to discuss issues without an attack on personalities.

The United Nations General Assmebly issued a Universal Declaration of Humna Rights. Please point to where it is implied implicitly or explicitly that health care is a human right!

@Tayo-D,

You'll do yourself some good if you start listening to chaps like Ibime and toshmann (at least he's a Republican like you) and stop reasoning like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.

My advice: go to somewhere/someplace quiet, relax and think, you obviously don't do enough of that - coming up here regurgitating right-wing talking points like some Hindu mantra. Otherwise, you risk being permanently viewed as Kobojunkie version 2.0 - I'm sure you don't want that .

McCain to Obama: We don't have time for on-the-job training, my friend.
LOL. . This campaign is getting funnier by the day
Is McCain among the 'we'?

question:

McCain to Obama: We don't have time for on-the-job training, my friend.
LOL. . This campaign is getting funnier by the day
Is McCain among the 'we'?

Don't mind grandpy McSane.

Nairalanders,

The McCain campaign is on the ropes, and sadly it's no surprise they're responding with attacks and outright lies.

I've heard some pretty unspeakable things in the past few days -- deeply offensive smears that we'll hear over and over again until Election Day.

John McCain and Governor Palin are setting a new low in presidential politics with their dishonorable campaign.

Barack and I are out there every day fighting back. But we need your help.

Will you make a donation of $25 or more right now? Show John McCain and Sarah Palin that when they attack us with lies and smears, it literally makes our campaign stronger:

https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity2

After last night's debate, it's clear why John McCain doesn't want to talk about the issues facing ordinary Americans -- especially the economy, which his own advisers admit he can't talk about without losing.

Barack won last night by offering clear plans to rebuild our economy from the bottom up, lower healthcare costs, and end the war in Iraq responsibly.

McCain tried to push more of the same disastrous Bush administration policies -- more tax cuts for the wealthy and giant corporations, deregulating the healthcare industry and taxing employer-based healthcare plans, and continuing to spend $10 billion a month in Iraq.

So what's left for the McCain campaign? Negative attacks and lies.

And it's even worse from some of the well-funded outside groups supporting McCain, whose sole purpose is tearing Barack down with smears.

Instead of focusing on the issues that really matter, our opponents are doing everything they can to encourage this toxic atmosphere.

We cannot stand by and let them get away with it.

We need to increase the cost of these desperate tactics for McCain's campaign. Will you make a donation of $25 or more right now?

https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity2

Thanks for your support,

Joe Biden.

Donate: https://donate.barackobama.com/costofnegativity2

@away4real,

@ TayoD i understand your arguement and the technicality therein.

Good.

Please ignore the insults its all in the passion of debate.

I try to as much as possible, but some people just choose to always reduce the levels of a debate without any constructive contributions.

When the founding fathers of the US constitution talked about the "right to life" my question to you what were the intents of that right?

Let us take a look at the Declaration of Independence to get this gist. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is clear that the rights that are mentioned and intended here are considered God-given, not State-given. The role of the State is to ensure that nothing is placed in the way of anybody enjoying these rights. Healthcare cannot be considered one of these rights because it is not constant with every human being. Some are born healthy and others are not, but the commone denominator for everyone, rich or poor, healthy or not is the fact that they have life, they were all born free and have the capacity to pursure happiness in whichever way they deem fit.

One thing you have to realise in all these rights is the fact that they do not impose a burden on others. My life does not impose a burden on you in any way, nor does my liberty or my pursuit of my life goals. However, when you claim the govt have to provide you with healthcare, you impose a burden on me as a tax payer. A burden which I may be unwilling to bear. You therefore deprive me of a means (money) to which I can pursue my own happiness.

You quoted the Universal declaration of Human rights i recall that there are about 3 conventions that breaks down each article properly. Please go back and read those conventions am sure the intent of health care being a right is clear.

If it was, then we should expect the UN to start invading countries that do not provide its citizens with universal healthcare. Afterall, isn't the UN meant to intervene in situations where human rights are being trampled upon? I can understand the UN intervening in the event of a genocide because people's lives are being wasted, but if we are to follow your logic, then we should expect same in the event of lack of healthcare.

Obama was a constitutional law lecturer do u honestly think McCain has the intellectual ability to distinguish the issue(s) better. Abinitio on this based on their careers i will listen to Obama's argument more closely put ideology or party affiliation aside can McCain intellectually argue this right vs responsibilty with Obama

I do respect Obama's education and I cannot speak for McCain. However, most decisions at the Supreme Court are split 4-3. Does that mean about half of the Justices are intellectually inferior? No it doesn't. It only means their philosophies are different. Obama's decisions are tainted by his social views and not just by the law or the constitution. Afterall, why would he support infanticide if he believes in the protection of "life"?

Deviating a bit from the issue of right or responsibilty, lets look at health care in itself as a service and a service provided by the priate sector. My arguement to you is this, the private sector is profit driven and sole aim centers on higher returns to share holders, should preservation of human life be tied to profits, we are not talking about car or home insurance here we are talking about preservation of human life.

Pilots hold human life in their hands when they are flying. Does that mean Airlines should be operated by the government? Commerce is a fact of life and their is nothing that we can point at that affects our daily living that does not involve commerce. Commerce gives you a choice and freedom that the government will never give to you. The private sector is such that you can ditch one and embrace the other in the event that you are not satisfied with one service. Tell me, what will you do when you can only relate with your government? A situation where you can only appeal from govt to govt with no alternative is a threat.

I read a phd thesis and one the arguments was that the private sector does not have in its genes any form of social responsibilty and rightly so, they have to be forced and coerced by the government. I will ask the guy if i can put it online, your argument on 100% private health care will seize.

I don't agree. My wife and I give nothing less than 15% of our income to social causes without any govt intervention. The Red Cross is managed by the Private Sector. So what is that thesis all about?

In my opinion there should be a solid government alternative and then let people choose.

There are government alternatives in the US already. In addition, there are a lot of private sector alternatives as well. What I am saying is that making it universal is absolutely wrong.

The british NHS still remains a model, they celeberated 60 years recently d same arguement u are making were exactly d same arguements made 60 years ago and today the NHS is a success, has its problems but is a success.

Amon its problems is the fact that you rob Peer to pay Paul. Plus_Queen had first hand experience with NHS and has mentioned them above. My opposition is based on principles. I'll accept I'm wrong if the principles are shown to be wrong.

The notion was simple health care on a need to basis and not based on affordability Did anyone here watch that BBC documentary?

Who determines the needs? I go to the clinic when I need to. I am not constrained by anyone. I used to travel about 25 miles to vist my denstist and my clinic is just about 7 miles from my home. I choose whom I will and I do not impose any burden on others for my healthcare.

I don't think Obama is totally against the private health care, but let the govt provide alternative plans.

The government already have alternative plans. Their are a lot of governemtn sponsored programs out there, especially for children. I know many who enjoy it. Why expand it when the private sector is doing well enough? Let the govt lose the restrictions that limit the private sector.

And since the free market handles every thing well lets just hand over everything defense, roads, street lights, councils, cities everything, we really don't need a govt or maybe an extremely lean govt that really can't do anything.

This is going from one extreme to the other. The idea is to find a middle ground. The founding fathers were very clear about the issue of national security and defense. I am not an anarchist who believes in no government.

This classical economics Adam Smith notion of the invincible hand has been debunked in academic cycles as far back as Keynes the notion that the market will regulate it self has been shown to be nonsense, i really can't understand how people still hold on to that ideology.

The academics may make as much conslusions as they like, but we have seen the abject failure of communism in Russia. I know the free market enterprise is under attack now by socialists all over the world, but so far, the free market hasn't failed as far as I know.

I have raised a lot of issues but the summary is that the motivations of private enterprise conflicts with that of the health sector, there are no emotions in private enterprise its all profits and again rightly so, but in health issues you need such flexibilty and human emotions and pity, you are dealing with human life, thats why government should be involved in that sector.

This is not true. I am a Civil Engineer, and even though I want to make profit, I am extrememly sensitive to safety. I've had projects that where I've had to make a loss just so as to provide the best design. Infact, no design will be approved unless it is considered to be safe first. This etiquette operates in the health sector as well. Afterall, we see Physicians operating in war situation where there is a collapse of government. This alone, indicates the fallacy of your statement.

And by the way, I believe more in Govt tyranny than I do in its compassion. Though the private sector is mainly driven my profit, the govt is mostly driven my politics. The advantage with the private sector is that failure to provide the best service at a competitive rate will result in the loss of profit. So while they may be motivated by profit, they will be guided by the consumer need and competition.

@away4real,

I work in the power sector and I do like the model I see, even though some aspect will have to be improved upon if we are to apply same model to the health sector.

Power is provided by the Private Sector with the Govt providing legislation that guides their operation. The govt is not involved in the day to day running which is done abolutely by the Private Sector.

The Private sector regulates itself per the govt standard and they do it much better than the govt would have done. Mybe we can discuss this model as we go along.

KarmaMod:

as for living in Ohio, I figured you'D enjoy such a hellhole after all they are mainly conservatives who hate minorities and believe they have rights over a woman's body.
abi no be your paradise be that?

well, fact is there is racism everywhere. the racism i see in ohio is far far less than what i recieved in cross-river state of nigeria(some people may want to call that tribalism, it's the same to me). i had a worse treatment in britain as a student in cardiff, so that racism is not the issue here.

by the way, if we want to talk about racism, perhaps i have a question for you blacks in america. is the democrat party taking you guys for granted? last time i checked, african americans have always voted democratic party since FDR, always loyal to the democratic party. then for the first time, an african america is nominated to be democratic candidate in a year when the democratic party has almost double the number of registered republicans and yet, many democrats are reluctant to vote for your candidate___that one . . . .

so my dear, leave racism alone. it really did not start with the US, and wont end there

well, fact is there is racism everywhere. the racism i see in ohio is far far less

Perhaps you were sleeping when the KKK had their annual march there a few weeks ago

. . , am sure the intent of health care being a right is clear. Obama was a constitutional law lecturer do u honestly think McCain has the intellectual ability to distinguish the issue(s) better,

Away4Real,

Please clarify, what is the intent of Obama in making healthcare a right for Americans? Before you answer, I would like for you to weigh the consequence of such action against the output on productivity. Consider also that in countries where healthcare is managed by the government, it is done so as a provision and it is not obligatory.

Provision, obligatory, constitutional right, social issue. . . . . lets stop mincing words. . . . . . Yankee needs to catch up to the rest of the developed World. . . . simple. . . . there is no effect on productivity. . . . British companies do not pay any health insurance for their employees. . . . . Yankee companies do. . . so which is affecting productivity? . . on top of that, it is not like corporate tax is any cheaper in Yankee than Europe. . . . . maybe you would like to compare taxation rates in Europe with Yankee on a corporate level. . . . at no level does Europe pay more. . . . where are all these "stifle productivity" nonsense arguments coming from?. . . . .paying your personal money for Health Insurance is also a indirect tax. . . . that money is not going toward your personal productivity either.

If we can afford lower tax rates than you guys and still afford Universal Health, so can you. . . . Yankee system encourages redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. . . . there is a lot of leakage and arbitrage in free market systems that provide social goods.

plus_Queen:

you people keep looking at her chest
and talking about it
she is more than "manchesters"

Thank you jare

@Chamo
U no well
Im an obamo follower

KarmaMod:

Perhaps you were sleeping when the KKK had their annual march there a few weeks ago

dis babe u be witch? i was actually sleeping . . jet lag

[size=14pt]From my friendly neighbourhood racists in Ohio.[/size]
[flash=400,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E[/flash]

Ignorance Extra-Ordinary!!

It's one thing to support "your party".  Some of these approach the realm of being despicable humans.

Tayo-D:

@away4real,
I try to as much as possible, but some people just choose to always reduce the levels of a debate without any constructive contributions.

Okay, I know you're referring to people like me. Alright,, let me make some "constructive" contributions.

Let us take a look at the Declaration of Independence to get this gist. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It is clear that the rights that are mentioned and intended here are considered God-given, not State-given. The role of the State is to ensure that nothing is placed in the way of anybody enjoying these rights.

From the meaning of the word "among", there is no doubt that the Declaration of Independence, which must not be confused with the US Constitution, only stated some of the "unalienable" rights, not all. Some but not all! Hence, the Declaration of Independence cannot be relied upon for an ultimate list of these rights. Where do we go from here? The much more superior and much more important document to look at is the US Constitution.

From the preamble of the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Definition of welfare: Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. _{Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/}

Healthcare cannot be considered one of these rights because it is not constant with every human being. Some are born healthy and others are not, but the commone denominator for everyone, rich or poor, healthy or not is the fact that they have life, they were all born free and have the capacity to pursure happiness in whichever way they deem fit.

You can't use a document that clearly stated its incompleteness to determine what rights should be protected. Based on your incomplete logic, voting is not a right! Did the Declaration of Independence state voting as a right? Your line of reasoning pushes you into a definitive cul de sac.

One thing you have to realise in all these rights is the fact that they do not impose a burden on others. My life does not impose a burden on you in any way, nor does my liberty or my pursuit of my life goals. However, when you claim the govt have to provide you with healthcare, you impose a burden on me as a tax payer. A burden which I may be unwilling to bear. You therefore deprive me of a means (money) to which I can pursue my own happiness.

Uber-trash talk! Your argument is flawed on so many levels it's hard to pick where to start in dismantling this edifice of balderdash!

First off, how do you define burden? The meaning of the word burden from a social/psychosocial perspective is, at best, amorphous, talk less of using "burden" as a basis for a constitutional argument! . Whose burden? Do you know that some people in America consider your very existence a burden to them?

The investors and speculators who have run Wall Street aground exercised their right to the pursuit of happiness (making money), but now the government is using tax-payer money to bail their asses. Isn't that a burden to Joe six-pack in rural Ohio?

Your poorer neighbor who pays less tax than you nearly lost his house to fire, probably because he smoked some weed, was high and careless one Saturday night. Fighting the fire was expensive and cost your city's Fire Department thousands of dollars. Isn't that a burden on you? Did your favorite document, the Declaration of Independence, guarantee the right from getting your house burnt down? Have you gone to complain to your city why they should place such a huge tax burden on you by maintaining a Fire Department to fight fire indiscriminately?

Why aren't you complaining about the socialization of the fire service?

This is going from one extreme to the other. The idea is to find a middle ground. The founding fathers were very clear about the issue of national security and defense. I am not an anarchist who believes in no government.

Let's see the next posts . . .

If it was, then we should expect the UN to start invading countries that do not provide its citizens with universal healthcare. After all, isn't the UN meant to intervene in situations where human rights are being trampled upon? I can understand the UN intervening in the event of a genocide because people's lives are being wasted, but if we are to follow your logic, then we should expect same in the event of lack of healthcare.

See who was complaining about extremes

Amon its problems is the fact that you rob Peer to pay Paul. Plus_Queen had first hand experience with NHS and has mentioned them above. My opposition is based on principles. I'll accept I'm wrong if the principles are shown to be wrong.

plus_Queen is a confused Republican who wants to be a Democrat, and she's among those that have some money and are afraid that affordable health care for all will mean taking her money and giving it to poor people who refuse to be rich because either they are just lazy or they are not serving a Living God.

The government already have alternative plans. Their are a lot of governemtn sponsored programs out there, especially for children. I know many who enjoy it. Why expand it when the private sector is doing well enough? Let the govt lose the restrictions that limit the private sector.

See how far dead-end reasoning takes you. Government-sponsored programs? And you're not up in arms about "burden"? Isn't the government funding such programs using your money? We know why you're not up in arms. We know, okay. It’s because there are no such programs for poor, especially minority (particularly black or African American –a group of people that you clearly detest) adults. At least you tried to admit this by stating "especially for children".

The academics may make as much conslusions as they like, but we have seen the abject failure of communism in Russia. I know the free market enterprise is under attack now by socialists all over the world, but so far, the free market hasn't failed as far as I know.

See who was talking about moving from one extreme to another. So, Canada is a Communist nation abi?

_{Correction: Communism was in the Soviet Union. Russia has a democracy now. Don't know why you people don't get this basic fact. I'm really hoping you're not a typical myopic American who can't pronounce I-R-A-Q and thinks Africa is country north not too far from another country called Europe. Just kidding, no vex o!}

@RichyBlack,

Just for the sake of moving this discussion forward in a constructive manner,. I will ignore your childish insulats.

From the meaning of the word "among", there is no doubt that the Declaration of Independence, which must not be confused with the US Constitution, only stated some of the "unalienable" rights, not all. Some but not all! Hence, the Declaration of Independence cannot be relied upon for an ultimate list of these rights.

Indeed the list was not exhaustive, but the principle for determining what falls in the list is clearly stated. Such must be through creation, nature or God endowed. Anything that does not meet this criteria falls short of their intentions.

Where do we go from here? The much more superior and much more important document to look at is the US Constitution.

I agree.

From the preamble of the US Constitution:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Can you see the difference in the highlighted words? The idea is to promote the general welfare. Having govt provide universal healthcare goes beyond promoting the welfare of the society. The govt's role is to ensure and promote such a socirty that we can get the healthcare we want.

Definition of welfare: Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being. Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

The next project after the healthcare I believe is to wipe out poverty right? Some will claim that poverty or riches are a part of welfare and therefore a human right. No wonder welath redistribution is in the Leftists agenda. While I want everyone to be rich, the way to go about it is not to rob from the rich and give to the poor.

You can't use a document that clearly stated its incompleteness to determine what rights should be protected. Based on your incomplete logic, voting is not a right! Did the Declaration of Independence state voting as a right? Your line of reasoning pushes you into a definitive cul de sac.

You probably need to read the rest of the document which adresses what you are stating here in ignorance. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

First off, how do you define burden? The meaning of the word burden from a social/psychosocial perspective is, at best, amorphous, talk less of using "burden" as a basis for a constitutional argument! . Whose burden? Do you know that some people in America consider your very existence a burden to them?

It is not only in America but all over the world. Can you tell me how I am a bvurden to anyone? Just claiming burden without proof won't stand in a court of law. I can claim burden for those who rely on my money to secure their welfare. Theri rights to wlefare ends where mine begins.

The investors and speculators who have run Wall Street aground exercised their right to the pursuit of happiness (making money), but now the government is using tax-payer money to bail their asses. Isn't that a burden to Joe six-pack in rural Ohio?

You clearly omitted the fact that it is govt intervention that brought about this problem. Govt intervening in what should be determined by market forces is the alpha and omega of the problem. Is it not an irony that the same one who messed it up is now posing as the messiah? Had they not insisted on giving mortgages to th unqualified, we wont have the credit crunch.

Your poorer neighbor who pays less tax than you nearly lost his house to fire, probably because he smoked some weed, was high and careless one Saturday night. Fighting the fire was expensive and cost your city's Fire Department thousands of dollars. Isn't that a burden on you? Did your favorite document, the Declaration of Independence, guarantee the right from getting your house burnt down? Have you gone to complain to your city why they should place such a huge tax burden on you by maintaining a Fire Department to fight fire indiscriminately?

What you fail to realise is that the Fire Dept is there to promote the publuic welfare. Without them, insurance premiums will sky-rocket. Why do you think insurance agencies consider your neighborhood to give you a quote?

See who was complaining about extremes

That is the implication of your conclusion of healthcare being human rights. What is the role of the UN if they cannot secure human rights?

plus_Queen is a confused Republican who wants to be a Democrat, and she's among those that have some money and are afraid that affordable health care for all will mean taking her money and giving it to poor people who refuse to be rich because either they are just lazy or they are not serving a Living God.

I'm sure plus_Queen can defend herself.

See how far dead-end reasoning takes you. Government-sponsored programs? And you're not up in arms about "burden"?

That tells you of your lack of understanding of my position. There are social welfare programmes that the Govt does participate in. Healthcare is one of them. Let it be regarded as what it is - a social welfare designed to help those who through no fault of theirs are unable to help themselves. But refering to healthcare as a human right is calling it what it is not and it opens the door to a whole lot of implications.

Isn't the government funding such programs using your money? We know why you're not up in arms. We know, okay. It’s because there are no such programs for poor, especially minority (particularly black or African American –a group of people that you clearly detest) adults. At least you tried to admit this by stating "especially for children".

If making me out to be the devil makes your day, then please indulge in such fantasies. I have always being so amused by socialists who mouth how much they love to help the oppressed but do very little with their resources to help them. IThey are ready to tax and spend other people's money, but never put their money where their mouths are. To them, it is all a matter of being politically correct. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

KarmaMod:

Perhaps you were sleeping when the KKK had their annual march there a few weeks ago

You mean the same KKK that were behind Obama's becoming presidential nominee for the Democractic party? Please do your research, no need stoning those who are for you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp

i hope you realize snopes.com is a site that debunks false claims

Provision, obligatory, constitutional right, social issue. . . . . lets stop mincing words. . . . . . Yankee needs to catch up to the rest of the developed World. . . . simple. . . . there is no effect on productivity. . . . British companies do not pay any health insurance for their employees. . . . . Yankee companies do. . . so which is affecting productivity? .

Incorrect!

To my earlier question, I will appreciate anyone to clarify what Obama meant by declaring that health care should be a right.

@Tayo-D

Tayo-D:

Indeed the list was not exhaustive, but the principle for determining what falls in the list is clearly stated. Such must be through creation, nature or God endowed. Anything that does not meet this criteria falls short of their intentions.

The statement in bold is open to debate. But what is not open to debate is that the US Constitution is an imperfect document, subject to the interpretations of imperfect souls, and its tenets executed by imperfect men. This in itself is self-evident! Hence, we must recognize the limitations of the document and avoid being excessively constrained by either the US Constitution or it's less important sibling, the Declaration of Independence.

You probably need to read the rest of the document which adresses what you are stating here in ignorance. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"

Based on the self-evident imperfection of both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (where the above quote came from), the quote you cite was meaningless to many men living in America then. Even after the Fourteenth Amendment clarified the status of these men, it took another hundred years for them to fully exercise their right to vote. How did that happen? The Voting Rights Act! Why did it take nearly 200 years (1776:Declaration of Independence to 1965:Voting Rights Act) for them to exercise their right? Some people were playing with words like "promote", "secure", "creation", "God endowed", "criteria", na so dem just dey yarn sotaay 200 years waka go.

Indeed the list was not exhaustive, but the principle for determining what falls in the list is clearly stated. Such must be through creation, nature or God endowed. Anything that does not meet this criteria falls short of their intentions.

Explain how voting satisfies the criteria of being "God endowed"? I'm sure you can't but try let's see.

You know very well that you'll lose a lot of credibility if you make any utterance that suggests that "voting is not a right", hence you stayed away from that line of argument - smart move! You have to reconcile your assertion above and your admission, no matter how tacit, that voting is a right.

Can you see the difference in the highlighted words? The idea is to promote the general welfare. Having govt provide universal healthcare goes beyond promoting the welfare of the society. The govt's role is to ensure and promote such a socirty that we can get the healthcare we want.

Here you want to play semantics. Let's play a simple game of logic instead! Is the following a fallacy?
*A is supposed to promote B (given - we both agree on this by way of Declaration of Independence)
*A is willing to promote B
*A decides to promote B
*A seeks means to promote B (based on decision above)
*A realizes that there are several ways to promote B
*A chooses one of the ways to promote B
*Promoting B takes time
*Time has a monetary value in the universe that A operates in (though the exact relationship of time and money is not without disagreement)
*A spends time promoting B
*A spends money promoting B
*A funds B

This simple construction shows that one way of promoting B is to fund B. If you disagree, please point to the step in the above construction that you disagree with.

Kobo are you drunk? Seriously be quiet. Just because you live in Ohio doesnt mean you know its history. Where did I say their march had to do with Obama?

@RichyBlack,

The statement in bold is open to debate. But what is not open to debate is that the US Constitution is an imperfect document, subject to the interpretations of imperfect souls, and its tenets executed by imperfect men. This in itself is self-evident! Hence, we must recognize the limitations of the document and avoid being excessively constrained by either the US Constitution or it's less important sibling, the Declaration of Independence.

Anything done by man is imperfect. As imperfect as these documents are however, they have created the freest, most prosperous and the most powerful nation in the history of our world. And by the way, I hope you will consider your interpretations and conclusions subject to the human imperfections you have so glowingly declared here.

Based on the self-evident imperfection of both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence (where the above quote came from), the quote you cite was meaningless to many men living in America then. Even after the Fourteenth Amendment clarified the status of these men, it took another hundred years for them to fully exercise their right to vote. How did that happen? The Voting Rights Act! Why did it take nearly 200 years (1776:Declaration of Independence to 1965:Voting Rights Act) for them to exercise their right? Some people were playing with words like "promote", "secure", "creation", "God endowed", "criteria", na so them just dey yarn sotaay 200 years waka go.

That is why I mentioned that govt if unchecked, is a greater force for evil than good. This is why I am for a limitation of govt to its barest and most reasonable minimum. The principle for equal rights are evident in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The ruling majority felt it was a threat to them which is why we experienced the evil you talked about. It is the wanton disregard for the constituion that causes these problems, just as we witnessed with Freaddie mac and Fannie Mae. When you try to turn a social issue into a human right and vice versa, you have problems.

Explain how voting satisfies the criteria of being "God endowed"? I'm sure you can't but try let's see.
You know very well that you'll lose a lot of credibility if you make any utterance that suggests that "voting is not a right", hence you stayed away from that line of argument - smart move! You have to reconcile your assertion above and your admission, no matter how tacit, that voting is a right.

The declaration of independence clearly says that govt must be through the consent of the people. That is a reference to voting. The will of the people must be expressed by how the govt is constituted. It is God-endowed because it directly relates to freedom. Freedom of association as well as freedom of choice. These are God-given because it promotes a man's will and not suppress it.

This simple construction shows that one way of promoting B is to fund B. If you disagree, please point to the step in the above construction that you disagree with.

No doubt it is one way to promote B. However, when I am forced to pay for a social welfare, then it violates my human right. What I disagree with is this. You may promote B by funding it, but give me the choice to contribute to that funding or not. If Obama says today that he will provide Universal Healthcare on one premise; that only those who are willing should contribute to it, I will support him fully. Going that route secures my right while promoting a social welfare. Did you hear during the debate when he said he will force parents to buy insurance for their kids? Do you realise he will be fining those who don't? Do you think the govt knows what is best for your childrn more than you do?

Kobojunkie:

You mean the same KKK that were behind Obama's becoming presidential nominee for the Democractic party? Please do your research, no need stoning those who are for you.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp

isnt it amazing that the only contribution kobojunkie could make in this thread of abour 5 pages is that the kkk was backing obama? let me tell you something junkie man, this is no joke, there is a serious problem when a presidential candidate gets a gang of lunatics shouting ''kill him'', ''terrorist'' in front of the camera about an american senator. ohio is notorious for white blue collar anti obama black (polite way of saying racist) citizens.

i got news for you, at one of their lunatic conferences called campaigns, a black cameraman was verbally attacked by the lunatic crowd who are begining to get out of control. the mcbush campaign had to rush fast and arrange a delusional, psychotic, miserable, black guy to come b4 the camera and ''beg'' mcbush to attack barrack. the lunatics who booed the black cameraman do not find any difference between you, kobojunkie, and that cameraman, and you live in their neighbourhood . . . get some sense, hate obama, fine. but dont be stu---

and for you toshman, you say ur republican convinction is based on ur religious beliefs, which God do you worship? definitely not the same God as I do. how can u support a party that says the attack on irag is God's will. killing of those innocent men, women and children, destruction of a society with over I00,000 dead, a country that had no plans to attack you guys there, then the oil contracts for halliburton etc, privatisation of the war? money money in republican hands, blood death to iragis and US men/women in uniform? from God? a party whose policies enrich the rich and impoverish the poor? from God. Death penalty ministers, war mongers, promoters of violence via gun ownerships. from God? toshman u really have a lot of explanation to do. for the gay guys, democrat party does not propagate homosexuality etc, but just wants them to have their rights as human beings. anyway, that is for later debate.

Thank you dafur for being the voice of reason.

The mcbush campaign had to rush fast and arrange a delusional, psychotic, miserable, black guy to come before the camera and ''beg'' mcbush to attack barrack.

That guy was a mere embarrassment. What a pathetic nigger. He acted like a typical house nigger.

The same people he was among wouldnt let him near their homes. I couldnt believe the crap

It's one thing to support McCain which is fine but to DEGRADE yourself just to say "I'm not like *those ones*

That's sheer lunacy at play

imagine the lunatics shouting obama is a terrorist we dont know him, they've known him for 4 yrs and they know palin for one month. imagine their brains. they remind me of kobojunkie's brains, only their skin color is different. who knows if that miserable nigger is kobojunkie or perhaps they paid him a lot of money, hmmmn, which the poor nigger might need badly at this time . . . . . . . . hmmmn, anyway, it was still despicable

Sometimes i wish i were the one debating McCain this tuesday. I felt like smacking McCain's face when he said he knew how to take care of America's troops. How do you put over 4000 lives on the line fighting a war that had nothing to do with America's security?

David did you see the guy at the rally

It was so pathetic that I( still have ahard time washing it from my brain

Kobojunkie, where were you at that time? Make we investigate sef

I'm not wasting my time watching McClown and his side kick again.
Obama is giving a 30 minute commercial on all the major networks on Oct 29. Watch out, with his captivating style of speaking i think that would be the final nail in McClown's coffin.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Black_man_to_McCain_Ive_taken_1009.html

Reminded me of Uncle Rucckus from the Boondocks

darfur:

isnt it amazing that the only contribution kobojunkie could make in this thread of abour 5 pages is that the kkk was backing obama? let me tell you something junkie man, this is no joke, there is a serious problem when a presidential candidate gets a gang of lunatics shouting ''kill him'', ''terrorist'' in front of the camera about an american senator. ohio is notorious for white blue collar anti obama black (polite way of saying racist) citizens.

i got news for you, at one of their lunatic conferences called campaigns, a black cameraman was verbally attacked by the lunatic crowd who are begining to get out of control. the mcbush campaign had to rush fast and arrange a delusional, psychotic, miserable, black guy to come before the camera and ''beg'' mcbush to attack barrack. the lunatics who booed the black cameraman do not find any difference between you, kobojunkie, and that cameraman, and you live in their neighbourhood . . . get some sense, hate obama, fine. but don't be stu---

and for you toshman, you say ur republican convinction is based on ur religious beliefs, which God do you worship? definitely not the same God as I do. how can u support a party that says the attack on irag is God's will. killing of those innocent men, women and children, destruction of a society with over I00,000 dead, a country that had no plans to attack you guys there, then the oil contracts for halliburton etc, privatisation of the war? money money in republican hands, blood death to iragis and US men/women in uniform? from God? a party whose policies enrich the rich and impoverish the poor? from God. Death penalty ministers, war mongers, promoters of violence via gun ownerships. from God? toshman u really have a lot of explanation to do. for the gay guys, democrat party does not propagate homosexuality etc, but just wants them to have their rights as human beings. anyway, that is for later debate.

@darfur,

Na true talk you yarn right thurr _{apologies to my mwan Chingy} .

The Republicans keep playing politics with God but they conveniently ignore the teachings of Jesus, the central figure of their faith, and search the darkest corners of the Old Testament, filled with scenes more brutal than the average mind can comprehend, to justify all their racist, hateful and evil ideaologies:
*killing innocent Muslims in Iraq and Iran (Iraq War and planned Iran Invasion - a good chunk of Republicans still believe Iraq has WMD . Most Republicans believe that Iran has a nuclear bomb at this moment. Na stupid people go end this world.)
*killing innocent blacks and other minorities using a rigged criminal justice system (the death penalty rallies Republicans together; lynching blacks is no more in fancy but, hey they've still got other means )
*ensuring that rape victims pay for being stupid enough to be raped (the bespectacled lipsticked bitch - that's what she called herself, seriously)
*looking down on poor people who are too lazy to summon the courage to be rich ("My God is not a God of poverty, but a God of riches!"
*maintaining and supporting a class heirarchy in society whose main goal is for those at the top of the hierarchy to oppress, exploit and dominate those at the bottom ("God has given us dominion over this Earth!"; violently resisting attempts to smash the hierarchy - but that heirarchy has been crumbling since 1865!

We shall overcome!!!