Just Let him Die..!

I think it would be remiss of me not to point out that some of the greatest beneficiaries of the new health care law would be the ladies on this board or other sex workers. I might be wrong, but I suspect not many of them have comprehensive health insurance policies.

So, I guess the question I would throw out is: should we coldly let our ladies die? Or should we provide some system that cares for them? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

Ask their employer that question.

They put [the three-fifths clause] there because delegates from the Southern states would never have agreed to the Constitution unless some weight was given to their slave populations in the apportionment of representation. They wanted slaves counted 100%, but when they saw that they could not get that, they settled for 3/5. The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a succession of Southern presidents. Ironically, the best thing that could have been done with respect to making it easier to abolish slavery would have been to have given slaves NO weight in the apportioning of representation.

Originally Posted by WTF

No, it is not. Can you not read? The key word is “compromise”.

The Three-Fifths Clause was the price paid for union: “compromise”. Beck is arguing that Three-Fifths Clause was “anti-Slavery”; whereas, it actually had no impact on the abolition of slavery – other than leading ultimately to the Civil War, but it did have an impact on forming a union of states known as the United States.

Per your own citation:

They put [the three-fifths clause] there because delegates from the Southern states would never have agreed to the Constitution unless some weight was given to their slave populations in the apportionment of representation.

They [the Southern States] wanted slaves counted 100%, but when they saw that they could not get that, they settled for 3/5. Originally Posted by WTF

This next part of your citation is completely ludicrous. This author on the one hand says there would have been no union if the South hadn’t been appeased with the Three Fifths Clause, but then he says the Three Fifths Clause strengthened and prolonged the institution of slavery in the union. The absence of the first precludes the possibility of the second. Simple logic!

The practical effect of that, far from making easier to abolish slavery, made it more difficult. It gave added weight to southern political power in Congress, it inflated Southern power in the apportioning of electoral votes, which led to a succession of Southern presidents. Ironically, the best thing that could have been done with respect to making it easier to abolish slavery would have been to have given slaves NO weight in the apportioning of representation. Originally Posted by WTF

Simple logic:

Did the Three Fifths Clause lead to a union of states? Yes.

Would the South have entered into the union without the Three Fifths Clause? No.

Without the Three Fifths Clause, would there have been a United States? No, not as it is presently understood.

Would a separate Confederacy of Southern States have abolished slavery? No.

Without the Three Fifths Clause, would there have been a Civil War? No.

Did the issue of slavery lead to Southern secession, a Civil War and the abolition of slavery? Yes, yes and most certainly yes.

Would the South have abolished slavery without suffering a defeat such as that in the Civil War? No, not in 1865.

Did the Three Fifths Clause foreshorten the life span of slavery in the U.S.? Unequivocally no. It ended when it ended.

Did the Three Fifths Clause foreshorten the life span of slavery in North America? Probably.

Simply put, arguing against the Three Fifths Clause is equivalent to arguing that you would have been/are for the continuation of slavery in North America.

Notice the absence of pejoratives?

The basic question here is "Who is responsible for your bad decisions?" Are you? Or is the rest of the society including the government? It is one thing to not be able to afford insurance for basic health care. It is quite another thing to be able to afford it and make your own choice to not buy it. Sort of like a seatbelt. Whose responsibility is it if an individual makes a choice not to wear a seatbelt? Or not to hold on to the handrails. . . .
I have been looking since Clinton brought it up the first time and I still can't find anywhere in the Constitution where healthcare is a right. Originally Posted by blue3122

Personal Responsibility & Self Reliance... the two single biggest deficits facing what used to be the U.S.A. today !!

Ron Paul was correct for saying what he did in reference to the hypothetical medical question. The 30yr old has the freedom of choice if he wants insurance or not and who's to say that he didn't have insurance through is employer. Blitzer construed that question to his liking. Most of those political hacks are trying to become Ron Paul and will say anything that pleases the crowd. He's just speaking the truth and it's a fact that there are too many people dependent on big government to save them. There's so many wildcards in the health care arena that candidates can't cover the whole are in a small debate. What if the patient was a 3 year old kid instead of a 30 year old man!

Republican crowds are a warmongering bunch, democrats are the same just look at the thousands of dead bodies in Libya. There is no lesser of the two evils. The people in the crowd that shouted, "let him die" acted on their own. Ron Paul was a doctor and many people don't know that. He's the only candidate up there who actually has a spine!

Social security should be scrapped for the upcoming generations of Americans. It should be given to the older Americans who have paid in their whole life. Social security is a busted plan!!! IF I WAS GIVEN THE OPTION TO GET OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY I WOULD OPT OUT IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE FIAT CURRENCY IN MY POCKET, THAN THE GOVERNMENT GETTING IT. SCRAP MY MEDICARE PAYMENTS TOO! THEN MAYBE AMERICANS COULD GO OUT AND GET HEALTH INSURANCE. SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE GOVERNMENT THEFT PROGRAMS AND THEY STINK!!! I HATE THE FACT THAT I HAD TO PAY INTO ANY OF THOSE FAILED PROGRAMS AND I BELIEVE THATS HOW MANY AMERICANS FEEL ABOUT IT.

Plus I know how to manage my money better than a lot of the people out there. I don't need or want the government having any of my money. I can manage it a WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN THEY CAN. PEOPLE WHO ARE ONLY RELYING ON SOCIAL SECURITY TO TAKE CARE OF THEM ARE PRETTY MUCH FUCKED TO BE HONEST BECAUSE THAT TELLS ME THEY HAVE (NO PLAN FOR RETIREMENT)! THATS SCARY IN THIS DAY AND AGE! But it's the truth!

Social Security is an old industrial age plan, wasn't it formed in the 1930's? 1930's plans aren't going to work that well in the information age with higher inflation! The government needs to be downsized and they need to scrap a lot of those federal departments.

The thing that pissed me off the most about the CNN TEA PARTY DEBATE is that Wolf Blitzer snubbed Ron Paul by NOT letting him answer the question pertaining to the federal reserve!!! That was bullshit, the man who's been preaching about what it's been doing to our economy for over 30 years got totally ignored! Originally Posted by CPT Savajo

My only wish, is that I was allowed more of my own individual freedom!

Ron Paul also stated that when he was a doctor people in need were provided help through charitable organizations. He never said that he believed people should not be assisted.

The core delimma in this discussion is when does ones persons lack of personal responsibility become societies responsibility as a whole. If we expect the federal government to be our parent and take care of us regardless of our own behavior then you had better expect massive government intrusion in your life. You can also expect very poor assistance because the government has never demonstrated the ability to do anything well. Originally Posted by Laz

Besides a few military responsibilities... and basic public infrastructure... I cannot think of one damned thing "The Government" has done for me, that I cannot do BETTER, and MUCH more efficiently!!

I don't care what anybody says, that was funny! Originally Posted by bigtex

I don't care what anybody says, that nails you as the biggest hypocrite in here!

Meanwhile, I -- as best I can tell the only swinging dick in this room that actually pays for health insurance for his employees. . . . Originally Posted by TexTushHog

WRONG!! Even though we find ourselves in similar situations... we have very different philosophies on the "role of government".... HALLELUJAH for that!

. . . . You can't legislate behavior. . . . Originally Posted by Laz

Duh!

As usual... I find myself just right of center on most social subjects. I believe we should all have the right to purchase some level of affordable health care insurance for ourselves, if no other employee sponsored coverage is available. It is a priviledge if we are able to do so!

I have been paying 100% of my own and a few other's healthcare insurance for the past seventeen years. I have never had free healthcare insurance! My opinion is at least as valid as anyone's.

If you want socialized healthcare... get out there and convince the Tax Paying Public who will wind up paying for it! And I, sure as phuck, ain't talkin about Obamacare lies and deception!!

My only wish, is that I was allowed more of my own individual freedom! Originally Posted by MrGiz

And then....

I don't care what anybody says, that nails you as the biggest hypocrite in here!

And then...

As usual... I find myself just right of center on most social subjects.

No, i think that nails you as the biggest hypocrite in here.

And then... as expected... more of the same drivel from Doove

Silly phuck... As if your opinion is any more valid than mine...

And then... as expected... more of the same drivel from Doove Originally Posted by MrGiz

How many times are you going to use that line?

... as long as you continue driveling

This next part of your citation is completely ludicrous. This author on the one hand says there would have been no union if the South hadn’t been appeased with the Three Fifths Clause, but then he says the Three Fifths Clause strengthened and prolonged the institution of slavery in the union. The absence of the first precludes the possibility of the second. Simple logic!

No we could have had a war right then and there. The 3/5 clause prolonged slavery.


Simple logic:

Did the Three Fifths Clause lead to a union of states? Yes.

Would the South have entered into the union without the Three Fifths Clause? No.

Without the Three Fifths Clause, would there have been a United States? No, not as it is presently understood. You , nor I have no idea how history would have been changed.

Would a separate Confederacy of Southern States have abolished slavery? No.

Without the Three Fifths Clause, would there have been a Civil War? No. But you have to agree that there might have been a war. I mean we wiped out the Indians that did not do as we said.

Did the issue of slavery lead to Southern secession, a Civil War and the abolition of slavery? Yes, yes and most certainly yes.

Would the South have abolished slavery without suffering a defeat such as that in the Civil War? No, not in 1865. But you do agree that it would have abolished slavery and we have no way of knowing when. If you were black growing up in the south in the fifties, I doubt you would have thought the South lost the war.

Did the Three Fifths Clause foreshorten the life span of slavery in the U.S.? Unequivocally no. It ended when it ended. Well they could have went to war instead of agreeing to the 3/5 clause in the Constitution. If that to hard for you to understand? The 3/5ths clause preserved the instution of slavery. Period.

Did the Three Fifths Clause foreshorten the life span of slavery in North America? Probably.
What? Had the went to war earlier on this, they would have settled it earlier.

Simply put, arguing against the Three Fifths Clause is equivalent to arguing that you would have been/are for the continuation of slavery in North America.

Of all the stupid things you have written, this tops the cake by a long shot.

Notice the absence of pejoratives? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Next you will argue that Hitler was a blessing for the Jews.....without him , no Israel.

Notice the absence of pejoratives? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your pejorative was assuming anyone would be so naive as to believe what you had written.

Do you think you being nice changes the fact that you are serving warmed over caca?

I do appreciate the effort though and have taken note.

32/33 developed countries have some form of universal health care ranging from single payer to two tier to mandated. Germany's works pretty well. I would pay in 8% of my yearly and my employer would also pay in 8%. If I make over 70k I can opt out for better coverage which is the same coverage but with more perks at the doctors office and hospital. And they can call an actual doctor 24/7 so the you die while waiting argument holds little water.

Right now, my employer pays about 18% and I am paying about 11% out of my pocket.

Are healthcare lobbiests making universal healthcare sound so bad or is it just American-ism. I find it difficult to believe every other developed nation is so much dumber than us to try and make this work. Bad idea for people, or bad for dividends in Merck and Pfizer? just sayin.

No we could have had a war right then and there. The 3/5 clause prolonged slavery. And General Washington – a Virginian - would have led the victorious army. Who did the Yankees have: Benedict Arnold? He was a Yankee general wasn’t he? Here you are being stubbornly delusional; the Americans were tired of war.

Without the Three Fifths Clause, would there have been a United States? No, not as it is presently understood. You , nor I have no idea how history would have been changed. The source you cited to support your argument says otherwise. You do realize that you can’t say it supports your argument and then say it’s wrong without undermining your own position?

Without the Three Fifths Clause, would there have been a Civil War? No. But you have to agree that there might have been a war. I mean we wiped out the Indians that did not do as we said. Probably, but you are assuming that the North would be able to muster the same resources that it did in 1861 against the similarly industrially and diplomatically weak South. You are also forgetting the South created a central government and fielded a standing army in just four months that stood toe to toe – for four years – against an already established and functioning government with a standing army backed by superior economic and industrial resources. That doesn’t speak well of the North’s capabilities.

Furthermore, as part of your hypothetical, imagine that the thirteen colonies had aligned themselves into two nations – North and South – after the Revolution (there could have been as many as thirteen separate nations). Kentucky, formerly being a part of Virginia, would definitely have gone to the South instead of to the North during your imaginary war. Maryland was also a slave state and would probably have been numbered among the states in a post-Revolutionary Southern union; hence, with the South during your imaginary war. Washington, Jefferson and Madison were all Virginians. They were the initial leaders who were able to bring stability to an infant country – they would have devoted their creative energies to the South. Very important is the fact that Jefferson, with the aid of James Monroe – a fellow Virginian, secured the Louisiana Purchase. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, both Virginians, surveyed the newly annexed territory that included the following states: Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Iowa, Minnesota, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Oklahoma, and New Mexico. With no abolitionist movement in the South; there would have been no need for a Missouri Compromise or a Kansas-Nebraska Act. These territories and states would have been annexed as pro-slave.

Tension and conflict between the North and South would arise when the North found itself boxed in and unable to expand. This would be when and where you inevitable-hypothetical war would have started, and it would have been over land and not the issue of slavery. But as you can see, the North would find itself deprived of manpower from almost a dozen states and territories that allied with the North during the Civil War.

In your hypothetical, you must accept that the South would have also had a comparable central government with a standing army – that also had 50 to 70 years of institutional experience. The South would also have had its own set of diplomatic ties with England and France, and there is no doubt England would have allied with the South in such a scenario – it very nearly did during the course of the Civil War. Only the “revolutionary and tenuous nature” of the South’s Confederate government precluded such an alliance. The North could not have stood against the British navy in the early 19th century.

Would the South have abolished slavery without suffering a defeat such as that in the Civil War? No, not in 1865. But you do agree that it would have abolished slavery and we have no way of knowing when. True (hopefully). If you we black growing up in the south in the fifties, I doubt you would have thought the South lost the war. Plessy v. Fergusson was a screwed up decision.

Did the Three Fifths Clause foreshorten the life span of slavery in the U.S.? Unequivocally no. It ended when it ended. Well they could have went to war instead of agreeing to the 3/5 clause in the Constitution. It would never have happened in 1790. You – the die-hard pacifist – should recognize that fact. What with the French and Indian War (1754-1763), Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763-1766) and the American Revolution (1775-1783), the colonists had endured a generation of wars – presently you’re upset with ten years of war that ain’t even happening in your own backyard. If that to hard for you to understand? The 3/5ths clause preserved the instution of slavery. Period. Is it so hard for you to understand that it was the 3/5s Clause or nothing? Read your own citations!

Did the Three Fifths Clause foreshorten the life span of slavery in North America? Probably.
What? Had the went to war earlier on this, they would have settled it earlier. The North was not industrially strong enough before the late 1850s to militarily defeat the South in a war. The promulgation of an unsuccessful war would have lengthened the lifespan of slavery in North America indefinitely.

Simply put, arguing against the Three Fifths Clause is equivalent to arguing that you would have been/are for the continuation of slavery in North America.
Of all the stupid things you have written, this tops the cake by a long shot. The evidence is against you. Originally Posted by WTF

...

Wasn't WTF's original point that, when you continually cite your interpretation of the Constitution as the be all and end all, you're citing a document that counted black people as 3/5 of a person? No matter what the reason?

Wasn't WTF's original point that, when you continually cite your interpretation of the Constitution as the be all and end all, you're citing a document that counted black people as 3/5 of a person? No matter what the reason? Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, no! The discussion is about whether the Three Fifths Compromise – at the time of ratification – was a positive or negative aspect of the Constitution.

Abolitionists were against enumerating any slaves – they were for counting 0 out of 5 slaves; 0% – for purposes of representation and decreasing the power and control of slave owners. Pro-slavery proponents were for enumerating all – they were for counting 5 out of 5 slaves; 100% – for purposes of representation and increasing the power and control of slave owners. It’s up to you to decide which side you would have supported.

32/33 developed countries have some form of universal health care ranging from single payer to two tier to mandated. Germany's works pretty well. I would pay in 8% of my yearly and my employer would also pay in 8%. If I make over 70k I can opt out for better coverage which is the same coverage but with more perks at the doctors office and hospital. And they can call an actual doctor 24/7 so the you die while waiting argument holds little water.

Right now, my employer pays about 18% and I am paying about 11% out of my pocket.

Are healthcare lobbiests making universal healthcare sound so bad or is it just American-ism. I find it difficult to believe every other developed nation is so much dumber than us to try and make this work. Bad idea for people, or bad for dividends in Merck and Pfizer? just sayin. Originally Posted by budman33

Right...

So I guess the consensus among some is just let people die who don't obtain health insurance (regardless what the reason is behind not obtaining it), and pretty much those "smucks" are on their own, this is good ole USA and we are not responsible for our people, they are responsible for themselves. How utterly selfish, and how utterly sad...

Wasn't WTF's original point that, when you continually cite your interpretation of the Constitution as the be all and end all, you're citing a document that counted black people as 3/5 of a person? No matter what the reason? Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, no! Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Actually, yes.

I am not trying to degrade you....but are we talking about the same Constitution that counted slaves as 3/5th human?

We live in the now, not 1776. People on both sides bring up the Constitution to fit their view of the world. That is all the fuc I was pointing out. You are no different. So bug off. Originally Posted by WTF

Actually, yes. Originally Posted by Doove

Actually, no! The discussion is about whether the Three Fifths Compromise – at the time of ratification – was a positive or negative aspect of the Constitution.

Abolitionists were against enumerating any slaves – they were for counting 0 out of 5 slaves; 0% – for purposes of representation and decreasing the power and control of slave owners. Pro-slavery proponents were for enumerating all – they were for counting 5 out of 5 slaves; 100% – for purposes of representation and increasing the power and control of slave owners. It’s up to you to decide which side you would have supported.

Doove, you've decided which side you would have supported, and you're obviously among those who would have insisted on enumerating all slaves for purposes of representation and increasing the power and control of slave owners.