I appreciate the historical brief. And you are right, sometimes I am what I condemn.

If you are pro jcc, I have no complaints at all.

Joe

I am not sure which constitutional history you were reading. The federalist and the anti-federalist in year 1787 are two groups of people across the aisle. Madison and Hamilton headed the federalist bright with the concept that the Articles of Confederation of the Second Continental Congress of of 1776 was flawed and weak and therefore must be amended by one with strong central authority should residing in the Federation. The Confederation of 13 original states was weak for lack of taxing authority of the central government and had to beg funds from different States. The 1787 U.S. Constitution was proposed to give more power to the Confederation and in that constitution the right of the Federal government to tax was carried out in its “commerce clause”. At the other end of this political debate was the quintessential Patrick Henry who thought that a strong central government would derogate State’s sovereignty. Henry “smells a rat” in this effort to create a strong central government which would surrender not only State power to the central government but even the people’s civil liberties.
Those who opposed a strong central government were called “narrow-minded politicians” while those in favor of a strong central government appended their own title to themselves as patriots. There were acrimonious debate across the aisle. Rhode Island did not participate in this debate and refused to send delegation to the Continental Congress.

A compromise was made that civil liberties be enshrined in the Constitution, which explains the several amendments in that constitution now known as the “Bill of Rights” and that powers not delegated by the State to the central government resides with the State. (10th Amendment)

The same debate now obtains in this “national health care bill”. Opponents see the overpowering reach of the Federal Government in matters concerning their health. They claimed that the State should be able to provide their own health care system and the central government should be out of it.

Some people are wary how Washington mismanaged several federal agencies and doubt very much the ability of the central government to oversee a national health care program which they think is better left to the private sector. They think that this “national health care program”, like one of those already run by the Federal government, i.e., USPS, Medicare/Medicade would also go bankrupt. The cost also of the program is a concern of so many.

Joe, you were no different than Madison and Hamilton who can easily ascribe ill-motive to those who disagree with them and would conveniently those in disagreement “narrow-minded” and “destructive”. Patrick Henry by the way, is the guy who give us the enduring cry of “Give me liberty or Give me death”.

I am not even anti-Obama. I am only pro JCC.

Well, you misread a joke as bigotry and attach a name to me as a typical Republican slur that diminishes me, the person . . . as an alternative to discussing an issue. Obama is only a messiah in your mind, and your fears, as his falling popularity ratings and inability to draw consensus on any legislative effort reflect. The point is, you do not respect the president of the country, but reserve for yourself some special patriotic platform that holds those with lesser views are nefarious plunderers of American ideals.

We, together, reflect the damage that partisanship does, with a descent into anger instead of an ability to work on important problems.

If you oppose health care because you are a federalist and wish insurance to remain strictly the domain of the states, you have an argument. Or if you support the Republican legislation that removes the government option and favors insurance companies, you have an argument. If you deny there is a health care problem, I would consider you an idiot (I don’t).

The day when you call President Obama Mr. President, with the respect that such a title intends, is the day when I will agree you are properly respectful of the holder of the office. Rooting for and working for the failure of the president is not patriotic. Arguing the the issues is patriotic.

Joe

I cannot understand why despite the liberal ideas you spouse, you remain a bigot. Disagreement with Obama’s policy is no sign of disrespect. Calling him “The One” or the “Lamb” with “messiahnic” undertones is the start of “cult worship”, which the forefathers had guarded against. This is the reason why during the deliberation of the U.S. Constitution of 1987, on the creation of a strong executive department, a delegate suggested that the U.S. President be addressed “Your Excellency or His Majesty” of which he was instantaneously rebuked that a “Mr. President” will do.

Royall Tyler, a revolutionary war veteran, in his play The Contract, gave his own jaundiced view of the upper classes:

“Exult each patriot heart! this night is shewn
A piece, which we may fairly call our own;
Where the proud titles of “My Lord!” “Your Grace!”
To humble Mr. and plain Sir give place.”

The health care debate is a rehash of the acrimonious debate that plagued the 1787 U.S. Constitution. Strong federal government in derogation of State’s rights. Those who opposed strong federal government are called called “destructive and narrow-minded” politicians and those in favor of Washington arm-twisting tactics are called “messiah”.

I am not to fond of any political official(s) when it comes to infringing the Constitutional Rights. And Micheal Bloomberg is no exception. Also, does not inspire at all. I believe an elected official(s) should be the care taker of our Constitutional Rights. To stand for what is right and to uphold what our fore fathers have written for the people. Our rights.

“Bloom is off Bloomberg’s Vigilante Gun Shop Sting”

By Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman, 3/18/2007

Almost from the outset, something smelled rotten about a “sting” mounted last year by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in an effort to target alleged rogue gun shops in five different states for selling guns illegally.

In politics, opportunities to change course and do something smart come along rarely, but opportunities to do something stupid come knocking every day. Bloomberg, and his contemporaries, have been handed a chance to wise up. Let’s see if they are smart enough to take the hint.

(Alan Gottlieb is founder of the Second Amendment Foundation)

(and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)

Here’s something for you to chew on.
Let’s have some forward thinking and venture on Manuel Quezon III. What if, he was presented with a position to run as a candidate for the Senate seat on 2010. Will the filipinos reject his intellectual issues and commentaries, rather than what his capable of. This individual have the prowess capability than any actor or actresses that I can think of. True, we have not heard any platform as of yet, but what “IF”…!

Yes, makes (unfortunate) sense. One thing that is grossly missing in Philippine politics and government offices is SKILL. Stars, famous people, brothers, cousins . . . they have the key jobs, and they are not skilled at analysis and articulation of issues, solving problems, or forward thinking. It is missing in the US at times, too. I am amused at Rush Limbaugh’s characterization of Barak Obama as “immature and inexperienced”. To an extent it is true, as is true of any new president, as the job is extraordinarily demanding. One can only hope for good intent, good basic organization and analytical tools, and quick study.

In the Philippines, no one cares all that much, I fear . . . Glamor is more important than substance.

Joe

No matter how you look at it, Democrats/Republicans/Independence, they are all have the same political issue. What do they presents to the people. More Plunderism.

Just like what you’ve stated joe,“the suga-coated” is enough to rot your brains out rather than your teeth. is a “brain-numbing platitudes”.

That means, more Morons being injected into our convoluted system.