One speaks like a Statesman of old – the other one, like a whiney Progressive that can’t understand why other Americans (who actually believe the words of the Constituation and the philosophies that created it) won’t agree with him.
First, the Statesman:
We are fast approaching a tipping point where more Americans depend on the federal government than on themselves for their livelihoods — a point where we, the American people, trade in our commitment and our concern for our individual liberties in exchange for government benefits and dependencies . . .
Do we believe that the goal of government is to promote equal opportunity for all Americans to make the most of their lives — or do we now believe that government’s role is to equalize the results of people’s lives?
The European social welfare state promoted by this legislation is not sustainable. This is not who we are and it is not who we should become.
Today marks a major turning point in American history. Our founders got it right, when they wrote in the Declaration of Independence that our rights come from nature and nature’s God — not from government.
A moment that Progressives have treasured for years – turning independent citizens into dependents. Why not – they believe that we’re all children that need to be tended, that we all have to be cared for.
We were founded on the radical idea that liberty and freedom were the highest ideals; Progressives believe that only an intrusive government can provide happiness – and only with the choices that they provide. Healthcare? Only what they allow. Food? Think the ban of trans-fats and the ongoing process of taking away soda drinks. Political Correctness? Think of the outrageous process of telling a free people what they can think or not – and if allowed how.
They can’t believe that others would disagree with them: therefore, they calls us Neanderthals, racists, rednecks, stupid, and (lately) a sexual slur: tea-baggers. With no respect at all, they get to use that with impudence (and smiles that connote "hey, we’re all in on the joke, aren’t we?"), yet protectors of traditional marriage are called far, far worse.
Back to the whiney. I had fisked what Jim had written earlier here (the title was taken from a Blue Hampshire title: " ‘It’s Time to Start Calling Them Out on Their Lies’ – Great, let’s start with Jim Splaine"); I had also issued challenges to him to back up his claims:
I challenge Mr. Splaine, to justify his redefinition of Entitlement as Rights ("A Right cannot be given, as it is given from God – Entitlements are strictly the purview of Man")
I challenge Mr. Splaine, to unequivocally show where these documents show that more Rights could be manufactured
I challenge Mr. Splaine, to show me otherwise (in the nature of traditional marriage)
I challenge Mr. Splaine, to explain how limiting choices in this case? (that Liberty is the reduction of choice by Government)
I challenge Mr. Splaine to defend this statement (which his argument above condones): killing a baby is an act of freedom.
I challenge Mr. Splaine here to explain why this Entitlement is pro-liberty when all it really had to do is enforce a private contract (his claim that insurance companies were denying claims)
I challenge Mr. Splaine here to explain to explain otherwise (in the case that only insurance companies have death panels)
And of course, the challenge that goes to the heart of the matter:
I challenge Mr. Splaine here to explain why it has to be Government to provide Charity – where in the Constitution it says that is the proper role of Government? Especially as it causes the general population to be LESS generous (hint – and why is Obama willing to tax the money that would otherwise go to charities but to otherwise redirect that money to Government spending)?
Tell you what Jim, you asked me for another debate – start with these, first to last in order.