Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

Truth is, the Constitution is pretty vague, and highly open to interpretation. So I don't know how claiming to drape your side of the argument in this document is relevant. Because right there it says it has the right to take care of the "general Welfare" of the country; whatever that means is open to interpretation by the people of the country, who speak through their representatives. It's imperfect and nobody gets exactly what they want, but everybody gets a little bit of something they need, and hopefully it makes all of our lives a little bit better.

Actually, your statement about "neo-conjobs" seems directly aimed at members of the Jewish community, as predominately "neo-conservative" titular thinkers have been Jewish. Is this because you're actually a Nazi? I think so, I think the Democratic party is just a bunch of Nazis in disguise! No really, you're just arrogant fools. Conservatives do have a sense of humour, it kicks in every time we look at stuff people like you say and DON'T fly into a fit of violent rage resulting in permanent bodily harm to you for OBVIOUSLY hating Jews. I mean cmon, you're a Nazi. Right? (Cue cry-fest over how mean conservatives are and just call you nazis and socialists all the time) Oh ya, socialist. NAZI. NATIONAL-SOCIALIST?? Lol, funny thing is, it's doubtful that you'd know what a Neo-Conservative is (Hint, its not actually a political party, more of an internal joke term used by about 3 people then later used as a derogatory term used by the christian religious right as a code-word for Jewish Republican party members who were once liberals and definately not "one of us[christians]")... or why you'd hate them (The 5.2 Neo-Conservatives in the world) ? Even funnier, George W. Bush was NOT a neo-conservative, he was never a liberal first, he never got "mugged by reality" and only a handful (about 3 total including Cheney's) of his aides were.
The funniest joke of all is liberals acting like they know politics rambling about conspiracy theories and making cute sound-a-like names for conservative pundits (who even we conservatives find annoying) ;)

You don't hear anything like this coming from the conservative talking repugnants because they really don't have a fully developed sense of humor and only see the world as black and white.

No, it just makes you utterly clueless. The problem with tea-baggers isn't that they want to fight for their rights. It's that they're so disconnected from reality that they wouldn't know a real threat to their rights if it danced up and down singing "threats to rights are here again".

Wonderful ! Could not have said it better. Thanks.

no, we want to live in a country where the government protects our RIGHTS against the WANTS or even the NEEDS of others.

The function of government is to protect the rights of the individual, not take care of his needs. That is the responsibility of the individual.

All tea baggers are smarter than you.

I think the worst part is that your rant lacked any cohesive points.

The artist is a narcissist stuck on Bush?
National Enslavement of the Arts Propaganda movement?
San Francisco falling into the sea?

Wow! I have to say that your most impressive transition was from SF to an 'airliner restroom over Detroit'. Left we wanting more (or at least, what the hell you were talking about!)

If you want liberty then join us liberals and the ACLU. Say NO to government reading of emails and phone calls, to torture of other human beings, to the recent gift to corporations of "personhood" so they can buy elections and congresspersons, and fight against those who would deny women the right of control of their bodies by making it nearly impossible to choose a legal abortion. You want liberty? Join with us.

Anderson Cooper and the "morons" at MSNBC used the sexual term "tea baggers" to be crude and dismissive of the protesters.

The people protesting the government grab to takeover private businesses (including the financials, automotive and health care industries) and protesting the severe taxation of a small group of Americans to pay for these and other government programs call themselves the TEA PARTY, but you knew that.

Capitalism has been able to solve more world problems, enable more people to better themselves based upon their own hard work then any other economic theory. It is not a rigged game nor misdirection. The novel idea that is completely and obviously beyond the grasp of Anonymous (compensation for promoting dumb ideas, perhaps?) is that successful business and enterprises reward the hard work of those that contribute to the success. Unlike the the neer-do-well politicians and government workers who demand to be rewarded like union members for mediocrity (e.g., autoworkers and teachers immediately spring to mind!!) or outright failure.

It wasn't the unions or union thinking that got us out of the depression, it was the industrialization to support the war effort. It wasn't Al Gore claiming to invent the Internet it was all of the entrepreneurs who tried to capitalize on the Internet that was the driving force behind the economies success during the Reagan and Clinton years. (Please note Anonymous, that I attributed the success to both Republican and Democratic administrations - this is not a partisan rant, which you are likely in your claim). I could include other examples, but I prefer instead to ask, what did socialism or Marxism or communism ever achieve except millions of deaths?

The answer for health care is to remove the state imposed barriers to insurance companies and let them compete. Mandate some basic rules like no pre-existing condition exclusions for people who show a track record of purchasing insurance, no caps or limits on coverage and so on. The beauty of this solution versus Obama Cares is that it is basically free, can be implemented immediately and will save the budget untold trillions!!!

Further, we need to either round up and deport illegal aliens (the US has done it at least three times before, Google Operation Wetback) or devise a scheme so that they can become productive, registered citizens who can purchase their own insurance if they want to.

Lastly, I bet this post gets deleted. If not then at the very least I expect some type of juvenile name calling rebuttal. But if you are interested, I would be happy to discuss the matter in detail. Alas, I think, based upon the derogatory name calling in the original post is something that will never occur to Anonymous!!

List the rights you've lost, under the current administration. The people who sold the country are the last administration, spending and deregulating and warring with no regard for cost.

"Do you think its right for someone to lose everything just because they become sick? "

Although it is a very good question, it is the wrong one to ask. The right question is:

"Does the Government have the authority to take resources from one individual (without compensation), and give them to another individual?"

The government has the authority to protect Rights, and enforce contracts. The right to own property and to keep that property which one has earned, is certainly a right. So, is health care a Right? You would think that every American has the right to be healthy, and I would agree that anyone has the right to "be" anything they have the ability to be. But look at the question. Health care is a service. So to clarify, I will ask some of the questions that are missed in the media. When answering these questions, there are two rules.

1. Warm fuzzy feelings don't count.
2. People have a right to be mean and stingy, when it comes to their property.

so, here goes:

1. From whom do you demand this service (health care)?

2. Do you demand this service for free?

3. Whose labor goes to pay for those who cannot afford to pay?

4. Do those people have a right not to labor (without compensation) for the benefit of the people who need?

5. How is this labor (without compensation) different from slavery?

6. If you see the “society” as compensation, society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the one who labors receive from the one for whom he pays the health care?

You have a right to procure, protect, and trade your own resources, not a right to demand resources of others.

Some use the argument that it is immoral to let people "die in the streets", or to deny a child needed medical care. To those people, I ask:

1. Is it the function of government to enforce morality?

2. Whose morality? The majority?

3. What if the majority were to deem that slavery was moral? Or that homosexuality were immoral?

4. Should the government allow, mandate or prevent these based on the majority opinion?

It is the responsibility of the individual, not the government, to take steps to insure that he is protected against financial ruin (by buying catastrophic coverage).

So, in answer to the original question: No, it is not "right for someone to lose everything just because they become sick" but it is beyond the scope of the government's authority (and responsibility) to prevent such an event by violating the property rights of another individual.

"Do you think its right for someone to lose everything just because they become sick? "

Although it is a very good question, it is the wrong one to ask. The right question is:

"Does the Government have the authority to take resources from one individual (without compensation), and give them to another individual?"

The government has the authority to protect Rights, and enforce contracts. The right to own property and to keep that property which one has earned, is certainly a right. So, is health care a Right? You would think that every American has the right to be healthy, and I would agree that anyone has the right to "be" anything they have the ability to be. But look at the question. Health care is a service. So to clarify, I will ask some of the questions that are missed in the media. When answering these questions, there are two rules.

1. Warm fuzzy feelings don't count.
2. People have a right to be mean and stingy, when it comes to their property.

so, here goes:

1. From whom do you demand this service (health care)?

2. Do you demand this service for free?

3. Whose labor goes to pay for those who cannot afford to pay?

4. Do those people have a right not to labor (without compensation) for the benefit of the people who need?

5. How is this labor (without compensation) different from slavery?

6. If you see the “society” as compensation, society is based on mutual benefit. What benefit does the one who labors receive from the one for whom he pays the health care?

You have a right to procure, protect, and trade your own resources, not a right to demand resources of others.

Some use the argument that it is immoral to let people "die in the streets", or to deny a child needed medical care. To those people, I ask:

1. Is it the function of government to enforce morality?

2. Whose morality? The majority?

3. What if the majority were to deem that slavery was moral? Or that homosexuality were immoral?

4. Should the government allow, mandate or prevent these based on the majority opinion?

It is the responsibility of the individual, not the government, to take steps to insure that he is protected against financial ruin (by buying catastrophic coverage), cutting back on their lifestyle, if necessary.

So, in answer to the original question:

No, it is not "right for someone to lose everything just because they become sick" but it is beyond the scope of the government's authority (and responsibility) to prevent such an event by violating the property rights of another individual.

Neoconservative is the full name... so yes, he IS a conservative, thanks for playing.

Yeah, good luck with that... and when life is better than it was, and America is itself again, rather than a torturing hate-state, you can feel free to move away, or eat your words, as you choose.

"There are no bigger hypocrites in the world than Liberal Democrats."

I think conservative republicans would fall into this category.