Posted on 03/06/2010 3:04:24 PM PST by ricks_place
The ground of debate shifts when a prominent figure says that a contentious topic is a matter of morality, not politics. President Obama should remember that precept in these final days of the health-care debate.
The best recent example of the power of moral argument was Adm. Mike Mullen’s frank statement to Congress last month about the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the military: “No matter how I look at this issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens.”
By treating the issue as a matter of conscience, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs altered the national conversation...
Obama needs to take a similar moral stand in the health-care debate. As he meets with wavering congressmen and makes a final push for a bill, he should stress that the reason to pass health-care reform isn’t because it will cut premiums, or reduce costs, or help middle-class workers, or any of the other politically expedient arguments that have been advanced. It’s because extending health care to all citizens is morally the right thing to do.
Here’s what I want Obama to say:
A just society assures its citizens’ basic needs. It protects their “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” irrespective of the circumstances they were born into. Citizenship in a great country should not be a DNA lottery, or a case of survival of the richest. A nation has a moral obligation to care for its people, and if it fails to do so, it is a lesser country.
(Excerpt) Read more at voices.washingtonpost.com ...
Dream on!
Now we have the Dems lecturing We the People on morals? They who stand for homosexuality and abortion? Really now...their chutzpah knows no bounds.
“A just society assures its citizens’ basic needs. It protects their “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” irrespective of the circumstances they were born into. Citizenship in a great country should not be a DNA lottery, or a case of survival of the richest. A nation has a moral obligation to care for its people, and if it fails to do so, it is a lesser country.”
And tell me please which country has proven more morally compassionate to its peoples and the countries of other?
This is about property rights. It always is. But most Americans are driven by emotions such as envy, hate, anger, rage, sadism. That’s why they vote for socialists like Ears and Mother Pelosi.
“Citizenship in a great country should not be a DNA lottery”
As in an accidental birth of OBAMA?
A man whose origins and actual citizenship is by definition suspect, AND, who considers the US not great but one country like any other, AND who has disparaged Nevada and gambling more than once—thinks he can dictate terms?
Does this include those who would be murdered in the womb as a result of ObamaCare? If not, it's all a bunch of liberal bull****!
Well, Obama is shifty.
A just society does not steal from those who work to provide for those who don’t.
[The ground of debate shifts when a prominent figure says that a contentious topic is a matter of morality, not politics.]
Al Gore began framing his global warming hysteria in those terms and immediately afterward the bottom began to drop out from under the “scientific consensus” claimed by the IPCC.
It seems to me, when some politician suddenly declares that their political agenda is a matter of morality, not politics, then it’s a clear sign that their agenda is really about how much power they can grab for themselves.
Everyone in this country already has healthcare.
And without the 2 trillion dollar middle man.
Nor is such a directive documented in the Constitution.
What happened?
Yes it does via private charity, NOT government confiscation!
How does this work for the unborn babies? Just wondering.
It's not about "who" they are; it's about "what" they are; sex deviates, mal-adjusted to societal normalcy and natural sexual behavior, and trying to immerse themselves into a group to whick they don't belong. Their values are NOT those of the near-universal nomally sexually-adjusted service personnel.
If they wanna play their deviant games, don't bring it to the military groups.
Trying to lend legitamacy to every wacko and mal-content via "diversity" is what has torn this country apart. What people do with their own deviances has no business being an issue to be approved, de facto, by recognition. If you wanna marry a sheep, do it off-base.
“whick” = which
Everywhere that this tacit acceptance of homosexuality has been allowed it has corrupted, deformed and irreparably harmed those institutions and millions of people. Now they want to do it to the finest military in the world.
We are fighting 2 wars against a ruthless enemy, the economy is in the dumper and "commander zero" sees this as a pressing issue?
Resign?
Those that have studied rhetoric know that once the argument goes from political to moral grounds, there is no room for compromise. Argument is over. It is no longer about the future, it is about morality. Why is it that no politician raised the fundamental question, namely, is it the proper role of government to provide health care? Health care is a goods, not a right. Is it moral to saddle generations to come with an insurmountable debt? Is it moral to provide for an entitlement that will destroy the best medical care in the world? Is it moral to tell people that these entitlements are sustainable when they are not?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.