man, you really are pretty dense... let's start with your only two references to the constitution which you claim enable the government to take over the private sector..

you wrote the enumerated powers allow congress to regulate commerce.... yet like a good little liberal you leave out the entire law and only choose the part that might suit your needs.... yet barely because even in your quote it does not allow for the federal gov to take over or even enter the private sector business with taxpayer money.... here's the law in it's entirety pertaining to commerce regulation
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

to regulate among the states... not to take taxpayer money and enter the private sector but to regulate which it does... in fact, it's exactly the opposite as what you state. The regulation of the housing market by the democratic party is what caused it's collapse and the attempted regulation of our entire private sector economy right now is what's causing it's collapse via kanzian economical strategies that have been proven time and time again not to work yet you , like any other good socialist, believe that the government is the fix all to the woes of the poor.

your assertion that opportunity is not available to some is completely absurd

The next abuse of wording you attempt is that the constitution allows congress to provide for the general welfare of the people specifically by compelling through taxes, citizens to be "relieved" of their property (money) through force to provide something (healthcare) for those who don't have insurance (which they would if they purchased a policy). Now explain to the class here exactly how the federal government has the authority to force citizens to be relieved of their property so that the "less fortunate" can benefit from the redistribution of it by the fed?

That's a very simple question to which your only answer is... well, the preamble of the constitution says the gov can levy taxes to provide for the general welfare.... again, the enumerated powers state exactly what the government can do and guess what's not in there... that's right... the "right" to heath insurance. So, like a good marxists, you use word games to pretend like something means the exact opposite of what it does.

How is it beneficial to the general welfare of the people to force you to buy me food? or a home, or a phone, or a car, or a heath insurance policy?

It's not and in fact it's a direct infringement on our freedoms. You can't win this argument, and you guys will be voted out of power in 2010 and that, is, as they say... the end of the story I'm happy to say :)

To your tranquility argument? look up freedom of peaceful assembly, then look up how many arrests have been made at tea party rallies.... the answer is zero. now look up how much damage to private and public property occurs during democratic rallies and you tell me which crowd is "tranquil"

You liberals are, as always, exactly the opposite of what you claim to be... just ask barney frank about fha regs. You're a one trick pony my friend, with no real understanding of what the constitution is or what it allows. you want government to be omnipresent while we want small government to do exactly what it is allowed by the constitution to do, nothing more, nothing less. If you want the government to be your mommy, move to cuba or china.

• Location: doesntgetitville
• it's NOT ok to contact this poster with services or other commercial interests