Monday, June 25, 2012

Lets Get Beyond Hyperbole and Discuss the Demerits as Well as the Merits (if any) of the Issue...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny

It has allegedly been said as one gets older they get wiser. This is quite probable as the experiences of a long and productive life gives a person many references that naturally become part of their life experience and mold their philosophy of existence.

Of course that assumes the individual chooses to use reality and the truth of rational unemotional thought to guide them. Both in their analysis as well as their ultimate conclusions on every important issue of their life.

I was not a advocate nor a supporter of William Jefferson Clinton in his hay day as President and Commander in Chief. He was, as they say, just a bit too progressive as well as being a bit untrustworthy. I shall leave it to Hillary to clarify the forgoing statement.

Forgive me as I have digressed...

I stumbled across the following article published today in THE DAILY BEAST, a leftist rag I rarely visit. On the rare occasions when I do i typically find it to contain a boatload of BS.

Today was interestingly different. I found myself reading, and rereading the auricle expressing ex President Bill Clinton's position. Not because I fully disagreed nor that I fully agreed with his positions. Rather I found many of his arguments to be both interesting as well as some possessing a bit of merit.

As a person enters the senior years of their life they become more reflective. In the process the individual seem to gain the ability to fully grasp more complex perspectives that only experience can give them. That is to say if they have managed to stay awake throughout their life and take in all the intellectual stimuli that life and reality provides.

Of course it is the ideal for one is able to retain an objective and rational ability to determine reality as it is, rather than how one may wish it to be. Which I suppose is the reason I put this post up. To suggest that everyone, whether they are conservative, liberal, neo-conservative, libertarian, objectivist, Platonic, or Aristotelian in their leanings consider the merits or lack thereof of the article.

President William Jefferson Clinton most definitely does not have all the answers. In fact he may only have a few, a very few. Certainly this Randian capitalist, limited government, classical liberal, and advocate of maximum individual liberty has many issue with ex President Clinton. However, given his intelligence and experience (personal shortcomings aside) his views are at least worth considering. Naturally this means with an active and inquisitive mind. Something I fear too few liberals and conservatives do in this day and age of wedge politics.

I have prepared myself for the possible backlash this post might cause. I stand ready to defendant the post as well as the logical and rational justification for having posted it.

Simply stated it is time the political activists of both parties, the candidates as well as current office holders, and the general population start to engage in studying both sides of issues and civilly discuss/debate the possible disadvantages as well as the possible advantages of all positions. Based solely on empirical data and actual facts. Sadly this nation and its people seems to have lost the ability to do so.

Admittedly I have taken a very long way around in getting to the subject matter that drove this post. I humbly ask your understanding for this and hope you posses the capacity to understand the reason why I did so.

Please take the time to read this article in full. Consider the thoughts of this ex President. Weigh them against all opposing views. After doing so decide based on logical and rational criteria, not emotionally driven concerns or experiences. In the final analysis reason and logic must prevail.

Certainly this is true if this nation is to survive as we have known it. Both for the next millennium and beyond.

Via: Memeorandum


  1. Perhaps age has enlightened Clinton a bit. Shame it didn't work for Carter.

  2. I actually kind of like the old fart. He worked pretty well with a Republican Congress and if it wasn't for that worthless piece of crap, Arafat, he might have been able to broker a peace agreement with Palestine. Now, would I trust him with any of my female friends and relatives? Naaaaaa!

    1. Had my issues with Bubba's philosophy/politics, but retrospectively he was a damn site more effective than either Obama or Bush.

    2. In a 3-way race between Bush, Obama, and Clinton, Clinton would win in a landslide.

  3. first of all that article wasn't written by Bill Clinton as implied in your post. it was written by Gail Sheehy, in defense of Obamacare. the spin on the facts is obvious also.
    first of all take a look at how Obamacare is being argued. it being argued on the emotional basis of the consequences of it if found unconstitutional not on the merits of it being constitutional.
    and the two cases that are used to justify its constitutionality are not individual mandates per se.

    1. 1) Good catch. Slipped in slightly different wording.

      2) Yes a bit of spin, just as the opposing views put in a bit of spin. That's what politicians do.

      3) Consequences can be argued in many ways. Actually the argument by the OBAMA legal wizards was not the best basis on which to argue their case. I covered that is a prior post.

      4) The individual mandate actually has some precedent in law.

      As I said the post was to stir thought. Rational and logical. As I stated...

      "Consider the thoughts of this ex President. Weigh them against all opposing views. After doing so decide based on logical and rational criteria, not emotionally driven concerns or experiences. In the final analysis reason and logic must prevail."

  4. Les,
    what precedence in law is there? you can't use the law in regards to sailors as a precedent or the law in regards to arms.
    neither law is an individual mandate on the people as advocated by the left.

    1. Mere interpretation Griper, mere interpretation.

      I not saying I agree. I'm merely saying thought out to be given and due consideration is in order.

      At any rate we'll soon know the outcome.

  5. no mere interpretation on my part, Les, maybe it is on the part of Clinton. those bills were passed and signed by President Washington in 1790.

    the first health insurance company didn't exist until 1850. so, how could the sailors buy an insurance policy from a non-existing company?
    i'll leave the rest for you to think upon.

    1. Ah, but it is Griper. Everything is open to interpretation. That is why there are Lawyers and lawyerly types.

      Don't need to think upon it Griper, really, I have thought upon it for a lifetime. Well since I was about 12 anyway. The greater concept of freedom and liberty that is, not the ObamaCare kmitiatiove obviously.

    2. Griper,

      What say you?

  6. what do i have to say? only this. he doesn't know his history or is deliberately ignoring history.a most obvious irrational argument comes here.
    a quote:
    "Incidentally, that’s not the only time an early congress mandated that Americans purchase privately sold products:"

    i again refer you to my previous comment and ask, how can you mandate the purchase of something that does not exist yet?
    what is there to interpret about this? it is a very clear falsehood.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.