Democrat Phil Hare: I don't worry about the Constitution...

[silus]

Rep. Phil Hare Democrat - Illinois Congressional District 17 -
admitting that when it comes to health care “reform,” he doesn’t “worry about the Constitution”
YouTube - Phil Hare doesn't care.MP4

I'd like to try and settle this back and forth debate with some advice from Ron Paul...

...the other thing that I have to keep reminding myself and I’ll remind others, that in the process of us pursuing our goals, that we should remain tolerant. People who disagree with you or look different or have different view, we have to allow freedom of expression. That will bring us together. Otherwise we can’t win.

 

[ARealConservative]

made local news

http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-congressman-hare-responds-040210,0,1644318.story

 

[phazespace]

YouTube - Rep. Hare Responds to YouTube Video on Comments About Constitution

Here's his response...

Should I know who that portrait is on his wall??

Family photo front and center...Sweet, I now know you are telling the truth...

That response was very weak. He seems amicable enough, but that's not going to cut it. He should have also formulated an argument as to why he thought the health care bill was constitutional. I gave it a thumbs down.

 

[fuzzybekool]

Bump - Phil Hare Responds to his infamous video by claiming he took himself out of context. YouTube - Rep. Hare Responds to YouTube Video on Comments About Constitution[/URL]

 

[Bman]

When you watch the second video it becomes 100% clear that the gentleman who called him a liar on the first video was 100% correct.

 

[silus]

When you watch the second video it becomes 100% clear that the gentleman who called him a liar on the first video was 100% correct.

So he read it just twice then? Or maybe once. How about skimmed it three times?

Who cares if he was right, he was calling him a liar over a worthless point that he would never be able to verify.

 

[Bman]

So he read it just twice then? Or maybe once. How about skimmed it three times?

Who cares if he was right, he was calling him a liar over a worthless point that he would never be able to verify.

Despite the more than likely mathematical equation the person was basing his assumption of calling Hare a liar, I'm calling him a liar because in the first video he was saying he didn't what part of the constitution authorized the Federal government to pass this bill, and on the second video was talking like someone who only votes when something is constitutional.

So tell me. How can someone think something is constitutional if they don't know what makes it constitutional?

That my friend is the definition of a liar. The original guy might not have gotten it correct for the right reason per se, but he certainly got it right.

 

[silus]

So tell me. How can someone think something is constitutional if they don't know what makes it constitutional?

That my friend is the definition of a liar. The original guy might not have gotten it correct for the right reason per se, but he certainly got it right.

He might not know, but personally i'm not going to take his answer there literally being confronted like that. Its probably more likely he has an incorrect explanation that makes it constitutional...

 

[Bman]

He might not know, but personally i'm not going to take his answer there literally being confronted like that. Its probably more likely he has an incorrect explanation that makes it constitutional...

Well then the least he could do is produce his answer, but at this point guess I can't blame him. Being looked at as a liar is probably better than being viewed as an idiot.

Regardless at this point he could be viewed as both with certain plausibility. Probably best at this point that he shuts up and tries to let this fly by.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I think we expect our elected officials to have at least given the Constitution a look-over but it's more likely, like probably the majority of the American people, that very few have. It's not about what the federal government is allowed to do, and why, to these people. It's about political expediency - these people are not political philosophers... I'd be shocked if they even knew what political philosophy is.

 

[Valene]

The picture on the wall is Hubert H. Humphrey. Democratic Presidential candidate in 1968.

 

[idirtify]

Probably didn't explain myself very well:

1. getting a congressman on video saying he doesn't care about the Constitution = like
1a. being combative about it, although warranted, made me feel awkward and embarrassed (for both parties). That was a turnoff and if I were on the other side of the issue - and was not so long ago - I would have written off the interviewers.

1.b In my HUMBLE opinion, it would have been better to argue that point a little more, tearing apart his appeal to empathy. They tried that, but were interrupted by the 'liar' comments. Too many tangents. Too combative. When the congressman was standing right in front of them 'seemingly' willing to talk about it.

2. 'moot point' - We all know these guys violate the constitution on a daily basis... and by 'we', I mean people involved in this liberty movement.

2a. Our job is to show why this is bad so that when we get into our own arguments with friends, acquaintances, and hopefully our own representatives, we have good solid reasons to stand on. Doing so will help turn the tide of opinion.

2b. I've heard all to often these statements: 'the constitution is an old and moldy document' and 'the constitution was meant to be a living, freely flowing document'. We're never going to change the people who are actually in office right now. I feel we can, however, change the public opinion... just like Ron Paul is doing.

Does that help?

No. It doesn’t help explain your skepticism.

If ONLY it was ONLY your “humble” opinion, and if ONLY you spoke ONLY for yourself. Instead you apply your own bias upon others whom you claim will not be positively affected by this excellent video. Of course everything in the past could “have been better”, but that doesn’t fully justify your general criticism. Videos like this certainly help to convert plenty. Getting the congressman to so clearly admit that he doesn’t care about the constitution is quite an accomplishment. It took skill to catch the comment and get him to dig his hole deeper. Of course it’s true that MOST PEOPLE HERE know that most politicians don’t care about the constitution, but that was not your original reason for saying that it was a moot point for the video to point it out. Your original claim had no such qualification, nor were we discussing how it affected people who were already converted. The point is the positive effect of showing such a rare and clear admission to the masses. Why are you trying so hard to dispute that fact and discredit this video? Because the interviewers didn’t explain why it’s bad for a politician to not care about the constitution and? Please…you throw out the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[idirtify]

I read through most of those posts last night. I could be wrong (and often am) but I don't remember reading one where someone was enlighten by a congress person saying they didn't care about the constitution. most of those stories go back to Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, et al., providing great logical arguments for liberty in a non-combative way.

Well no doubt! Like I indicated when I said “there aren’t many that good”: there aren’t many (any other) videos like that around. It’s a rare accomplishment to get a politician to clearly admit such an unflattering thing. But many a conversion has certainly been helped by watching videos of politicians that expose their BS. I continue to be perplexed why you continue to try so hard to discredit the video.

 

[fuzzybekool]

I read all the posts. Great views from all of you on the subject at hand. Being from Chicago, of course, I see things differently than some of you. At 6 years old, I learned quick just how the Democratic Machine operates out here. Watching my dad having to pay off cops, alderman, and inspectors, just to keep his little corner store open on the west side of Chicago ( Little Village ) was just how it was done under the first Mayor Daley. His son is no different, and the Democrats operate no differently today, except today, extortion is practiced behind closed doors and away from prying eyes.

The U.S. Constitution is nothing but a piece of paper to most of them, as well as to most Republicans. We, the people, have acquiased over the years, to let them treat the Constitution as a piece of paper. It is really our fault. Collectively, The American people have seen fit to disregard its adherence so long as we had our guns and our butter. It hasn't been until the last few years that we have become awake to the shocking disregard our political leaders have towards the Constitution. We see ourselves without jobs, without freedom, without hope, and without real opportunities to the pursuit of happiness. It is because of our anxiety for the future of our country that many of us have joined this cause. Ron Paul woke many of us up, and thank God, many Americans are awake now.

As far as the video. Some have argued that a more intellectual arguement from the video poster would of been a better alternative than yelling liar. I disagree. Again. I am from Chicago, so please excuse my different point of view. The Democratic party in Congress have used emotion and shame to subdue any opposition to their subversion of our founding documents. Being polite will not work. Either smack them back with an emotional arguement of your own or call them what they are. Liars. I have encountered "them" and I answer them back in the same way they answer me. If they want an intellectual arguement, then we can go that route. But, if they want to say that it is ok to disregard the Constitution, because they don't want little kids to die for lack of insurance. Then you got to be ready to answer back.

"If you are so concerned with saving little kids from dying, why doesn't the health care reform you supported go into effect immediately to save them and all uninsured Americans from dieing ? How many Americans will die waiting for this law's full implementation ? Don't you feel bad that this health care law is going to let thousands and thousands of Americans die ? Why does the majority of this bill go into effect after the next presidential election ? So, our soldiers overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan are being killed for healthcare, or are they being killed to protect and defend the Constitution ? You can go on and on and shame them back. The "gotcha" moment on Phil Hare's video needs to be milked for all its worth. They are not shy to call you racists and nut-cases. We shouldn't be shy to call them liars and hypocrites. We are the majority. Don't be afraid.

 

[phazespace]

Well no doubt! Like I indicated when I said “there aren’t many that good”: there aren’t many (any other) videos like that around. It’s a rare accomplishment to get a politician to clearly admit such an unflattering thing. But many a conversion has certainly been helped by watching videos of politicians that expose their BS. I continue to be perplexed why you continue to try so hard to discredit the video.

I'm not discrediting the video. again, I like that they got the congressman to admit he wasn't worried about the constitution. However, instead of allowing him to formulate an argument as to 'why' so we could further discredit the congressman on an intellectual level. That would have been more meaningful.

As I posted in this thread, all the congressman needed to do was release another video saying he was taken out of context and moderates would side with him. He did just that. He can now say in the heat of the moment, in the hostile atmosphere he was in (as seen in the first video) he mixed his words or didn't get a chance to explain himself... yadda yadda yadda...

You and I both know he's full of shit, but the awkwardness of what transpired after the congressman mentioned the constitution just turns people... people we are trying to awaken... turns them off and away.

That's my point.

In the rare opportunity activists get a bullshit congressman backed into a corner we need to keep him there as long as possible.

 

[idirtify]

I'm not discrediting the video.

Of course you are…persistently. You are choosing one shortcoming and using it to claim that the people we are trying to awaken will be turned off (not be persuaded) by the video. And since you make no qualifications, your claim is that ALL the people we are trying to awaken will be turned off by THE WHOLE video. Obviously you are not being reasonable or credible. Your criticism consists of extreme nitpicking and your conclusion is baseless speculation.

I beat my partner in racquetball last week. According to you, I did not win because the score was not 15-0.

Let’s see how many fallacies we can attach to your logic:
False dichotomy (it’s either a slam-dunk or a failure)
Non sequitur (false conclusion; imperfection equals failure)
Again: Throwing out baby with bathwater

 

[phazespace]

Of course you are…persistently. You are choosing one shortcoming and using it to claim that the people we are trying to awaken will be turned off (not be persuaded) by the video. And since you make no qualifications, your claim is that ALL the people we are trying to awaken will be turned off by THE WHOLE video. Obviously you are not being reasonable or credible. Your criticism consists of extreme nitpicking and your conclusion is baseless speculation.

I beat my partner in racquetball last week. According to you, I did not win because the score was not 15-0.

Let’s see how many fallacies we can attach to your logic:
False dichotomy (it’s either a slam-dunk or a failure)
Non sequitur (false conclusion; imperfection equals failure)
Again: Throwing out baby with bathwater

Please quote where I said "ALL the people we are trying to awaken will be turned off by THE WHOLE video". Otherwise, you're just drawing a false conclusion on a stated opinion.

actually... forget it... it's kind of a lost cause at this point. The congressman did exactly what I claimed he would do.

Let me back that statement up by quoting myself earlier (I don't want to be picked apart for making a claim that wasn't true about myself):

All Phil has to do to combat this publicly is to stand in front of a camera in a controlled environment and talk about how these guys wouldn't let him formulate an argument. Then proceed to make some template statement about "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" combine with some emotional story about someone in an emergency room. Bam, the waffling independents and moderates are back on his side."

Way to push your false assumptions around to form straw man arguments in a forum of conjecture and rants. Makes me wish you had been there with these camera guys to get a real debate going, assuming you could actually keep yourself from yelling 'liar'.

 

[idirtify]

Please quote where I said "ALL the people we are trying to awaken will be turned off by THE WHOLE video". Otherwise, you're just drawing a false conclusion on a stated opinion.

actually... forget it... it's kind of a lost cause at this point. The congressman did exactly what I claimed he would do.

Let me back that statement up by quoting myself earlier (I don't want to be picked apart for making a claim that wasn't true about myself):




Way to push your false assumptions around to form straw man arguments in a forum of conjecture and rants. Makes me wish you had been there with these camera guys to get a real debate going, assuming you could actually keep yourself from yelling 'liar'.

You said it twice:
1) “This kind of video will turn off a moderate or independent rather than bringing them to our side.”
2) “the awkwardness of what transpired after the congressman mentioned the constitution just turns people... people we are trying to awaken... turns them off and away.”

The congressman doing as you predicted has no real bearing on my argument. The activist’s video was good and will influence lots of people. That fact is not changed by the congressman’s video response (the one you yourself called “very weak”).

Sorry, no false assumptions or straw men here.

 

[AuH2O]

Well, he's a pizza shop owner, not a lifelong politician. That's a plus.

He's a former union boss. That's almost as bad as a career politician.

 

[phazespace]

You said it twice:
1) “This kind of video will turn off a moderate or independent rather than bringing them to our side.”
2) “the awkwardness of what transpired after the congressman mentioned the constitution just turns people... people we are trying to awaken... turns them off and away.”

The congressman doing as you predicted has no real bearing on my argument. The activist’s video was good and will influence lots of people. That fact is not changed by the congressman’s video response (the one you yourself called “very weak”).

Sorry, no false assumptions or straw men here.

1. Conjecture
2. Conjecture

This is a forum primarily made of conjecture, as is most conversation. I was merely stating my opinion based on personal experience. You trying to tear apart arguments based on conjecture isn't really all that worthwhile.

I believe, and still believe, this video will turn away more people due to the tact. If you disagree with that, cool, but your argumentative opposition to conjecture is energy misplaced.