Mark Cuban: Amend U.S. Constitution to Make Healthcare a Right

[thackney]

Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?

  - Tom Waits

Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers

- Garth Brooks

[INVAR]

Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?

  - Tom Waits

We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. - John 9:31

The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous. - Proverbs 15:29

But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear. - Isaiah 59:2

Thus says the Lord to this people: "Thus they have loved to wander; They have not restrained their feet. Therefore the Lord does not accept them; He will remember their iniquity now, And punish their sins." Then the Lord said to me, "Do not pray for this people, for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence. - Jeremiah 14:10-12

One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination. - Proverbs 28:9

But since you refuse to listen when I call and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand, since you disregard all my advice and do not accept my rebuke,
I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you— when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
Then they will call to me but I will not answer they will look for me but will not find me, since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord.
Since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them - Proverbs 1: 24-32

[EC]

The reason we lost the culture and our liberty is due the fact no one was willing to stand up and put down these insipid Marxist ideas masquerading as compassion and 'rights' when we had a chance to do so when the cost was minimal.

Sadly, a good chunk of folks still think letting that bullshit get spewed without challenge or to coddle it as 'reasonable' is somehow more civil,.  Meanwhile people like Jazzhead deceive everyone into believing they're compassionate fellows while they empower the Beast to strip away your inalienable God-given rights for new rights for hedonists and Socialists that he and his fashion out of thin air.  They are tyrants and need to be treated as such.

The Big Lie gets accepted as truth because no one bothers to challenge it.

Marxism and Statism gets imposed for the same reason.

And I both admire you (a fairly common thing) and respect you (much, much rarer) for doing it. Don't mean I'm not going to tease you about it sometimes. 

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers

- Garth Brooks

God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy. -Billy Currington.

[INVAR]

And I both admire you (a fairly common thing) and respect you (much, much rarer) for doing it. Don't mean I'm not going to tease you about it sometimes. 

Oh please do tease and poke when necessary.

Keeps me humble (the right kind of humble - not the kind that cowers when confronted by tyrants pushing tyranny).

[Smokin Joe]

So what?   A Constitutional right can be found by the SCOTUS exercising its power under Article III to interpret the Constitution and apply it to a set of facts.   The abortion right is rooted in the natural and fundamental right to privacy - which the courts have recognized in a variety of contexts for many, many years.   Judge Gorsuch affirmed just yesterday that the Constitution protects the right of privacy.

Does the right of privacy, which I do not disagree with when it comes to ones personal affairs overrun the right to live? It is no accident that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." with Life placed first. Why? because without Life all else is moot. Dead people don't exercise rights. If you had, in your personal papers, information which could lead to saving a person's life, would you be justified in standing on your 'Right to Privacy' to the point of their demise?

You have given many excuses to justify the elective slaughter of over 50,000,000 babies as a "right", but none of them would hold sway with the Founders, and frankly, none holds sway with me. Once established, the Right to murder the helpless will only increase its jurisdiction with a wide variety of justifications and rationalizations until it is all encompassing.

A woman's right to self-determination is no less valid than a gun-owner's right to keep and bear arms.   Each is protected by the Constitution, and each is subject to reasonable regulation.   

What of the (see above), over 25,000,000 women who were shredded, vacuumed, scraped, or chemically burned to death in their mothers' wombs? How can people who are so squeamish over even the fully adjudicated capital punishment of a brutal serial killer be so passe about the brutal slaying of their own innocent offspring, much less claim it as a "woman's right" when at half of those they kill are female?

Where I grew up, we had a saying for that.
"Those people aren't wired right."

The RKBA exists anyway, but was mentioned in an attempt to safeguard that right to possess the means to protect the Rights of our people, among them and first and foremost the right to Life itself.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Does the right of privacy, which I do not disagree with when it comes to ones personal affairs overrun the right to live? It is no accident that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." with Life placed first. Why? because without Life all else is moot. Dead people don't exercise rights. If you had, in your personal papers, information which could lead to saving a person's life, would you be justified in standing on your 'Right to Privacy' to the point of their demise?

You have given many excuses to justify the elective slaughter of over 50,000,000 babies as a "right", but none of them would hold sway with the Founders, and frankly, none holds sway with me. Once established, the Right to murder the helpless will only increase its jurisdiction with a wide variety of justifications and rationalizations until it is all encompassing. What of the (see above), over 25,000,000 women who were shredded, vacuumed, scraped, or chemically burned to death in their mothers' wombs? How can people who are so squeamish over even the fully adjudicated capital punishment of a brutal serial killer be so passe about the brutal slaying of their own innocent offspring, much less claim it as a "woman's right" when at half of those they kill are female?

Where I grew up, we had a saying for that.
"Those people aren't wired right."

The RKBA exists anyway, but was mentioned in an attempt to safeguard that right to possess the means to protect the Rights of our people, among them and first and foremost the right to Life itself.

You are smoking, @Smokin Joe

Your rationale is eminently reasonable and one that readers can use to solidify their mindset in like manner; however, the one you directed your response to is in comprehensively too dense or too indoctrinated to cogently absorb.  Am trying to be kind here, as it might just be simply evil in form.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?

  - Tom Waits

Anyone asking a question like that could sure benefit from watching the current movie The Shack.  Well worth it to comprehend God.

[truth_seeker]

I think you put your finger on what many of us find so infuriating.  We believe success comes from hard work and thrift.  After decades of effort, we have the callouses and bank accounts to prove it.  Then some lefty community organizer comes along who wants to separate us from those bank accounts, declaring us "selfish" and "lucky."

It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.

Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.

They had big families, remained married, etc.

It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.

Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.

They had big families, remained married, etc.

It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."

It's like telling business owners: "You didn't build that!"

[INVAR]

It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."

Jazzhead simply heralds from the same school of Statism and Thought as Dick Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and Obama.

Simple as that, and screams it from nearly every post he makes.

[Smokin Joe]

You are smoking, @Smokin Joe

Your rationale is eminently reasonable and one that readers can use to solidify their mindset in like manner; however, the one you directed your response to is in comprehensively too dense or too indoctrinated to cogently absorb.  Am trying to be kind here, as it might just be simply evil in form.

While I may never change the mind of the one I engage in such matters, I cannot let such egregious misconceptions stand unchallenged, lest the casual visitor be led astray. 

[Smokin Joe]

It's like telling business owners: "You didn't build that!"

That torques me, too.  You build something in spite of government, and then the government finds ways to tear it down, and then the b@st@rds have the unmitigated gall to say 'You didn't build that'.
BS!--and I'd have built a hell of a lot more of it if they'd got the Hell out of the way.

[Hoodat]

In each case, my position is consistent -  preserve the right subject to reasonable regulation.

The only consistency in your post is the conspicuous absence of any citation from the Constitution that supports your claim.

[txradioguy]

It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.

Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.

They had big families, remained married, etc.

It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."

@truth_seeker his mentality echoes that of more Liberals in that they believe that anyone who is successful didn't get there by the sweat of their brow...liong hours and such...they look at it as he/she got "lucky" as you stated and that they were the winners of "Life's lottery".

Hard work...either in practice or theory doesn't compute with the Liberal mindset.  If you got rich...is HAS to be because you stole it for someone else.

[truth_seeker]

@truth_seeker his mentality echoes that of more Liberals in that they believe that anyone who is successful didn't get there by the sweat of their brow...liong hours and such...they look at it as he/she got "lucky" as you stated and that they were the winners of "Life's lottery".

Hard work...either in practice or theory doesn't compute with the Liberal mindset.  If you got rich...is HAS to be because you stole it for someone else.

JH sounds just like Obama. Socialist ideas, using different words. They think anybody else that is successful must have had it easy, like they did. And they think they are smarter.

And never mind "getting rich." I am talking about olde fashioned middleclass America.

The goofy ideas, like everybody is "entitled" to free college, or free health care, just for participating in life are among things which are seriously wrong.

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Liberals believe in equal outcomes.
 

[corbe]

JH sounds just like Obama. Socialist ideas, using different words. They think anybody else that is successful must have had it easy, like they did. And they think they are smarter.

And never mind "getting rich." I am talking about olde fashioned middleclass America.

The goofy ideas, like everybody is "entitled" to free college, or free health care, just for participating in life are among things which are seriously wrong.

Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Liberals believe in equal outcomes.
 

[Idiot]

Cuban is a rich idiot.

[corbe]

   For awhile there in the early days of the campaign I thought he was in love with Trump, when he was informed he wasn't up for consideration as SoS, he bailed.

   His Mavericks are second only to the Spurs in NBA teams I love to hate.

[catfish1957]

   His Mavericks are second only to the Spurs in NBA teams I love to hate.

Maybe my most fearful "sports" moment in my history was when it was rumored he was buying the Astros several years ago.

Cuban is past sleazy.

[Vulcan]

Cuban is a wuss.

[Jazzhead]

Does the right of privacy, which I do not disagree with when it comes to ones personal affairs overrun the right to live? It is no accident that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." with Life placed first. Why? because without Life all else is moot. Dead people don't exercise rights. If you had, in your personal papers, information which could lead to saving a person's life, would you be justified in standing on your 'Right to Privacy' to the point of their demise?

You have given many excuses to justify the elective slaughter of over 50,000,000 babies as a "right", but none of them would hold sway with the Founders, and frankly, none holds sway with me. Once established, the Right to murder the helpless will only increase its jurisdiction with a wide variety of justifications and rationalizations until it is all encompassing. What of the (see above), over 25,000,000 women who were shredded, vacuumed, scraped, or chemically burned to death in their mothers' wombs? How can people who are so squeamish over even the fully adjudicated capital punishment of a brutal serial killer be so passe about the brutal slaying of their own innocent offspring, much less claim it as a "woman's right" when at half of those they kill are female?

Where I grew up, we had a saying for that.
"Those people aren't wired right."

I don't excuse abortion;  I'm horrified by it.   I understand your perspective,  SJ, and the passion you feel about the millions of potential lives lost to abortion.

But I believe the focus of the pro-life movement should be on saving lives - using persuasion and providing concrete help to women in crisis - rather than the vain task of stuffing genies back in bottles.   The choice right has existed as part of the Constitution for over forty years now.  Not as long as the gun right, to be sure, but long enough - there isn't a woman of child-bearing age who hasn't always had the right to determine for herself whether to procreate.   Like it or not, women have been liberated from the patriarchy.   The genie's long gone.     

Moral matters such as this - which are inherently religious in nature - are best addressed by persuasion rather than coercion.    The state is charged with respecting our natural rights to liberty and self-determination,  not usurping them.   Liberty includes the right to make bad choices, even immoral choices.   The task is to appeal to conscience in favor of religious values, not appeal to the state to compel adherence to religious values.

The good news is, persuasion (and education) works.  Abortion is now at its lowest levels since before Roe v. Wade.     

[Jazzhead]

It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.

Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.

They had big families, remained married, etc.

It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."

I've never stopped working since I was 16,  TS.  I've followed the rules and been married to the same woman for 40 years.   My kids are the greatest.   

Damn right I've been lucky.   I thank the stars every day for my good fortune.   Why does it "insult your intelligence" to acknowledge, and be thankful for, good fortune? 

The greatest virtue, IMO, is humility.   My hard work and perseverance means nothing; it may all be gone tomorrow.   I don't wish for a moment that I had INVAR's cocksure certainty that he knows the mind of God.   I know nothing of God and deserve nothing from Him.   My good fortune is just that - luck - and I'm reminded of Bob Dylan's words that to live outside the law one must be honest.       

[INVAR]

I don't wish for a moment that I had INVAR's cocksure certainty that he knows the mind of God.   I know nothing of God and deserve nothing from Him.

The most honest thing you have probably ever posted to this board.

  My good fortune is just that - luck - and I'm reminded of Bob Dylan's words that to live outside the law one must be honest.     

Which answers why I know the mind of God and you do not (and choose not to) : I quote the scriptures and you quote Bob Dylan.

[Jazzhead]

The most honest thing you have probably ever posted to this board.

Correct.  I don't ever want to be like you.   Folks like you are what convinced me I had to leave the church to stay true to Christ.