Guest guest Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 " So? I'm opposed to gay marriage too, if you mean within my church and in the context of what I believe marriage to be, in a mystical, theological, ecclesiological, etc, sense. " If you're against gay marriage within the context of your religious belief, then obviously you believe somehow that gay marriage is 'contrary to the laws of God'. I'm sure you'll find a way to nuance this into meaninglessness...but I this to me is the essence of what you said. this is pretty damn close to, 'gay marriage is immoral'. That to me is using god to excuse a fundamental bigotry. -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: " Masterjohn " <chrismasterjohn@...> > On 1/8/08, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote: > > > then you're a bigot, who just figures that you don't personally care whether > > 'these people' indulge in this 'immoral behavior', but it's fine for > > individual states to enforce this Christian bigotry. > > No, that's not what I believe at all! > > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Gene- > then you're a bigot While I always encourage the free and open exchange of ideas, information and philosophy, personal attacks against list members are not allowed on this list. It may seem like an arbitrary distinction, but there's a big difference between calling someone a bigot and saying that someone's position is effectively bigoted. The former is a personal attack and shuts off productive discussion; the latter characterizes a position and allows for continuing non-personal discussion of the issue. Please refrain from making any further personal attacks against list members in the future. Sincerely, Idol List Owner Native Nutrition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Chris- > > I didn't take the 'and' to mean 'both proposing and voting for > > individual pieces of legislation that he finds offensive', which of > > course wouldn't include legislation he proposes but votes against. I > > assumed Gene meant 'voting for and/or proposing', in which case the > > war bill and other such legislation would definitely qualify. > > I didn't get to that level of analysis, but it seemed implicit that he > thought RP was *supporting* the bills he had proposed, including these > ones that he spoke out against. Otherwise, I'm not sure what his > point would have been. That level of analysis? It was the most superficial and obvious level, IMO, and his point is the same point I'd make: it's at the very least obfuscatory, and arguably suspicious, to regularly propose bills that you profess to oppose. It makes it difficult to figure out what your real views are. > > Then it sounds even more likely that he is personally opposed to gay > > marriage, because religious institutions are overwhelmingly more > > likely to oppose it than secular society. > > So? I'm opposed to gay marriage too, if you mean within my church and > in the context of what I believe marriage to be, in a mystical, > theological, ecclesiological, etc, sense. But I'm not opposed to the > right of gays to engage in marriage in the sociological and > contractual sense. And that is what is at the crux of RP's > libertarian philosophy -- that you can't make people accept their > behavior personally, but you allow them the choice to engage in it and > form the voluntary contracts they wish. t sounds like it could be reasonable to say that you're opposed to gay marriage within your church, because in the strict ecclesiastical sense of the word, marriage is a religious sacrament, and we can no more force your church to marry gay people than we could force the Catholic church to administer the eucharist to non-Catholics who haven't been confirmed. (I restricted my latter example to the Catholic church only because I grew up Catholic for a time and I'm therefore more familiar with the details of Catholic worship than I am with the details of other Christian religions.) However, you and Ron both seem to think government (both federal and state) should get out of the marriage business entirely, meaning that your avowed support of the right of gays to marry in the sociological and contractual sense cannot by definition be all that you say it is. This also means both of you believe that marriage is (or should be) a purely and solely religious institution, and yet it is plainly a social and contractual system too. It's arguably always been social and contractual, but as society has changed and evolved, it has only become more so. The introduction of government involvement in marriage was just the formalization of these non- religious aspects of marriage, and therefore, denying people who aren't believers the right to marry would be a new and dramatic infringement on their current rights and opportunities. Denying them the right to marry would not at all be analogous to denying them the right to partake of the eucharist, because the eucharist has never acquired anything like the non-religious importance and significance that marriage has. Thus opposition to gay marriage is by definition reactionary, as is what I take to be Ron 's opposition to atheist marriage and probably non-Christian marriage too. I guess he'd prefer that all of us who aren't Christians stick with civil unions, since the propertarian platform would prevent him from opposing such contracts. > That churches oppose gay marriage (though not always) does not put > individuals who wish to engage in it at any disadvantage, because the > church would have no preferential legal standing. So the individuals > could volutarily contract a marriage and call it a marriage > themselves, and have the exact same benefit as two individuals who > contract a marriage and have their church pronounce it a marriage. > But in both cases, the state does not pronounce it a marriage, so > everyone -- those who want gay marriage, and those who oppose the > state endorsing it -- gets their way. Just for starters, you're overlooking a large group of people -- those who oppose anybody allowing gay people to call anything they do together " marriage " . > > There's another problem with his position (as you present it) > though. > > He says all non-religious marriage should be handled as contracts > > rather than " marriage " per se, which I suppose is a supportable > > position... but then he says that states (and communities) shouldn't > > be forced to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. Well, if > > gay marriage is just a contract, then this means that states (and > > communities) can refuse to recognize any contracts they don't like! > > You're confusing two different positions. One is his " ideal society. " > The other is his belief in upholding his *own* contract, which he > makes with the government and swears to uphold the constitution when > he is elected into office. The latter contract prohibits him, as > congressman or president, from using legal force to impose his own > ideal society on a state. However, this does not stop him from using > the bully pulpit, so to speak, for advocating this position, which > many people once exposed to it may eventually see as a reasonable > compromise that can satisfy all parties. This isn't merely non-responsive, it's irrelevant as far as I can see. > > At any rate, the issue is less his dishonesty than the inadequacy of > > defenses offered by his supporters. > > You say his belief in constitutionalism is a smoke-screen rather than > a genuine belief in upholding his sworn oath to uphold the > constitution, so it seems that is a matter of dishonesty and also that > the burden of proof would lean on you in the accusation of such > dishonesty. Not exactly. I said that the constitutionalism response to many criticism of Ron and questions about his positions BY HIS SUPPORTERS has the EFFECT of a smokescreen. That's not the same as calling it a deliberate deception. More generally, my point is that Ron has an underlying political philosophy which is not merely constitutionalism, and I'd like to discuss and discover it. Pure constitutionalism as a political philosophy would support whatever's in the constitution regardless of any other considerations and would oppose any amendment, and we already know from his own words that RP isn't necessarily opposed to amending the constitution. The constitution is an EMBODIMENT of a group of political philosophies, and it was drafted the way it was BECAUSE of the framers' political philosophies -- and on top of that, it was constrained by compromise, the limits of the framers' abilities, and the general inability of anyone, no matter how brilliant, to perfectly foresee the future. My support of the ideal of free speech, for example, doesn't come from the constitution, and if the country amended the constitution to do away with the first amendment, my support of free speech wouldn't suddenly cease. > > > So, for example, when someone asked him in the NH town hall if he > > > would support the " separation of school and state, " (who was > obviously > > > a supporter of this), he said that it is an interesting idea, > but he > > > would have no constitutional authority as president to impose > that on > > > local communities, and some local communities might wish to do > that > > > and others not. He went to public school and all his kids went to > > > public school, so he does not oppose public school, but he > opposes the > > > unconstitution federal involvement in education. > > > Calling it an " interesting idea " is a dodge, plain and simple. I > > cannot believe he has no opinion on it, yet he refused to actually > say > > whether he personally believes in it. Separation of church and state > > is a philosophical principle, not merely some words in the > > constitution that have limited and specific purview. > > Give me a break, . What about the famous leftist anarchists who > have said that, although they believe collectivism would produce a > superior society to individualism, true freedom would allow both types > of societies to operate and compete, so that whichever is superior > would become evident? It is not a dodge to say, " I am attracted to > this idea, but there are also other models that might work, and we > should allow both to operate and it can be debated which is best. " Except (a) that's not what he said, and ( there are reasonable limits on what should be meant by saying that. I'm sure you wouldn't find it reasonable of a person to say " I am attracted to the idea of slavery-free societies, but there are also other models that might work, and we should allow both slave-based and slave-free models to operate and it can be debated which is best " . Or rather, I'd support anyone's right to say and believe my slave example, but you can be double-damn sure I'd fight like the dickens to prevent him from being elected president. Also, saying that Ron supports public education isn't accurate, at least not in the universally understood sense of the term. He supports what's essentially a universal voucher system, which would result in the destruction or near destruction of public schools in part or all of the country. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Chris- > > you don't personally care whether > > 'these people' indulge in this 'immoral behavior', but it's fine for > > individual states to enforce this Christian bigotry. > > No, that's not what I believe at all! I think it would help if you were a little more forthcoming about what you actually do believe. You spend a lot of time trying to explain Ron 's beliefs, propertarians' beliefs, libertarians' beliefs, and so on, and this tends to create a vacuum into which other people's conclusions flow. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 This post covers flag burning the flag burning amendment, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, public schooling, and vouchers, including RP's efforts to help low-income parents by giving tax credits to donations that include those to public schools. On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > That level of analysis? It was the most superficial and obvious > level, IMO, and his point is the same point I'd make: it's at the very > least obfuscatory, and arguably suspicious, to regularly propose bills > that you profess to oppose. It makes it difficult to figure out what > your real views are. No, it is very easy to figure out what Ron 's views are on flag burning or the Iraq war to anyone who is willing to do the least bit of research from any source besides an anti-Ron propaganda site. That is why Glenn Greenwald of Salon called the circulating material on this subject " outright distortions and smears. " ====== http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html I'm not trying to be Ron 's advocate but, still, outright distortions and smears are distortions and smears. ======= > t sounds like it could be reasonable to say that you're opposed to gay > marriage within your church, because in the strict ecclesiastical > sense of the word, marriage is a religious sacrament, and we can no > more force your church to marry gay people than we could force the > Catholic church to administer the eucharist to non-Catholics who > haven't been confirmed. (I restricted my latter example to the > Catholic church only because I grew up Catholic for a time and I'm > therefore more familiar with the details of Catholic worship than I am > with the details of other Christian religions.) That is essentially correct for the purposes of this discussion. > However, you and Ron both seem to think government (both federal > and state) should get out of the marriage business entirely, meaning > that your avowed support of the right of gays to marry in the > sociological and contractual sense cannot by definition be all that > you say it is. This also means both of you believe that marriage is > (or should be) a purely and solely religious institution, and yet it > is plainly a social and contractual system too. Well not really. Marriage as a religious sacrament has specific purposes that make no sense whatsoever to anyone who is not a member of the church and is quite separate from the social and contractual system of marriage. Likewise, an Orthodox marriage or a Catholic marriage or a Protestant marriage or a Jewish marriage are all different institutions, but a amember of one of these groups that wants to preserve those distinctions but does not want to confer any legal privilege on any of them is not somehow depriving members of the other groups their right to engage in the type of marriages they wish. There is absolutely no reason that two homosexuals cannot form a voluntary contract for lifelong partnership and whatever else they would like in the agreement as individuals, or in conjunction with a religious institution that has religious significance within that group that has the exact same legal force as any other contract with a similar purpose. > It's arguably always > been social and contractual, but as society has changed and evolved, > it has only become more so. The introduction of government > involvement in marriage was just the formalization of these non- > religious aspects of marriage, and therefore, denying people who > aren't believers the right to marry would be a new and dramatic > infringement on their current rights and opportunities. Neither I nor Ron advocate anything of the sort. > Denying them > the right to marry would not at all be analogous to denying them the > right to partake of the eucharist, because the eucharist has never > acquired anything like the non-religious importance and significance > that marriage has. No one here is suggesting that churches should decide whether or not people can engage in voluntary marital contracts. The church can only decide what significance that contract has with respect to *itself.* > Thus opposition to gay marriage is by definition reactionary, as is > what I take to be Ron 's opposition to atheist marriage and > probably non-Christian marriage too. Where on earth did you get the idea that RP opposes the right fo atheists or non-Christians to marry? > I guess he'd prefer that all of > us who aren't Christians stick with civil unions, since the > propertarian platform would prevent him from opposing such contracts. If individuals or religious institutions can dub a contract a " marriage, " then the only minimum requirement for anyone to marry is that those individuals call their contract a marraige. That is the meaning of getting government out of the marriage business -- i.e., having the government equally enforce ALL voluntary contracts whether they possess religious significance or not. > > That churches oppose gay marriage (though not always) does not put > > individuals who wish to engage in it at any disadvantage, because the > > church would have no preferential legal standing. So the individuals > > could volutarily contract a marriage and call it a marriage > > themselves, and have the exact same benefit as two individuals who > > contract a marriage and have their church pronounce it a marriage. > > But in both cases, the state does not pronounce it a marriage, so > > everyone -- those who want gay marriage, and those who oppose the > > state endorsing it -- gets their way. > Just for starters, you're overlooking a large group of people -- those > who oppose anybody allowing gay people to call anything they do > together " marriage " . They oppose this within the context of the state endorsing homosexuality. If they did not see the state as endorsing homosexuality, they would be more likely to compromise with the state ceasing to endorse heterosexuality. > > > There's another problem with his position (as you present it) > > though. > > > He says all non-religious marriage should be handled as contracts > > > rather than " marriage " per se, which I suppose is a supportable > > > position... but then he says that states (and communities) shouldn't > > > be forced to recognize gay marriage if they don't want to. Well, if > > > gay marriage is just a contract, then this means that states (and > > > communities) can refuse to recognize any contracts they don't like! > > You're confusing two different positions. One is his " ideal society. " > > The other is his belief in upholding his *own* contract, which he > > makes with the government and swears to uphold the constitution when > > he is elected into office. The latter contract prohibits him, as > > congressman or president, from using legal force to impose his own > > ideal society on a state. However, this does not stop him from using > > the bully pulpit, so to speak, for advocating this position, which > > many people once exposed to it may eventually see as a reasonable > > compromise that can satisfy all parties. > This isn't merely non-responsive, it's irrelevant as far as I can see. It isn't irrelevant: if he were in a state government he'd be advocating for separation of marriage and state. As a president he might advocate this position through influence, but would not vioalte his oath to uphold the constitution to impose it on states. > Not exactly. I said that the constitutionalism response to many > criticism of Ron and questions about his positions BY HIS > SUPPORTERS has the EFFECT of a smokescreen. That's not the same as > calling it a deliberate deception. Fair enough; I misunderstood you. > More generally, my point is that Ron has an underlying political > philosophy which is not merely constitutionalism, and I'd like to > discuss and discover it. Ok. > Pure constitutionalism as a political philosophy would support > whatever's in the constitution regardless of any other considerations > and would oppose any amendment, and we already know from his own words > that RP isn't necessarily opposed to amending the constitution. That would be a strange form of constitutionalism, since the constitution explicitly provides a means of amending it, indicating it is intended to be amended. [snip] > Except (a) that's not what he said, and ( there are reasonable > limits on what should be meant by saying that. I'm sure you wouldn't > find it reasonable of a person to say " I am attracted to the idea of > slavery-free societies, but there are also other models that might > work, and we should allow both slave-based and slave-free models to > operate and it can be debated which is best " . Or rather, I'd support > anyone's right to say and believe my slave example, but you can be > double-damn sure I'd fight like the dickens to prevent him from being > elected president. Ok, but obviously there is something immoral and non-libertarian, and generally vile about slavery that does not in any way apply to public compulsory schooling. So, yes, we conclude that RP does not find private schooling immoral. > Also, saying that Ron supports public education isn't accurate, > at least not in the universally understood sense of the term. He > supports what's essentially a universal voucher system, which would > result in the destruction or near destruction of public schools in > part or all of the country. Do you have a reference? I found the opposite. He opposes vouchers and supports tax credits for parents with children in school and for people who donate to schools, including public ones: ======== http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul132.html Mr. Speaker, many of those who share my belief that the most effective education reform is to put parents back in charge of the education system have embraced government-funded voucher programs as a means to that end. I certainly sympathize with the goals of voucher proponents and I believe that States and local governments have the right, protected by the Tenth Amendment, to adopt any sort of voucher program they believe meets the needs of their communities. ... However, I have a number of concerns regarding proposals to implement a voucher plan on the Federal level. Instead of expanding the Federal control over education in the name of parental control, Congress should embrace a true agenda of parental control by passing generous education tax credits. Education tax credits empower parents to spend their own money on their children's education. Since the parents control the education dollar, the parents control their children's education. In order to provide parents with control of education, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000. The credit is available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. Education tax credits are particularly valuable to lower income parents. I have also introduced the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act (H.R. 611) that provides a tax credit of up to $3,000 for in-kind or cash donation to public, private, or home schools. The Education Improvement Tax Cut Act relies on the greatest charitable force in history to improve the education of children from low-income families: the generosity of the American people. As with parental tax credits, the Education Improvement Tax Cut Act brings true accountability to education since taxpayers will only donate to schools that provide a quality education. ========= Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 , I don't think RP even approves of state welfare. While he was a practicing physican he refused medicaid patients. The other problem with Ron is that he believes in the constitution as the fore fathers intended and they never had to deal with today's world. RP is sadly out of date on many of his position. Re: POLITICS: Ron Chris- > > He seems to have a history of voting for and proposing legislation > that he > > finds offensive... . > > This is the only compromise vote I've seen from him come up in > conversation here. Uh, no, you said that his proposed bill declaring war on Iraq was one of those through-the- looking-glass things, as were his anti-flag- burning proposals. OTOH, technically speaking you may be right if they never actually came to a vote, but Gene didn't actually make that distinction, so I think his point stands. > -- He supports banning gay marriage; actually, he supports the > government getting out of marriage. Didn't he say something to the effect that no state should be forced to recognize the gay marriage of another state? While it's true that such a statement is technically consistent with a position that the federal government has no business involving itself in the question of marriage at all, the way it's formulated pretty strongly indicates a personal objection to gay marriage. More generally, I think the " Ron believes that's up to the individual states, not the federal government " defense against a wide variety of assertions about his beliefs is in effect something of a smokescreen. I believe state-based welfare would be technically consistent with his state-power political platform, for example, but I don't think any reasonable person with even a cursory awareness of his positions could possibly argue that he isn't personally and philosophically opposed to welfare regardless of where it comes from. (Except maybe when it's called " charity " and it comes from a church, but that's arguably a whole other conversation. ) - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 On 1/9/08, Cody <lecody2001@...> wrote: > I don't think RP even approves of state welfare. While he was a practicing > physican he refused medicaid patients. The other problem with Ron is > that he believes in the constitution as the fore fathers intended and they > never had to deal with today's world. RP is sadly out of date on many of > his position. For balance, wouldn't it be fair to state that he never turned a person away, and opted to give reduced price or free care according to what the person needed? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 - > I don't think RP even approves of state welfare. While he was a > practicing physican he refused medicaid patients. The other problem > with Ron is that he believes in the constitution as the fore > fathers intended and they never had to deal with today's world. RP > is sadly out of date on many of his position. I agree heartily. I also find the general philosophy that it's OK for the states to do whatever they want (within certain broad limits, anyway) while the federal government should have very limited powers to be rather peculiar. It seems to me that a law or a principle is either objectionable or not; which tier of government it comes from is largely beside the point in this sense. A hypothetical example of the contradiction would be the idea that while the federal government shouldn't be allowed to impinge upon free speech, it would be perfectly OK for a state to ban free speech entirely within its borders. It seems to me that freedom of speech is an underlying principle that found one manifestation in the first amendment to the constitution, and that any true proponent of free speech should support it just as vigorously at the state level as at the federal level. Of course, this federal-vs-state distinction made much more sense back in the time of the founding fathers, when travel and communication were both slow and the states were almost more like different countries than different counties and the nascent country was just coming off a series of bad experiences with rule by a very remote government, but in the modern world it's absurd. If there's any argument to be made in favor of state power and against federal power at all, it surely must be based on the enormous size and inertia of the federal government, but if that's the rationale, then the states are extremely poor solutions, because they're of widely differing sizes, and some of them are so large and populous that they might as well be federal. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 On 1/9/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > I also find the general philosophy that it's OK for the states to do > whatever they want (within certain broad limits, anyway) while the > federal government should have very limited powers to be rather > peculiar. It seems to me that a law or a principle is either > objectionable or not; which tier of government it comes from is > largely beside the point in this sense. A hypothetical example of the > contradiction would be the idea that while the federal government > shouldn't be allowed to impinge upon free speech, it would be > perfectly OK for a state to ban free speech entirely within its > borders. It seems to me that freedom of speech is an underlying > principle that found one manifestation in the first amendment to the > constitution, and that any true proponent of free speech should > support it just as vigorously at the state level as at the federal > level. Yes. But, in the original design of the constitution, the first amendment was conceived of only as applying to the federal government. After the passage of the 14th amendment, court decisions began to interpret the right of " due process " as including the bill of rights. However, it was, for the most part, a non-issue because most states had rights to free speech and rights basically mirroring the bill of rights in their own constitutions. Here is an article on the subject: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html Your argument can be advanced to the point of world government. If free speech is right, then shouldn't the United States require Iran to grant its citizens free speech? If Massachusetts bans pornography and the federal government does nothing about it, should the United Nations force Massachusetts to allow it? Madison tried to get an amendment to the constitution imposing freedom of speech on the states but it had failed at the time. He also tried to get rid of slavery, and so on, as did many of the Founders, but there were compromises. Obviously, slavery is a massive injustice. But the moral question of whether it is also an injustice to set entire cities and towns on fire and wage a war that cost six hundred thousand lives, when virtually everyone in those towns was not a slave owner, is a very difficult question to answer. So there are good reasons that the Founders did not immediately seek to impose every matter of justice on states. And there is a good reason why the UN should not force free speech on Massachusetts -- because the cost of a world government and the massive tyranny it could imply is too great. It is better for justice issues to be implemented in the states, but there is a cost to implementing them outside the constitutional roles -- you lose the constitutional restrains. You lose the basic concept of the rule of law, and the responsibility to uphold an oath. And then you start losing the other freedoms, because the other side, who hates justice and equity, isn't bound by the constitution that our side just threw in the trash in the name of justice and equity. > Of course, this federal-vs-state distinction made much more sense back > in the time of the founding fathers, when travel and communication > were both slow and the states were almost more like different > countries than different counties and the nascent country was just > coming off a series of bad experiences with rule by a very remote > government, but in the modern world it's absurd. If there's any > argument to be made in favor of state power and against federal power > at all, it surely must be based on the enormous size and inertia of > the federal government, but if that's the rationale, then the states > are extremely poor solutions, because they're of widely differing > sizes, and some of them are so large and populous that they might as > well be federal. Yet it is quite obviously more decentralized to have fifty state governments acting in federation than to have one national government dominating fifty states. The states have done to municipalities the same thing the federal government has done in the states. In fact, even in the time period of the Articles of Confederation, the Massachusetts constitution was forced on the populace by essentially countin no votes as " yes, " which prompted Shays' Rebellion. We largely wound up with the federal government because the MA state propaganda machine made this rebellion out to be poor farmers who were in debt and wanted to abolish private property, when in fact most of them were not poor or in debt and the main thrust of the rebellion was against the unjust passage of the constitution and wanted a MUCH more decentralized government giving more power to the towns. Even so, some sixty years later in the 1830s, 90% of the taxes went to the town in New England. As is currently done in most New England towns, all of this money was apportioned by direct democracy. ALL poor people were taken care of with public funds by face-to-face charity, and there was no federal welfare program using the force of faceless bureacracy to form ghettos. There are some merits to decentralization. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I'm not really tracking this thread but have a concern. I like Ron a lot but wondering if I'm wrong in his position to give a lot of power to states. Is that true? If so, then I worry about states being way worse in some cases than the feds. Can you clarify? On Jan 8, 2008, at 12:42 PM, Masterjohn wrote: > However, he also opposes all federal efforts to tell states how to > regulate marriage, Parashis artpages@... http://www.flickr.com/photos/11468108@N08/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I searched the web and he may have done that, but would every doctor do the same if medicaid and medicare went out the window. I have to say I have experienced " free and reduced charge " health care and it is more limited than medicare and those administering such programs don't make it easy or nice. I have no experience with medicaid. And I have never run into a doc that offered to treat me at no charge when I was in need. Re: POLITICS: Ron On 1/9/08, Cody <lecody2001@...> wrote: > I don't think RP even approves of state welfare. While he was a practicing > physican he refused medicaid patients. The other problem with Ron is > that he believes in the constitution as the fore fathers intended and they > never had to deal with today's world. RP is sadly out of date on many of > his position. For balance, wouldn't it be fair to state that he never turned a person away, and opted to give reduced price or free care according to what the person needed? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 On 1/10/08, C. <lecody2001@...> wrote: > I searched the web and he may have done that, but would every doctor do the > same if medicaid and medicare went out the window. > I have to say I have experienced " free and reduced charge " health care and > it is more limited than medicare and those administering such programs don't > make it easy or nice. I have no experience with medicaid. And I have never > run into a doc that offered to treat me at no charge when I was in need. That's exactly the point. Because of the governmental social safety net, private charity has been eroded and reduced to a minimum. He also worked for $3 an hour (decades ago, so obviously it was a low wage but not as low as it seems) in a charity hospital that gave free care and turned no one away. Besides this, to my knowledge Ron has not introduced any legislation to restrict or reduce social secuirty/medicaid benefits in any way. He has, however, voted for the lockbox and other protections to prevent SS money from being spent on other projects, and his position is that SS needs to be propped up with funding withdrawn from overseas spending. He would like to eventually move towards an alternative system, but believes the government has an absolute responsibility to provide the benefits to the people who have paid into the system. And with the FDA, he'd like to get rid of it. Ok. But, to my knowledge, he hasn't introduced legislation to allow companies to market unsafe products without FDA approval. He has, however, introduced legislation to stop the FDA from prohibiting raw milk interstate transport, to stop the FDA from going after alternative health and nutrition companies and preventing access to scientific information on the benefits of dietary supplements, and to break the pharmaceutical monopolies by allowing people to fill out a simple form with the FDA to purchase cheaper pharmaceuticals from outside the country's borders, making the FDA approve it unless the drug is not FDA-approved or it is shown to be contaminated and therefore unsafe -- thus reducing the cost of medical care for consumers by reducing the profits of pharmaceutical companies that are inflated by their government-enforced monopolies. I think that makes a difference, whether he would transition in a way that hurts people or helps people. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Just to add my 2 cents >From the little I've heard of Ron , I heard him say that the use of force (war) to change the world is wrong. The example he cited was Abe Lincoln. Abe choose War. Meanwhile the rest of " civilized society " had already abolished slavery by peaceful means without resulting to violence. He argued that ending the injustice of slavery is a moral cause and good. Perhaps, he argued, the North should have simply bought all the slaves and set them free. The reported gasped, and started to exclaim how impossible that cost would have been, and Ron said yes, but what was the cost paid in human life, as well as the cost of the violence that continued - still to this day. Reminds of the " Peacekeeper " nuclear tipped missiles that had a range of 100 miles. No one told the troops that the nuclear warhead had a range of 200 miles. Dennis Kucinich IMO, held a similar view as to what the American Position regarding a nuclear Iran should be. While Bush, et al, sings Bomb, bomb Iran, and most everybody acknowledges the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons as very bad, Kucinich speaks to get rid of ALL nuclear. To press the Iranians (and Americans, et al,) to not even use Nuclear Energy - which is dangerous to all. Peace Ed Kasper LAc. & family www.HappyHerbalist.com ........................................ Your argument can be advanced to the point of world government. If free speech is right, then shouldn't the United States require Iran to grant its citizens free speech? If Massachusetts bans pornography and the federal government does nothing about it, should the United Nations force Massachusetts to allow it? Madison tried to get an amendment to the constitution imposing freedom of speech on the states but it had failed at the time. He also tried to get rid of slavery, and so on, as did many of the Founders, but there were compromises. Obviously, slavery is a massive injustice. But the moral question of whether it is also an injustice to set entire cities and towns on fire and wage a war that cost six hundred thousand lives, when virtually everyone in those towns was not a slave owner, is a very difficult question to answer. So there are good reasons that the Founders did not immediately seek to impose every matter of justice on states. And there is a good reason why the UN should not force free speech on Massachusetts -- because the cost of a world government and the massive tyranny it could imply is too great. It is better for justice issues to be implemented in the states, but there is a cost to implementing them outside the constitutional roles -- you lose the constitutional restrains. You lose the basic concept of the rule of law, and the responsibility to uphold an oath. And then you start losing the other freedoms, because the other side, who hates justice and equity, isn't bound by the constitution that our side just threw in the trash in the name of justice and equity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 It's a sad comment on the state of our democracy -- and especially the state of our press -- that nobody seems to know or point out that Lincoln in fact DID offer to buy all the slaves, and the south refused. - > >From the little I've heard of Ron , I heard him say that the > use of > force (war) to change the world is wrong. The example he cited > was Abe Lincoln. Abe choose War. Meanwhile the rest of > " civilized society " had already abolished slavery by peaceful means > without resulting to violence. He argued that ending the injustice > of slavery is a moral cause and good. Perhaps, he argued, the > North should have simply bought all the slaves and set them free. > The reported gasped, and started to exclaim how impossible that > cost would have been, and Ron said yes, but what was > the cost paid in human life, as well as the cost of the violence > that continued - still to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 And I forgot to add that it's an even sadder comment on Ron that he either doesn't know this or does and counts on everyone else not to know it. Or no, the state of our press and our democracy are definitely sadder, but his ignorance is also quite sad. And with that vaguely worded and waffling gibberish, I'm going to stop posting until I catch up on some sleep and slough off some of the extreme stresses of his most unpleasant day so that I can start making sense again. - > It's a sad comment on the state of our democracy -- and especially the > state of our press -- that nobody seems to know or point out that > Lincoln in fact DID offer to buy all the slaves, and the south > refused. > > - > > > >From the little I've heard of Ron , I heard him say that the > > use of > > force (war) to change the world is wrong. The example he cited > > was Abe Lincoln. Abe choose War. Meanwhile the rest of > > " civilized society " had already abolished slavery by peaceful means > > without resulting to violence. He argued that ending the injustice > > of slavery is a moral cause and good. Perhaps, he argued, the > > North should have simply bought all the slaves and set them free. > > The reported gasped, and started to exclaim how impossible that > > cost would have been, and Ron said yes, but what was > > the cost paid in human life, as well as the cost of the violence > > that continued - still to this day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 chrismasterjohn@... wrote: >ALL poor people were taken care of with public funds by face-to-face >charity, and there was no federal welfare program using the force of >faceless bureacracy to form ghettos. My Grandfather who to the best of my knowledge was from the Mohawk tribe lived his last years at a poor farm in Upstate NY. The hilltown I live in was almost totally replanted with trees that are now our State Forest in the early 1900's by a CCC camp. Agriculture and logging had clearcut the mountain. All these operations required work for the physically able not unlike the Clinton Work to Welfare Program. Isn't there always force, expectation, gratification, release from guilt or pity attached to any giving. If what our existence requires minimally for us to survive no matter the believed source were not for sale would there be charity or social class? Not without the laborers no one was born to be. Memes can be ghettos too. Wanita ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 On 1/10/08, Idol <Idol@...> wrote: > It's a sad comment on the state of our democracy -- and especially the > state of our press -- that nobody seems to know or point out that > Lincoln in fact DID offer to buy all the slaves, and the south refused. I am aware of that, and it isn't clear to me at all from the 10 seconds or so they talked about it on Meet the Press that RP either didn't know that or counted on others not to. I do not find it a compelling argument at all really. If they rejected the offer once, does that nevertheless justify burning entire towns to the ground full of people, the vast majority of whom did not own slaves? Does it justify killing all the slaves who fought in the confederacy? Does it justify killing 600,000 people, most of whom did not own slaves? So, the question becomes, did Lincoln and others at the time fight hard enough to pursue a peaceful strategy? Had they exhausted all options? That's not something to take lightly. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I have. My thyroid doctor only charged me for labs which he was charged for and saw me for free because I couldn't pay him and my condition is pretty serious. I think if doctors weren't forced to pay such high premiums on malpractice insurance because of our law suit system and if Medicaid and other such programs weren't inflating the cost of routine procedures you'd see more doctors doing free or low cost work. My OB/GYN works with Medicaid and if you can't get Medicaid he charges you what you can afford. Yes there are greedy people in this world but there are also good people in this world who could do so much more good if they weren't fettered in doing so. Dawn From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of C. Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 11:01 AM Subject: Re: POLITICS: Ron I searched the web and he may have done that, but would every doctor do the same if medicaid and medicare went out the window. I have to say I have experienced " free and reduced charge " health care and it is more limited than medicare and those administering such programs don't make it easy or nice. I have no experience with medicaid. And I have never run into a doc that offered to treat me at no charge when I was in need. Re: POLITICS: Ron On 1/9/08, Cody <lecody2001@... <mailto:lecody2001%40> > wrote: > I don't think RP even approves of state welfare. While he was a practicing > physican he refused medicaid patients. The other problem with Ron is > that he believes in the constitution as the fore fathers intended and they > never had to deal with today's world. RP is sadly out of date on many of > his position. For balance, wouldn't it be fair to state that he never turned a person away, and opted to give reduced price or free care according to what the person needed? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 > It's a sad comment on the state of our democracy -- and especially the > state of our press -- that nobody seems to know or point out that > Lincoln in fact DID offer to buy all the slaves, and the south refused. > > - Unfortunately, things were a little more complicated than that. The group known as the Radical Republicans put a fire under Lincoln's butt to really get after the South, and threatened to do in his administration if he did not. The emancipation efforts by Lincoln were considered a war measure, a way to destabilize and bring down the South. Lincoln didn't much care about freeing the slaves. The problem with Lincoln's attempts at compensated emancipation is that he always coupled it with conscription for Southern slaves during the war (i.e. slavery to the federal gov't) and deportation to Haiti, Africa or South America otherwise, including Black Americans who were already free. He thought America was suitable for only one race, the superior white race. For all the talk of Ron 's bigotry, we have Lincoln indisputably in his own words showing himself to be a bigot ***throughout*** his life. Of course he made no friends among abolitionist or black folk with this attitude. Frederick s, famous former slave and a member of the Radical Republicans said this about Lincoln's political gyrations regarding emancipation and deportation: " Illogical and unfair as Mr. Lincoln's statements are, they are nevertheless quite in keeping with his whole course from the beginning of his administration up to this day, and confirm the painful conviction that though elected as an antislavery man by Republican and Abolition voters, Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine representative of American prejudice and Negro hatred and far more concerned for the preservation of slavery, and the favor of the Border Slave States, than for any sentiment of magnanimity or principle of justice and humanity. " Lerone Jr, African American scholar and historian, a thoroughgoing liberal (i.e no friend of the confederate South), and author of _Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream_, says this about King Lincoln (I say " King Lincoln " because when it comes to the violation of civil liberties, the current administration has nothing on Abraham Lincoln): " What Lincoln proposed officially and publicly was that the United States government buy the slaves and deport them to Africa or South America. This was not a passing whim. In five major policy declarations, including two State of the Union addresses and the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, the sixteenth president of the United States publicly and officially called for the deportation of blacks. On countless other occasions, in conferences with cronies, Democratic and Republican leaders, and high government officials, he called for colonization of blacks or aggressively promoted colonization by private and official acts. " And the intro to his book says this: " [Lerone 's] basic idea of the book is simple: Everything you think you know about Lincoln and race is wrong. Every schoolchild, for example, knows the story of " the great emancipator " who freed Negroes with a stroke of the pen out of the goodness of his heart. The real Lincoln...was a conservative politician who said repeatedly that he believed in white supremacy. Not only that: He opposed the basic principle of the Emancipation Proclamation until his death and was literally forced - Count Adam Gurowski said he was literally whipped - " into the glory of having issued the Emancipation Proclamation, " which Lincoln drafted in such a way that it did not in and of itself free a single slave. " As notes, the political slickness of the Emancipation Proclamation is that Lincoln applied it only to slaves in the states controlled be the Confederacy, who obviously would ignore it, and didn't apply it to the states where he could have granted slaves immediate freedom. I have lots of quotes from Lincoln himself in my response to in our " Limbaugh versus Lincoln " exchange that you can find here: http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/72859.html But one final quote will suffice from the lips of the " Great Emancipator: " Make Negroes politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this. I will say that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. " Finally, just because emancipation compensation was initially rejected, didn't mean 650,000 people from both the North and South had to die. And it certainly did not justify Sherman's March to the Sea where he murdered tens of thousands of southern *********civilians******* - men, women, and children, in one of the most atrocious acts of criminality, with Lincoln's full support, in American history. England ended their slave trade peacefully in just six years. But Wilberforce, a member of the British Parliament and a devout Evangelical Christian, spent over 40 years of his life trying to abolish the English Slave trade. And when Parliament finally took notice, six years later it was done, three days before Wilberforce died. In March of last year, in honor of the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, the film _Amazing Grace_ was released detailing the story of Wilberforce and the Anglican Priest and former slave trader who was a great influence on his life, Newton. He was the author of one of the most famous hymns of all time, " Faith's Review and Expectation " which today we know as " Amazing Grace " -- " The individual who can do something that the world wants will, in the end, make his way regardless of race. " - Booker T. Washington (1856–1915) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 - > Unfortunately, things were a little more complicated than that. Life is generally too complicated to be reduced to one or two sentences without losing some nuance, subtlety and detail. Nothing you say, however -- not a single, solitary word, not even a letter -- contradicts the basic truth and accuracy of my statement that Lincoln offered to buy all the slaves and the south refused. You might have had something of a point if the offer had come with such grossly unacceptable strings attached (perhaps the requirement that all slave owners sell their slaves and then shoot themselves in the head, or spend twenty years in prison doing hard labor, for example) but that simply wasn't the case. > The > group known as the Radical Republicans put a fire under Lincoln's butt > to really get after the South, and threatened to do in his > administration if he did not. The emancipation efforts by Lincoln were > considered a war measure, a way to destabilize and bring down the > South. Lincoln didn't much care about freeing the slaves. This is utterly non-responsive and completely irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of whether Lincoln did in fact offer to buy the slaves and whether the south refused. His motivations are not at issue; his actions are. > The problem with Lincoln's attempts at compensated emancipation is > that he always coupled it with conscription for Southern slaves during > the war (i.e. slavery to the federal gov't) and deportation to Haiti, > Africa or South America otherwise, including Black Americans who were > already free. He thought America was suitable for only one race, the > superior white race. For all the talk of Ron 's bigotry, we have > Lincoln indisputably in his own words showing himself to be a bigot > ***throughout*** his life. Yes, many more people were bigots back then than are now; society evolves, often for the better. Jefferson too, as I recall, thought that blacks should be sent back to Africa. Does that mean that Jefferson wasn't a net-positive force and that we should all despise him now? I don't think so. Nor are past attitudes and mores relevant to the candidacy of a contemporary politician; contemporary politicians must of course be judged by contemporary standards. And once again, all of this is utterly non-responsive and completely irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of whether Lincoln did in fact offer to buy the slaves and whether the south refused. Do you really think slave owners refused to sell their slaves because they preferred to have to deal with freed slaves living in their neighborhoods instead of sending them elsewhere? The very idea is absurd beyond belief. > Of course he made no friends among abolitionist or black folk with > this attitude. Frederick s, famous former slave and a member of > the Radical Republicans said this about Lincoln's political gyrations > regarding emancipation and deportation: > > " Illogical and unfair as Mr. Lincoln's statements are, they are > nevertheless quite in keeping with his whole course from the beginning > of his administration up to this day, and confirm the painful > conviction that though elected as an antislavery man by Republican and > Abolition voters, Mr. Lincoln is quite a genuine representative of > American prejudice and Negro hatred and far more concerned for the > preservation of slavery, and the favor of the Border Slave States, > than for any sentiment of magnanimity or principle of justice and > humanity. " > > Lerone Jr, African American scholar and historian, a > thoroughgoing liberal (i.e no friend of the confederate South), and > author of _Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream_, says > this about King Lincoln (I say " King Lincoln " because when it comes to > the violation of civil liberties, the current administration has > nothing on Abraham Lincoln): > > " What Lincoln proposed officially and publicly was that the United > States government buy the slaves and deport them to Africa or South > America. This was not a passing whim. In five major policy > declarations, including two State of the Union addresses and the > preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, the sixteenth president of the > United States publicly and officially called for the deportation of > blacks. On countless other occasions, in conferences with cronies, > Democratic and Republican leaders, and high government officials, he > called for colonization of blacks or aggressively promoted > colonization by private and official acts. " > > And the intro to his book says this: > > " [Lerone 's] basic idea of the book is simple: Everything you > think you know about Lincoln and race is wrong. Every schoolchild, for > example, knows the story of " the great emancipator " who freed Negroes > with a stroke of the pen out of the goodness of his heart. The real > Lincoln...was a conservative politician who said repeatedly that he > believed in white supremacy. Not only that: He opposed the basic > principle of the Emancipation Proclamation until his death and was > literally forced - Count Adam Gurowski said he was literally whipped - > " into the glory of having issued the Emancipation Proclamation, " which > Lincoln drafted in such a way that it did not in and of itself free a > single slave. " > > As notes, the political slickness of the Emancipation > Proclamation is that Lincoln applied it only to slaves in the states > controlled be the Confederacy, who obviously would ignore it, and > didn't apply it to the states where he could have granted slaves > immediate freedom. > > I have lots of quotes from Lincoln himself in my response to in > our " Limbaugh versus Lincoln " exchange that you can find here: > http://onibasu.com/archives/nn/72859.html > > But one final quote will suffice from the lips of the " Great > Emancipator: > > " Make Negroes politically and socially our equals? My own feelings > will not admit of this. I will say that I am not nor ever have been in > favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality > of the white and black races, that I am not nor have ever been in > favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to > hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. And I will say in > addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white > and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races > living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as > much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must > be the position of superior and inferior. And I, as much as any other > man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white > race. " Did I offer a comprehensive defense of Lincoln's character? Indeed, did I offer ANY defense of Lincoln's character? No. I simply stated that he offered to buy the slaves from the south and the south refused. That is a documented fact, and this entire line of response from you is a diversion and a straw man. It is utterly non-responsive and completely irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of whether Lincoln did in fact offer to buy the slaves and whether the south refused. His attitudes towards blacks and racial equality are not at issue; his offer to buy the slaves and the south's refusal to sell them all are. > Finally, just because emancipation compensation was initially > rejected, didn't mean 650,000 people from both the North and South had > to die. And it certainly did not justify Sherman's March to the Sea > where he murdered tens of thousands of southern > *********civilians******* - men, women, and children, in one of the > most atrocious acts of criminality, with Lincoln's full support, in > American history. Once again, how is this relevant? Did I defend the civil war? Did I say it was necessary? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but that's an entirely different conversation. What I actually said is that the assertion that the war was avoidable specifically because Lincoln could have offered to buy all the slaves and didn't is false, because Lincoln did in fact offer to buy all the slaves and the south refused. This is a fact. All the rest is irrelevant. (Not that I mean to suggest that you're anything but welcome to broach these topics; I'm only pointing out that your attempt to rebut my statement is an utter and complete failure.) > England ended their slave trade peacefully in just six years. But > Wilberforce, a member of the British Parliament and a devout > Evangelical Christian, spent over 40 years of his life trying to > abolish the English Slave trade. And when Parliament finally took > notice, six years later it was done, three days before Wilberforce > died. This too isn't relevant to the questions of whether Lincoln did in fact offer to buy all the slaves and whether the south did in fact refuse, the answers to both of which being well-documented yeses. More generally, though, it's also a very poor analogy, because England had long since banned slavery inside its own borders, and Wilberforce was fighting to stop the OFFSHORE TRADE in slaves. Obviously that's much more likely to be a peaceful effort with a peaceful resolution than the attempt to take away slaves from people who personally own and use them. > In March of last year, in honor of the 200th anniversary of the > abolition of the slave trade in the British Empire, the film _Amazing > Grace_ was released detailing the story of Wilberforce and the > Anglican Priest and former slave trader who was a great influence on > his life, Newton. He was the author of one of the most famous > hymns of all time, " Faith's Review and Expectation " which today we > know as " Amazing Grace " And good for Wilberforce -- he was obviously a good man who did a good thing -- but neither he nor Apted's film have anything whatsoever to do with the point under discussion. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 It is not medicaid and medicare that inflate the cost of Medical Care.. It regular for profit insurance that does that. Say the true cost of an x ray is 45.00. Since for profit Insurance wants to make lots of money they want a deal. In the beginning of this is was not much of a big deal to give them a discount on it. But greed begets more greed and the insurance comp. put more pressure on the providers to lower the price even more. What left for the provider to do but to raise their prices to give them negotiating room and maybe just come out on top. Now a 45.00 xray is 90.00. But the only ones that have to pay that are those with out access to insurance or indigent care programs like medicaid....In other words our middle class get to pay an inflated price for medical care, the cost of private health insurance goes up. And I have to tell you, I am on medicare and they pay sufficiently. And isn't that better than the docs not being reimbursed anything???? And yes malpractice insurance is high, but I have to tell you, I am on a number of groups that deal with various health issues and there are more horror stories about incompentent medical care then there are praises. Most people think themselves lucky if they find a doc that will listen to them and work with them. Because of that and my own experiences I am on a number of groups that deal with food as medicine, trying to learn to eat better foods hoping that will allow me to get off some of these meds. I to have a thyroid disorder so I can't see ever getting of that med, but you can never tell... Btw, not sure why the group is so focused on Ron , he hasn't a chance of winning. If you want raw dairy available you may just have to find a champion for your cause because even if he should become President, there is still congress and the courts and possibly many other agencies to deal with. Might have to buy a cow. Free will and free choices is a bit of an illusion. We do make choices but they are generally constrained by our biology via our environment. I mean you can chose between A and B if they are within your choice parameters, but the chances of chosing C and D if they lie outside your parameters [lets just call it your comfort zone] is slim. Re: POLITICS: Ron On 1/9/08, Cody <lecody2001@... <mailto:lecody2001%40> > wrote: > I don't think RP even approves of state welfare. While he was a practicing > physican he refused medicaid patients. The other problem with Ron is > that he believes in the constitution as the fore fathers intended and they > never had to deal with today's world. RP is sadly out of date on many of > his position. For balance, wouldn't it be fair to state that he never turned a person away, and opted to give reduced price or free care according to what the person needed? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 On 1/11/08, Pendraig Siberians <blaidd2@...> wrote: > I think if doctors weren't forced to pay such high premiums on malpractice > insurance because of our law suit system Ron has proposed legalizing no-fault negative-outcomes insurance, where the doctor and patient both contribute, and it pays out without a finding of fault. This way, there is no court battle over who is at fault and no trial lawyers, and the cost of the insurance would be much lower. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 On 1/11/08, C. <lecody2001@...> wrote: > It is not medicaid and medicare that inflate the cost of Medical Care.. It > regular for profit insurance that does that. I agree with you, but unfortunately the current system of for-profit insurance was forced on us by the federal government in the HMO Act of 1973, and not by the free market. > Say the true cost of an x ray > is 45.00. Since for profit Insurance wants to make lots of money they want > a deal. In the beginning of this is was not much of a big deal to give them > a discount on it. But greed begets more greed and the insurance comp. put > more pressure on the providers to lower the price even more. What left for > the provider to do but to raise their prices to give them negotiating room > and maybe just come out on top. Now a 45.00 xray is 90.00. But the only > ones that have to pay that are those with out access to insurance or > indigent care programs like medicaid....In other words our middle class get > to pay an inflated price for medical care, the cost of private health > insurance goes up. And I have to tell you, I am on medicare and they pay > sufficiently. And isn't that better than the docs not being reimbursed > anything???? Before the government got involved, my understanding is that it was much more common to have catastrophic health insurance and pay out-of-pocket for routine procedures, and that the cost of routine procedures was much cheaper when the middle man was cut out. > And yes malpractice insurance is high, but I have to tell you, I am on a > number of groups that deal with various health issues and there are more > horror stories about incompentent medical care then there are praises. But it doesn't benefit the patient to transfer wealth from the medical system to the trial lawyers. Unfortunately, the government does not allow no-fault insurance betweent he doctor and patient, so the cost of the insurance is inflated, which in turn inflates the medical costs. > Most > people think themselves lucky if they find a doc that will listen to them > and work with them. Because of that and my own experiences I am on a number > of groups that deal with food as medicine, trying to learn to eat better > foods hoping that will allow me to get off some of these meds. I to have a > thyroid disorder so I can't see ever getting of that med, but you can never > tell... Unfortunately, the government can easily keep up with inflation by greater subsidies, and insurance companies with their ties to financial firms also get hurt less by inflation and due to regulations consumers to not have much clout to reject health insurance plans their employers provide anyway. Meanwhile, alternative methods of obtaining and maintaining health that you described are mostly paid for out-of-pocket, and the Federal Reserve's practice of printing money out of thin air makes the value of that money ever declining -- which Ron would also put a stop to. > Btw, not sure why the group is so focused on Ron , he hasn't a chance of > winning. If you want raw dairy available you may just have to find a > champion for your cause because even if he should become President, there is > still congress and the courts and possibly many other agencies to deal with. > Might have to buy a cow. There is no Congress or courts to deal with at all, because the federal policy on raw milk is entirely dealt with between executive order and FDA policy. The FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a cabinet office subject to the president. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 > wrote: > >> > Yes, many more people were bigots back then than are now; society >> > evolves, often for the better. Jefferson too, as I recall, thought >> > that blacks should be sent back to Africa. Does that mean that >> > Jefferson wasn't a net-positive force and that we should all despise >> > him now? I don't think so. Nor are past attitudes and mores relevant >> > to the candidacy of a contemporary politician; contemporary >> > politicians must of course be judged by contemporary standards. And >> > once again, all of this is utterly non-responsive and completely >> > irrelevant. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions of >> > whether Lincoln did in fact offer to buy the slaves and whether the >> > south refused. Do you really think slave owners refused to sell their >> > slaves because they preferred to have to deal with freed slaves living >> > in their neighborhoods instead of sending them elsewhere? The very >> > idea is absurd beyond belief. > While I tend to disagree with virtually everything that says, and I also agree with some of the purely logical points you make in this post about context, I do appreciate (in general) attempts by people to break through the veil of propaganda that exists in this country  in this case about one of our great Œheroes¹. About Œcontemporary standards¹ - I think that there is a tendency to both assign them too much weight, and to minimize the degree to which alternative ideas were available and popular. If Œhonest Abe¹ was unable to assimilate the ideas of the abolitioniists, the phrase Œall men are created equal¹, and other notions that have been available to people for quite some time before his era, then that is to his detriment. That he was so articulate, and downright nasty in his assessment of black people is further reason to condemn him. If we play the contemporary standards game, we might say that if he lived today, he¹d just be more circumspect in his statements  but the real Abe Lincoln was nothing like the one we learn about in Œschool¹, and he was a quite despicable racist, even considering the standards of his day. The phrase Œnet positive¹ is an empty one in this context...you can assess his life however you want  that doesn¹t affect whether his views were quite hateful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 Gene- > I do appreciate (in general) attempts by people to break > through the veil of propaganda that exists in this country – in this > case > about one of our great ‘heroes’. I agree, and I wasn't objecting on substantive grounds to any of 's points about Lincoln except as they specifically related to (a) the fact that he offered to buy the slaves from the south and the south refused, and ( the fact that Ron either mistakenly or mendaciously suggested that he didn't. > About ‘contemporary standards’ - I think that there is a tendency to > both > assign them too much weight, and to minimize the degree to which > alternative > ideas were available and popular. If ‘honest Abe’ was unable to > assimilate > the ideas of the abolitioniists, the phrase ‘all men are created > equal’, and > other notions that have been available to people for quite some time > before > his era, then that is to his detriment. That he was so articulate, and > downright nasty in his assessment of black people is further reason to > condemn him. If we play the contemporary standards game, we might > say that > if he lived today, he’d just be more circumspect in his statements – > but the > real Abe Lincoln was nothing like the one we learn about in > ‘school’, and he > was a quite despicable racist, even considering the standards of his > day. > The phrase ‘net positive’ is an empty one in this context...you can > assess > his life however you want – that doesn’t affect whether his views > were quite > hateful. I don't think it's empty or pointless to consider whether anyone or anything at a given time was a net positive. The Revolutionary War was, I think, unquestionably a net positive, for example, and yet it failed to accord slaves freedom or women the right to vote. It was imperfect, but on balance it was nonetheless dramatically progressive. Lincoln and the Civil War are much more complicated, but I didn't venture to suggest whether he was a net positive or a net negative; I don't actually know the answer to that, though I don't think emancipation would have been an easy or peaceful process no matter what, and I doubt secession would have worked out well for anyone. Also, I stand by my point about contemporary standards; I judge Ron by current standards, not by historical ones. The fact that Lincoln was a racist in no way bears on Ron 's character or candidacy. The fact that Jefferson wanted to deport all blacks must be weighed in any measurement of Jefferson, but it too in no way bears on any current politician's candidacy, and despite his racism, I think it's clear that on balance, Jefferson was a profoundly positive and progressive force. Also, I learned at least a little in school about Lincoln's racism, and I was certainly taught that the emancipation proclamation was strictly a strategic move to prevent Britain from entering the war on the side of the south. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.