Re: POLITICS: Ron

[Guest guest]

" 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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

,

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. )

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

-

> 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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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/

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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)

[Guest guest]

-

> 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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

> 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.

[Guest guest]

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.

-