Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Pressured by progressive activists who objected to the tepid language in a draft document prepared by the Barack Obama campaign, the Democratic platform-writing committee reworked the party's official agenda Saturday to include a clear commitment "that every American man, woman and child be guaranteed to have affordable, comprehensive health care."
The official draft, which was adopted at the platform committee's gathering in Pittsburgh, will now be submitted to the Democratic National Convention for approval.
The platform is likely to adopted without a fight at the Denver convention where Illinois Senator Barack Obama will be nominated for president.
What is significant about the platform committee's endorsement of language calling for guaranteed health care for all is that the statement goes a good deal further than the Obama campaign would have preferred.
Obama's camp, which dominates but does not entirely control the platform-writing process, wanted to avoid talk of guarantees. It also wanted language that was friendlier to the insurance industry. Progressive Democrats for America, working in conjunction with a number of Pennsylvania organizations and Democratic leaders that support single-payer health care, pushed for a deeper commitment to health-care reform.
PDA collected signatures from almost 500 convention delegates including backers of Obama and his chief rival for the nomination, New York Senator Hillary Clinton urging the platform committee to commit the party to:
* "Guarantee accessible health care for all."
* "Create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventive health care for all."
* "Allow freedom of choice of physician, hospital, and other health care providers."
* "Eliminate financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need."
* "Allow physicians, nurses and other licenced health care providers to make health care decisions based on what is best for the health of the patient."
PDA brought a key Obama backer, House Judiciary Committee chair John Conyers, D-Michigan, along with Donna Smith, a "star" of the Michael Moore documentary "SiCKO," to Pittsburgh to appear with Pennsylvania single-payer activists in Pittsburgh to promote the package.
Bob Remer, a Clinton delegate from Chicago who is a member of the platform committee, introduced the PDA language as a proposed amendment Saturday.
The activists did not get all the language they wanted, and they certainly did not get the commitment to single-payer that Democrats should be campaigning on six decades after Harry Truman ran and won on a promise to develop a national health-care program. But PDA and its allies did force the Obama camp into negotiations that resulted in the addition of stronger language to the official document.
Also added, at the behest of Clinton backers, was a statement that, "There are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of universal coverage."
Conyers, the sponsor of HR 676, the United States National Health Insurance Act, called the language shift "huge."
Tim Carpenter, the national director of PDA, said, "We were happy to discover the level of support among committee members for guaranteed health care and are pleased that a compromise was reached, but we won't be satisfied until HR 676 is passed by Congress."
Both Conyers and Carpenter are right.
The real work within the Democratic party and in Congress remains unfinished.
But the strengthening of the platform language is significant. It shows that the Obama campaign, which is often too rigid for its own good, is willing to listen to the left and even to bend a bit. That's the good news from the fight over a platform that is, by and large, a tepid document.
While the 51-page draft platform document is somewhat more poetic than the uninspired Democratic document of four years ago, it is no more of a fighting manifesto.
But, thanks to PDA, Conyers and their allies, grassroots Democrats will be able to say that their party is committed to health care for all.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Tell me how that is possible without possessing your health LVL. "Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". If general welfare does not include health, then what exactly does it entail LVL? Of course you cherry pick the Bible, so picking and choosing what's more important in our very founding documents isn't really above you either.
Posted by yutsano at 08/10/2008 @ 12:52am
Posted by yutsano at 08/10/2008 @ 12:52am
More creative 'living' constitutional interpretation from the left, I believe. It means, apparently, whatever you want it to believe. If 'general welfare' means guaranteed free healthcare, does it not also mean guaranteed income? If not, why not? How can you be happy if you're poor?
You people with your situational ethics will be the death of this country at some point.
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 01:03am
I am so thrilled that you folks at the Nation have such principled opposition to wars started on the basis of naked Imperialist aggression, Indiscriminate bombing and killing of civilians, and Designs on another nation's energy resources. I'm sure I can count on you folks to strenuously oppose Russia's invasion of Georgia.
Not. Maybe if we put an American flag on Putin's troops. Not a chance otherwise.
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 01:11am
Pursuit of happiness Ponti, but nice try to put words into my mouth. You also totally duck the question: what does that line mean? Why did the Founding Fathers choose those words and not something else or just omit it? Pure euphony? These were some very good brains that founded this nation, up to and including the fact that the national situation would change and that things would be in the future very different from their times. If you consider the fact that the Constitution has only needed amended 26 times it has definitely served us well. So if we have not sought to change that section, does it not behoove us to interpret it? And if so, why can it not be interpreted to include some system of national health care?
Posted by yutsano at 08/10/2008 @ 01:24am
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 01:11am
Uh, PONTI, when "TN" DOES come out criticizing the war in Georgia, which they will...you'll go silent, not praise them.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/10/2008 @ 07:38am
"Life was never intended to be perfectly fair. Get over it libs." Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/10/2008 @ 12:11am
Really? Truisms such as this have no place in policy debate. Give me any issue and I can use that platitude to negate any position. I would like to see a politician run on that line.
Posted by truthNjoyr at 08/10/2008 @ 09:31am
* "Guarantee accessible health care for all."
* "Create a single standard of high quality, comprehensive, and preventive health care for all."
* "Allow freedom of choice of physician, hospital, and other health care providers."
* "Eliminate financial barriers that prevent families and individuals from obtaining the medically necessary care they need."
* "Allow physicians, nurses and other licenced health care providers to make health care decisions based on what is best for the health of the patient."
This typically illustrates that politicians will say what people want to hear even though it be beyond the realm of possibility.
We need a plan based in reality. Why tout a plan or make promises you know are going to be broken?
Posted by RAGGEDSTEP at 08/10/2008 @ 09:34am
Posted by yutsano at 08/10/2008 @ 01:24am
Actually, it is YOU who are ducking the question. If we try reductio ad absurdum on your proposition that the 'General Welfare' clause of (your) 'living' Constitution means that the government should provide everyone with free healthcare, what can we RULE OUT that the government is responsible for? I can make an argument that we should all be guaranteed an income, whether we work or not, or pretty much anything else our hearts desire, because, after all, that all falls under your very flexible rubric of 'general welfare'. The problem with your reasoning is, your interpretations are so flexible that they rob the Constitution of all meaning.
If you had even a minimal understanding of the intent and context of a clause such as 'general welfare', you would know that it was meant to cover things like the National Road, the C&O Canal, and other public works projects. The founders would have laughed in your face if you told them that it meant we should all be wards of the State, which is the logical endpoint of YOUR reasoning.
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 09:43am
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/10/2008 @ 07:38am
"Uh, PONTI, when "TN" DOES come out criticizing the war in Georgia, which they will...you'll go silent, not praise them."
Projecting your overweening partisanship on me again, are you? I have already given you a laundry list of Bill Clinton's policies that I supported, even though I never voted for him. In contrast, I can't think of a single knee-jerk liberal position you have not rejected on principled grounds, even as you on many occasions seem to exhibit an unusual ability among leftists to actually think for yourself.
As a side note, I have praised the Nation on a number of occasions for leaving their discussion boards open to dissenting points of view. It's one of the reasons why I post here, I like integrity, no matter where it comes from.
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 09:50am
"Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
amen!
If Dr King actually believed that statment, it demonstrates that he was just as capable as anyone of making profound mistakes in judgment.
whuh?!?.....
Healthcare is not a right.
some places it is. jesus' heart is one of them.
And inequality in the provision of that service is not an injustice.
it is if you're dying because YOU'VE BEEN DENIED.
Life was never intended to be perfectly fair.
of course not. however, a great part of human success has come about because sociological evolution has enabled us to level the playing field for many. too bad you don't want to help.
Get over it libs.
jesus doesn't like your attitude.
If the Dems do put this in the platform,
fat chance.
it will definitely be a plus for the McCain campaign.
well, they need <i>something</i>
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/10/2008 @ 12:11am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 11:08am
free healthcare
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 01:03am
a miracle.
kinda like the free warfare you've been having.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 11:10am
lvliberty-Jesus healed the poor and rich equally and did not tell poor people that he would not heal them because life isn't fair and that they have no right to being healed..
Posted by i'm nobody at 08/10/2008 @ 11:30am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 11:10am
A miracle for those, like you, who get gratis from the government, health care you don't pay for.
For the rest of us who pay for their own healthcare as well as yours? Not so miraculous.
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 11:54am
We really should not respond to provocation just because someone camps out on this site to post first, but...
The problem I have with lvliberty1's "Life was never intended to be perfectly fair" is its passive voice.
Who exactly is speaking, with what authority? "According to me, life was never intended to be fair" -- Random, anonymous web reactionary.
"Life isn't intended to be fair" -- obscure conservative 18th century British philosopher.
"I intend life to be unfair" -- Jesus Christ, as interpreted through some dubious conservative tradition.
I intend life to be unfair" -- Nature, personified, though some dubious conservative tradition.
"Life ain't intended to be fair" -- folksy home spun wisdom, proved by use of the vernacular.
And not PERFECTLY fair? So, some parts are intended to be somewhat fair? And perhaps, healthcare could be (intended to be) fairer, without being perfectly fair?
Posted by justvisiting at 08/10/2008 @ 12:52pm
Paying shareholders in a for profit health care system is holy to the right wing. What happened to the non-profit community hospital concept that permitted "losses" in financial undertakings? Competing hospitals? Advertising? Stupid.
Posted by Sorelish at 08/10/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/10/2008 @ 11:54am
what do you mean, i don't pay for it?
i don't use it. in fact, i use very little of the infrastructure so kindly "paid for" by the generous class.
mr. planti, i pay my taxes, thank you very much.
i'm kinda pissed about viceroy harper's spending decisions,
but i pay my taxes.
free? quit with the b.s.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 2:11pm
The problem I have with lvliberty1's "Life was never intended to be perfectly fair" is its passive voice.
Posted by justvisiting at 08/10/2008 @ 12:52pm
actually, i think he was using the passive aggressive tense.
lol.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/10/2008 @ 2:17pm
actually,
i'm all in favour of capitalism. hell, that's what I do!
i just want to see the environment and people not screwed around.
i bet you guys can agree that it's a good think arsenic emissions are regulated. right? and how about child labour laws? good or bad?
and i think if a problem is of large enough scope, the intelligent thing is to pool public resources to fix it. (ever use an interstate highway? what about air traffic control?)
just like you guys do. except you guys like to do it with guns. (and borrow from the commies. i am definitely against debt. and fiat money.)
i think setting a good example is better than squishing.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 12:42am
i don't really care who does it.
i want the befouling of the planet to end.
i want the exploitation of my brothers and sisters to end.
don't you?
the "market" ain't gonna do that.
the "market" ain't got a heart.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 12:59am
In other words, you cannot see the future by relying upon today as a standard.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/11/2008 @ 01:15am
i'm talking about neither the past nor the future.
i'm talking about now.
should dioxin be regulated?
yes or no?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 01:27am
25-30 years from now, technology will have brought so many changes that life will bear little similarities to today.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/11/2008 @ 01:15am
great.
but will all those technologies be safe?
are you ready to breath in a few nanotubes?
shouldn't we the people have the right to decide, hopefully based on the best available scientific evidence, what paths we choose on this planet we are made from?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 01:35am
Carbon nanotubes have distinctive characteristics, but their needle-like fibre shape has been compared to asbestos, raising concerns that widespread use of carbon nanotubes may lead to mesothelioma, cancer of the lining of the lungs caused by exposure to asbestos. Here we show that exposing the mesothelial lining of the body cavity of mice, as a surrogate for the mesothelial lining of the chest cavity, to long multiwalled carbon nanotubes results in asbestos-like, length-dependent, pathogenic behaviour. This includes inflammation and the formation of lesions known as granulomas. This is of considerable importance, because research and business communities continue to invest heavily in carbon nanotubes for a wide range of products under the assumption that they are no more hazardous than graphite. Our results suggest the need for further research and great caution before introducing such products into the market if long-term harm is to be avoided.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 02:17am
Invisibility cloak on the horizon, scientists say
Posted by Steven Musil
Scientists say they are a step closer to developing materials that will render people and other objects invisible.
Researchers say they can redirect light around three-dimensional objects using metamaterials--artificially engineered structures created at a nano scale that contain optical properties not found in nature, according to an Associated Press report.
<<<>>>
and breathe in, and out......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 02:20am
I'm going to eat fast food, I'm going to smoke, I'm going to drink excessively, I'm going to use drugs, I'm going to engage in high-risk behavior,I'm NOT going to exercise; and when I get sick -- I'm going to demand that tax payers pay for my health care.
Posted by keystone at 08/11/2008 @ 02:55am
Keystone: I was diagnosed with Type I Diabetes at the age of 5. I keep myself in top physical shape. And it is the biggest shame in the world how our health care system extorts money from me and other people like me.
I sincerely hope that you never have to experience this first hand.
My job takes me all over the world. I get better healthcare anywhere in Europe, Japan, Canada, and even in Mexico than I do here in the states, even with insurance. Anecdote: I was in Japan and my insulin bottles were crushed in an equipment accident. I had to go to the emergency room to get more, because I will die without it. They did a full battery or blood tests and turned it around in 30 minutes (2 months prior I had paid $1000 here in the states for the same tests because I was not in my HMO coverage range, and it took 2 weeks for results). I was seen by two doctors and three nurses, and when I left they sent me on my way with two bottles of fast acting insulin and two bottles of slow acting insulin - each would cost me $40 in the states even with insurance.
It cost me $160. Total. In the emergency room.
It's not that life has to be fair. But it is immoral to extort the kind of money that American Insurers do from people who have no choice, when there are viable alternatives working elsewhere.
It's a economy of scale. We can do things together that no single person can, no matter how wealthy. Imagine if every tax payer could dump their insurance premium, and every employer could dump their insurance premium, and every taxpayer could then put some chunk into a single payer system? Insurance companies would suffer, but they reap what they sow. Life isn't fair.
I wish you all good health, and little need for health insurance, if you have it.
Posted by JohnPointer at 08/11/2008 @ 03:51am
Posted by keystone at 08/11/2008 @ 02:55am
"I'm going to eat fast food, I'm going to smoke, I'm going to drink excessively, I'm going to use drugs, I'm going to engage in high-risk behavior,I'm NOT going to exercise; and when I get sick -- I'm going to demand that tax payers pay for my health care."
That's the idea. And we haven't even started in on the malingering folks (we all know them) for whom even imaginary illnesses become a disability. And now, society at large is in line to pay for these, too, as well as the self-subjected illnesses like gross obesity.
And when the costs become excessive, the government will either go bankrupt, or they will have a direct say in how people eat, smoke, and exercise. We've already seen the beginnings of that with the anti-smoking crusade. We care, therefore we have a right to tell you what to do. (and the common thread amongst all lefty programs is: more control over people's lives, less liberty, which is and always has been the point).
It's funny how the left's concern for budget deficits disappears when it comes to proposing vast increases in government expenditures, as with 'free health care for all'.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:18am
We've already got huge fiscal problems with the last three Democratic cure-all programs, with multi-trillion dollar bills due the next generation, who will get the shaft when the money runs out. And people like Nichols, et al, are proposing trillions more in expenditures for 'free' health care. Sheesh.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:21am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/11/2008 @ 08:27am
Then, any day now, Senator McCain will be going out telling Americans that "things are getting better, never was a real recession anyway, don't change horses in mid-stream just as prosperity is right around the corner"....right?
or will he keep "lying" and saying (as he has) that it's a recession?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 09:08am
We've already got huge fiscal problems with the last three Democratic cure-all programs, with multi-trillion dollar bills due the next generation, who will get the shaft when the money runs out.-----Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:21am
So, PONTI, what specifically are those "three Democratic cure-alls" and how much would you cut them?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 09:10am
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/11/2008 @ 09:22am
So what's your point, Darin? That we shouldn't be "that" concerned about the police shooting people and it being 90% minority, because "they're shooting themselves more"???
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 10:21am
I'm going to eat fast food, I'm going to smoke, I'm going to drink excessively, I'm going to use drugs, I'm going to engage in high-risk behavior,I'm NOT going to exercise; and when I get sick -- I'm going to demand that tax payers pay for my health care.
Posted by keystone at 08/11/2008 @ 02:55am
well, congratulations.
sure, some people live this way and become a burden on the state.
but why would you want to live that way? it doesn't feel good.
who wants to get sick?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:28pm
We've already seen the beginnings of that with the anti-smoking crusade. We care, therefore we have a right to tell you what to do.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:18am
so, if a 6 year old wants a pack of camels, Ώthat's o.k.?
so why can't people by heroin laced smokes?
isn't the government interfering with their freedom?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
(and the common thread amongst all lefty programs is: more control over people's lives, less liberty, which is and always has been the point).
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:18am
cool!
i'm gonna set up my plutonium smelter next to your house!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:31pm
We care, therefore we have a right to tell you what to do.----Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:18am
Again, PONTI....the "pro-lifers" all just "winning hearts and minds" or are there a few who might want to make it illegal? (i.e. "tell you what to do")
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
We've already got huge fiscal problems with the last three Democratic cure-all programs, with multi-trillion dollar bills due the next generation, who will get the shaft when the money runs out. And people like Nichols, et al, are proposing trillions more in expenditures for 'free' health care. Sheesh.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 07:21am
debt tripled under the reagan administration.
and doubled under bush.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/11/2008
artificially low fed rate......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:34pm
blacks kill.
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/11/2008
and so?
instead of wallowing in others misfortunes perhaps you should try to do something about it.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:38pm
i'm gonna set up my plutonium smelter next to your house!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:31pm
Hey, where can I get one of those?
I'm getting bored with M-80s and black cats.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/11/2008 @ 3:00pm
You know, I seem to remember the left trashing HIllary for working on national health care back in the day. Hillary truly embraced the John Edwards platform, ran on it SUCCESSFULLY until Obama was SELECTED as candidate. She should be veep at least.
Posted by TD101 at 08/11/2008 @ 3:24pm
Of course it sounds great and compassionate that everyone should have free healthcare.
But in the real world of nothing free, soon the control would start. A government providing health care will begin mandating personal behavior.
One ironic unintended consequence of "free" universal healthcare? High risk sexual behavior (i.e. male homosexuality) made illegal by the government. Another might be use of tobacco products becoming a felony offense. Oh, and say goodbye to alcohol.
Next? Maybe forced abortions, limited family sizes. Oh and eventually the State determining who lives and dies.
Haha, sure, that could never happen, right?
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2008 @ 4:04pm
This is my problem with the right who use the we must stick to the Constitution word for word and there is no other way. Just like the Bible the Constitution was written a long time ago. They could not predict what the future was going to be. They couldn't predict what this nation would turn into. They interpreted things according to their time. Luckily they did a good job trying to foresee but the changing future requires an adapting of tradition to the times. Things in the Constitution will change. You guys seem to be all for Bush throwing away your right to privacy but when someone mentions health care for all you are all of a sudden saying the Constitution doesn't say that!
Please point me to where the Founders said no government programs LVL. You often say this but I have searched for quotes and haven't found them. Martial Law isn't mentioned in the Constitution but the right to privacy is. Does that mean that Bush should not be allowed to tap phone without a warrant, because the Constitution doesn't directly say that? See the right likes to interpret the Constitution just as much as the left. You guys just like to think that you don't. You cherry pick the Constitution like people cherry pick the Bible. You find what you want ignoring everything around it but you will quickly drop everything you said about it when it comes to another point. So you find me where it says Bush is allowed to search peoples homes without a warrant and tap peoples phones without a court order.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/11/2008 @ 4:44pm
I'm getting bored with M-80s and black cats. Posted by Benchrest at 08/11/2008 @ 3:00pm
Man I remember those when I lived in Memphis. They are illegal in LA.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/11/2008 @ 4:46pm
Face it my friends on the right. You try to shield yourself behind the Constitution but you cherry pick it just as much as the left. You need to look at this with a vision of the future in mind. If the disparity in income continues to grow and it becomes that 1% of this country controls 90% of it's money then healthcare will never be affordable for someone that is in the bottom 60%. The skyrocketing cost of healthcare should be enough to concern anyone. The current system does not work. As much as people like LVL and ponti like to put their fingers in their ears and close their eyes when you mention a problem with a program in this country we need to acknowledge that right now healthcare does not work. Ignoring it is going to push the death toll in this country very high again. Diseases that should have been preventable will be on the rise. We need to fix this sooner rather than wait to till the problem is rampant later.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/11/2008 @ 4:52pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/11/2008 @ 4:46pm
There used to be these things called cherry bombs. They were wicked.
But, alas, kids losing fingers on a consistent basis required government intervention and they were outlawed.
Posted by Benchrest at 08/11/2008 @ 4:54pm
Posted by Benchrest at 08/11/2008 @ 4:54pm
We used to play with Cherry Bombs. We learned how to make them but that takes time and energy and when you want to blow something up you want to blow it up now! Not five minutes from now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/11/2008 @ 5:58pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
"Again, PONTI....the "pro-lifers" all just "winning hearts and minds" or are there a few who might want to make it illegal? (i.e. "tell you what to do")"
That's obviously a false parallel, MASK. Pro-lifers don't want to outlaw abortion because they think they know better how to run other peoples' lives. They want to outlaw abortion because they think it's murder, plain and simple. The fact that this difference eludes you speaks volumes about you.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 6:49pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
"and doubled under bush."
And you answer to that it is to triple it under Obama? Hello? Is there anybody in there?
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 6:51pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
"so, if a 6 year old wants a pack of camels, Ώthat's o.k.?"
So, you think all people are on the level of children, just waitng for the State to act in the role of parent?
"so why can't people by heroin laced smokes? isn't the government interfering with their freedom?"
So, your logic is that because drugs are illegal, then that makes everything else (cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, fritos) fair game for control by you and your ilk? Thank you for demonstrating the unfitness of your judgement, which is perhaps the best argument against giving people with your inclinations control of other peoples' lives and habits.
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 6:55pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 1:32pm
"Again, PONTI....the "pro-lifers" all just "winning hearts and minds" or are there a few who might want to make it illegal? (i.e. "tell you what to do")"
And I'll point out, again, MASK, the parallels between the abolitionist movement prior to the Civil War and the pro-life movement of today. Abolitionists believed, based on religious teachings, that all men are equal and that slavery was evil because one man should never own another. Slaveowners, many of them quite religious themselves, countered that their practices did not go against their religion because blacks were not men. Some thought that they were equal to 3/5 of a man. Pretty arbitrary, huh?
In a similar manner, today pro-life people argue that the killing of an unborn child is murder, based on their faith, just as religious people in the North believed slavery was illegal 175 years ago. On the other sied, pro-choice people argue that abortion is okay, even though it definitely kills a being with a beating heart, because they have redefined a fetus, conveniently, as not being a human being. Oh, and coincidentally, a fetus becomes a human being 90 days after conception, or maybe sometime thereafter, nobody's really sure. Seem a little arbitrary to you? Sound a little familiar?
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 7:04pm
"Nothing needs reforming so much as other peoples' habits"
FROSTY ZOOM
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 7:05pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:31pm
"i'm gonna set up my plutonium smelter next to your house!"
FROSTY's world: cigarettes = plutonium smelter
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 7:08pm
Cc, The Constitution was designed to protect us against ourselves. The Framers understood that human nature is timeless and unchanging. And they created an amazing document that checked and balanced that truth.
The wisdom contained in the COTUS has been under siege since the moment of its inception. The drive to make it into a "living document" following "contemporary wisdom" will never cease. You are right to contend that both the right and left cherry-pick the document to suit their needs...
But your contentention that the COTUS is out of date is wrong. In my opinion, the COTUS has never been more relevant or revealing of man's unending desire to rule over the liberty of others.
Posted by freiheit1 at 08/11/2008 @ 7:39pm
And you answer to that it is to triple it under Obama? Hello? Is there anybody in there?
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 6:51pm
The shortfalls Obama would produce don't approach the size of the deficits John McCain's budget threatens to bring. The Republican candidate's tax cuts alone would increase the debt by $5 trillion by 2018, compared with $3.4 trillion for Obama, says the Tax Policy Center, another nonpartisan group.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:10pm
http://www.bloom
berg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=anGhCq5adqhU&refer=home
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:10pm
"so, if a 6 year old wants a pack of camels, Ώthat's o.k.?"
So, you think all people are on the level of children, just waitng for the State to act in the role of parent?
not at all. just showing you an effective use of regulation.
"so why can't people by heroin laced smokes? isn't the government interfering with their freedom?"
So, your logic is that because drugs are illegal, then that makes everything else (cigarettes, alcohol, coffee, fritos) fair game for control by you and your ilk? Thank you for demonstrating the unfitness of your judgement, which is perhaps the best argument against giving people with your inclinations control of other peoples' lives and habits.
tobacco is a drug that kills millions. so is alcohol. who gets to decide what is illegal or not? aren't those regulations? do you want to remove them, too?
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 6:55pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:13pm
"Nothing needs reforming so much as other peoples' habits"
FROSTY ZOOM
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 7:05pm
perhaps your habit of spewing nonsense needs reforming,
but you can take care of that yourself.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:14pm
FROSTY's world: cigarettes = plutonium smelter
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 7:08pm
not at all. cigarettes kill far more people.
YOU say government regulation is bad.
cool.
how about a massive pig farm/slaughterhouse next door?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:15pm
hey jm,
maybe you will give me a straight answer.
should i be allowed to put a massive landfill next door to your house?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 9:07pm
hey planti!
i keep telling you:
There is little whining here about Denmark having $10-a-gallon gasoline because of high energy taxes. The shaping of the market with high energy standards and taxes on fossil fuels by the Danish government has actually had "a positive impact on job creation," added Hedegaard. "For example, the wind industry -- it was nothing in the 1970s. Today, one-third of all terrestrial wind turbines in the world come from Denmark." In the last 10 years, Denmark's exports of energy efficiency products have tripled. Energy technology exports rose 8 percent in 2007 to more than $10.5 billion in 2006, compared with a 2 percent rise in 2007 for Danish exports as a whole.
"It is one of our fastest-growing export areas," said Hedegaard. It is one reason that unemployment in Denmark today is 1.6 percent. In 1973, said Hedegaard, "we got 99 percent of our energy from the Middle East. Today it is zero."
Frankly, when you compare how America has responded to the 1973 oil shock and how Denmark has responded, we look pathetic.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 9:18pm
Because it was smart taxes and incentives that spurred Danish energy companies to innovate, Ditlev Engel, the president of Vestas -- Denmark's and the world's biggest wind turbine company -- told me that he simply can't understand how the U.S. Congress could have just failed to extend the production tax credits for wind development in America.
Why should you care?
"We've had 35 new competitors coming out of China in the last 18 months," said Engel, "and not one out of the U.S."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 10:10pm
so why can't people by heroin laced smokes?
isn't the government interfering with their freedom?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 1:30pm
Uh...actually....yes.
Dammit frosty, I usually appreciate your point of view, But, occasionally, you leave personal liberty out of the equation.
Paying (more, even) taxes, DOES NOT limit my freedom. Excessive regulation does.
I never have or would try heroin. But, yes, I do have a birthright to decide what I want to put into my own body.
I quit smoking tobacco 1 year ago and drinking 3 years ago. Yet my government still wants to search my car at every traffic stop, so... Let's leave them out of our bedrooms and medicine cabinets.
I actually have no problem with paying more taxes for universal health care. It is the added nanny regs, that have always checked my enthusiasm. In fact, it is the current trend to ban unhealthy behavior <i>anyway</i> that has made me a reluctant "why the hell not, it's happening anyway" convert to nationalized insurance.
PS: LL will never answer your questions about safety regs. Nothing in the bable about that.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/11/2008 @ 10:21pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/11/2008 @ 7:04pm
PONTI, you're mocking of the anti-smoking guys was this...
"We care, therefore we have a right to tell you what to do. (and the common thread amongst all lefty programs is: more control over people's lives, less liberty, which is and always has been the point)."
So, don't "pro-lifers" CARE (about "babies") and therefore think they have a right to tell you (or in this case pregnant women) what to do?
and wouldn't that "control their lives" give them "less liberty" over their reproduction?
I don't care what the pro-lifers' MOTIVE is....you think it's a good motive. The anti-smoking guys think preventing 500,000 smoking related deaths is a "good motive".
The point is...a group who thinks THEY should control people's lives and CHOICES.
You're just the same as the lefties you criticize when it comes down to it...just on different issues.
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/11/2008 @ 10:30pm
Land fills belong in areas designated for that use...and if I want to improve my property I should be able to do so since I paid for it, use it and own it...and not the snail darter or spotted owl...
Right?
Posted by JOMAMMA at 08/11/2008 @ 9:38pm
designated by whom? how?
all you guys say you don't want government,
but the truth is, you need it.
the regulations we have have greatly improved our quality of life.
as to the animals, i try not to be an asshole. i like to let them be.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 10:51pm
PS: LL will never answer your questions about safety regs. Nothing in the bable about that.
Posted by Malcontent at 08/11/2008 @ 10:21pm
hey dude, i really don't care about heroin's illegality. i picked that specifically cause these guys say "you can't regulate"
when they already do.
heroin is very, very nasty. worse than tobacco, even. i've seen it destroy people. very sad. but i agree with you, it's their body.
i'm really interested in having good regulations as far as the environment and labour are concerned.
(what are these other "nanny regulations" you mention?)
i don't think that limits anybody's freedom. in fact, it protects us from greeddumb.
that's why i keep asking these anti-regulation guys if they are ready to accept the worst in their neighbourhoods.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 10:58pm
i don't want to control anybody's lifestyle.
what the fuck is that?
i just want clean air, water and soil, thank you very much.
how does that compromise anybody's freedom?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 11:00pm
Frosty!
FOLLOWERS can't help but turn belly-up and OBEY:
subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28).
Lacking IQ, they toss in smart people (progressives)
And brown people regardless of IQ
And confuse killing off species, etc., with:
subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28).
Yes, the sort of geniuses this appeals to:
Hunting Holidays in Africa Turkey Argentina ... In the air-conditioned rooms there are minibar, TV, phone and unlimited ... Roe buck trophies...
Posted by winyahn at 08/11/2008 @ 11:43pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:10pm
"The Republican candidate's tax cuts alone would increase the debt by $5 trillion by 2018, compared with $3.4 trillion for Obama, says the Tax Policy Center, another nonpartisan group."
Any organization that counts tax cuts as an expenditure is a) by definition non-partisan and b) can't tell it's collective ass from a hole in the ground. Tax cuts, as has been shown time and again, stimulate the economy to produce more, thus resulting in substantial if not complete increases in revenue to offset the direct 'cost' of the tax cut. In contrast, money thrown down the gaping maw of endless government government boondoggles is lost forever. Moreover, considering tax cuts to be 'costs' reveals your mindset to be such that you consider everyone's income to be, by default, property of the government, with anything they are left to keep to be a 'tax cut'.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 12:08am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 8:10pm
"The Republican candidate's tax cuts alone would increase the debt by $5 trillion by 2018, compared with $3.4 trillion for Obama, says the Tax Policy Center, another nonpartisan group."
Any organization that counts tax cuts as an expenditure is a) by definition non-partisan and b) can't tell it's collective ass from a hole in the ground. Tax cuts, as has been shown time and again, stimulate the economy to produce more, thus resulting in substantial if not complete increases in revenue to offset the direct 'cost' of the tax cut. In contrast, money thrown down the gaping maw of endless government government boondoggles is lost forever. Moreover, considering tax cuts to be 'costs' reveals your mindset to be such that you consider everyone's income to be, by default, property of the government, with anything they are left to keep to be a 'tax cut'.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 12:08am
Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/12/2008 @ 12:06am
Hey, you don't get it Red! I have it on good authority from the resident Dem cheerleader here, FROSTY, that since the Democrats estimate that they're only going to spend a few trillion more that we don't have, then it's all good, because they've got charts to show that the Republicans plan to 'spend' more than that in tax cuts. Welcome to Planet Kool-Aid, where the air is thick with moonbats!
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 12:12am
hey, jm.
my intention was not to call you an asshole.
far from.
but then you went and proved it with your post :=}
ha! ha!
oil is an anachronism.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:15am
vaya, vaya, planti.
i am not in favour of the democritters.
it's just they seem to be less worster than the republican'ts.
i think debt should be avoided at all costs.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:17am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/11/2008 @ 11:00pm
"i just want clean air, water and soil, thank you very much.
how does that compromise anybody's freedom?"
Yeah, I know FROSTY. You don't want to compromise anybody's freedom. It just kind of works out that way. And you don't see why people would want to smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol, anyway, so why not just make a law against it. After all, we're taking care of their health care, aren't we? Doesn't that give us the right to tell them how to run their lives? Heck, they should be thanking us, right FROSTY?
Yuck yuck. Have another cup of kool-aid, my friend.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 12:17am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 12:17am
ah ha!
answer the question:
should dioxin be regulated?
yes or no?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:19am
Yeah, I know FROSTY. You don't want to compromise anybody's freedom. It just kind of works out that way. And you don't see why people would want to smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol, anyway, so why not just make a law against it. After all, we're taking care of their health care, aren't we? Doesn't that give us the right to tell them how to run their lives? Heck, they should be thanking us, right FROSTY?
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 12:17am
wtf?
excuse me, but where do you come up with such asinine drivel?
there are plenty of laws now regulating alcohol and tobacco.
would you like me to drink 357 coors lite (you'd need that much to get drunk) and go for a motorized tour of your neighbourhood?
what is wrong with you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:23am
FROSTY, the ridiculous, absurd positions just flow out of you. First there's this ludicrous proposition of yours that tax cuts, i.e., letting people keep more of the money that they earn, amounts to an expenditure of the government, which by logical extension, betrays your default presumption that everything that people make belongs, by default, to the government, and anything the government does NOT take, is, in effect, an expense. At the same time, you use this outlandish presumption to justify literally trillions more in expenditures by the government, of money it does not have, on yet another monstrous government program that experience has shown in Canada and elsewhere, works marginally well at best. All in all, it's a tour-de-force of absurdity, surpassed only by the gall of someone who would have the chutzpah to present it with a straight face. If you're not a Democratic politician, they should hire you, because you're definitely 'with the program'.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 12:48am
should dioxin be regulated?
yes or no?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 01:00am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:23am
"there are plenty of laws now regulating alcohol and tobacco."
Which proves what? The fact that there are current laws, and some people abuse alcohol and do things that are unhealthy (and of no doubt you disapparove) you think that the government is morally entitled to extend its control over the use of those substances by the citizenry to whatever extent you favor, including an outright ban I presume, because after all, 'it's for their own good'? And how does this rebut my contention that for people such as yourself, your purported concern for other peoples' welfare is simply an excuse for you to make rules for how other people conduct their lives, i.e., 'reform their habits'?
"would you like me to drink 357 coors lite (you'd need that much to get drunk) and go for a motorized tour of your neighbourhood?"
More of the same. See above.
"what is wrong with you?"
Exactly.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 07:29am
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 01:00am
"should dioxin be regulated?
yes or no?"
Oh, my FROSTY, aren't you clever. Somebody told you that dioxin is present in tobacco, and voila! you have yet another excuse to regulate other peoples' habits! And even more for than for their own good, now you can imagine that the vanishingly small levels of dioxin are a danger to you, too!
At certain levels, dioxin is an extremely toxic substance, to be sure. So are many, many other naturally-occurring compounds that we imbibe every day. But people are exposed to naturally-produced dioxin every day at very low levels, and there is no hard evidence that the low levels of dioxin in passive tobacco smoke presents a significant incremental risk to anyone (which is not to say that those who smoke, obviously, are not at risk, but that's their business - although I'm quite sure you don't think so). The science relating to the incremental health risks of dioxin and other noxious compounds in passive tobacco smoke has never shown any significant health risk to non-smokers, although there are plenty of 'cooked' studies out there which will cater to the neuroses and prejudices of people such as yourself. The scientific validity of these studies is so ambiguous, that environmental health studies produced by the EPA and other bastions of anti-tobacco zealotry are routinely discredited debunked and disowned as junk science by skeptics (or, you might say if you were honest, heretics). The EPA and it's phony studies has become nothing more than a tool for the government and its advocates to extend its control over peoples' lifestyles, on flimsier and more contrived evidence all the time.
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 07:56am
Posted by pontificus at 08/12/2008 @ 07:56am
So, PONTI, who SHOULD be telling us how much dioxin is dangerous, if not the EPA?
Dupont or Dow Chemical?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/12/2008 @ 09:05am
Unlike the Bible, the Constitution was written in English and doesn't requires translation before interpretation.
Posted by Darin_the_Troll at 08/12/2008
that's not what lawyers say.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 11:29am
We shouldn't even have an EPA.
Each state should make these determinations.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 10:55am
that's very dangerous as it promotes a race to the bottom.
look what has happened to china.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 11:32am
planti,
so regulating dioxin is limiting people's freedom?
so no regulation is necessary?
hmmm........
how about pig farms? are you ready for one next door?
don't forget the slaughterhouse, too.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 11:35am
planti,
even though i've only ever seen you make one logical statement,
that of the country air being fresh to breath (why is it fresh? what keeps it that way? why isn't it fresh elsewhere?),
your answers do usually have some resemblance of coming from a sane person.
but somehow your above ramblings make me think that you may be forming a freedommilitia to save america from itself.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 11:42am
The Federal govt has no involvement in these issues. They are properly determined by City and County govts.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 11:53am
And since you oppose any campaign finance laws, if the City and County governments win their position on money given to them by corporations....
and they decide that pools of dioxin or no worker safety in the slaughterhouse (aka "The Jungle") is fine and dandy...
you'd have no problem with that, right?
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/12/2008 @ 12:00pm
"Last great President we ever had!"---LVLIBERTY
William McKinley!
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/12/2008 @ 12:05pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 08/12/2008 @ 12:00pm
these guys are driving me crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!
i ask them if we should regulate arsenic and they tell me i hate freedom.
not one straight answer.
o.k. so now lvl tells me it should be a local issue.
how many county boards have the scientific acumen to regulate beryllium?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:37pm
BTW, I don't see what a supposed worker safety issue in a slaughterhouse has to do with me.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 12:34pm
wow. good thing you've chosen to become a pastor.
ever eat a steak, rev?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:39pm
Dow's toxicology director wrote to another Dow official that dioxin "is exceptionally toxic; it has tremendous potential for producing chloracne [an ugly skin disease] and systemic injury. . . I trust that you will be very judicious in your use of this information. It could be quite embarrassing if it were misinterpreted or misused." A postscript added, "Under no circumstances may this letter be reproduced, shown or sent to anyone outside of Dow."
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:44pm
in dow we trust!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:44pm
FRIDAY, Aug. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Women who 32 years ago lived in the area of a major dioxin spill in Italy have been six times more likely to give birth to babies with altered thyroid function than other women, a new study reports.
The study, published in the open access journal PLoS Medicine, looks at the aftereffect of an accidental release of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or TCDD, the most toxic dioxin known, during a 1976 incident at a chemical factory in Seveso, Italy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:45pm
But neither has anything to do with me and what worker rules and regulations a slaughterhouse implements.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 12:45pm
it has EVERYTHING to do with you.
you pay for it!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:46pm
Read our constitution. Oops, you have but you think it stupid.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 12:43pm
oh, now i think the u.s. constitution is stupid.
so, i hate freedom and the u.s. constitution is stupid.
oh, and i'm a commie.
sheesh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:52pm
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
isn't lowering regulations of toxins in a state relative to its neighbour's in the name of profit
a) depriving people of life. dioxin is deadly, you know.
b) depriving people of liberty. isn't being confined to a hospital bed because of others greed one of the worse prisons?
and
c) depriving people of property? you say you would relocate. and how much would your property sell for located next to dioxin pools?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 12:57pm
lvliberty1 12:55pm
Why, O LORD, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
In his arrogance the wicked man hunts down the weak, who are caught in the schemes he devises.
He boasts of the cravings of his heart; he blesses the greedy and reviles the LORD.
In his pride the wicked does not seek him; in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
His ways are always prosperous; he is haughty and your laws are far from him; he sneers at all his enemies.
He says to himself, "Nothing will shake me; I'll always be happy and never have trouble."
His mouth is full of curses and lies and threats; trouble and evil are under his tongue.
He lies in wait near the villages; from ambush he murders the innocent, watching in secret for his victims.
He lies in wait like a lion in cover; he lies in wait to catch the helpless; he catches the helpless and drags them off in his net.
His victims are crushed, they collapse; they fall under his strength.
He says to himself, "God has forgotten; he covers his face and never sees."
Arise, LORD! Lift up your hand, O God. Do not forget the helpless.
Why does the wicked man revile God? Why does he say to himself, "He won't call me to account"?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 1:10pm
But you, O God, do see trouble and grief; you consider it to take it in hand. The victim commits himself to you; you are the helper of the fatherless.
Break the arm of the wicked and evil man; call him to account for his wickedness that would not be found out.
The LORD is King for ever and ever; the nations will perish from his land.
You hear, O LORD, the desire of the afflicted; you encourage them, and you listen to their cry,
defending the fatherless and the oppressed, in order that man, who is of the earth, may terrify no more.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 1:10pm
You ignored the important part of the clause--without due process.
oh no i didn't. i wanted to see your response.
If the local and state courts have ruled that this is permissable, we have the option of a final review by SCOTUS.
yay! after 30 years and the plaintiffs are dead! prevention is much better than cure.
If it is still upheld, no violation of constitutional protections has occurred.
quick, stack the court!
"depriving people of liberty. isn't being confined to a hospital bed because of others greed one of the worse prisons?"
No
heartless.
Secondly, on the property, depriving of property has nothing to do with how much I obtain for selling my property.
but isn't rendering it worthless the same as stealing it.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 1:07pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 1:21pm
What you and Mask continue to fail to understand is my belief that freedom is not totally fair and that it involves risks.
i more than understand. i live that every day.
I have experienced many unfair decisions by government and business. However, I would rather suffer those things than to increase the size of government.
then don't vote republican. from 1980 - 1989 a 7% increase in federal employees. from 1993 - 2001 a decrease of 12%. and then this:
Big Government Gets Bigger
Study Counts More Employees, Cites Increase in Contractors
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 6, 2006; Page A21
The federal government keeps getting bigger.
The Republican Party's oft-stated affinity for smaller government has not applied during the Bush administration. According to a recent study, not only is the number of federal civil servants on the rise, but so are the numbers of employees working for government-funded contractors and for organizations that receive government grants.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 2:00pm
I would rather starve than take a govt handout.
but with 10.4 trillion in debt, EVERYTHING the government does is a handout.
It is not the responsibility of taxpayers if I fail to meet my needs or even if circumstances beyond my control put me in that situation.
so a wounded vet should receive no pension?
And I have been there on several occasions.
me, too. it's really hard being hungry.
I realize that not everyone thinks like I do.
especially jesus.
However I prefer my lifestyle, even with all of it's ups and downs, times of plenty and times where I have nothing. I'm not a materialist;
yay!
don't own a big screen TV, no digital cameras, computer is 6 years old; cars paid for; no Ipod, or even an MP3 player;
yep.
microwave is secondhand;
microwave?!?!? ew........
grow my own fruits and veggies;
how do you feel about ADM subsidies?
use candles for some of our lighting needs;
how romantic.
have run our air conditioning twice this year (even when temperatures were over 110);
ah, the pollution machine
I live simply and accept the good with the bad for the most part.
so, are you ready for a dioxin plant next door?
I don't have medical insurance;
welcome to america. if you get in trouble come see us.
don't see doctors,
me neither, knock on wood. hey, can i borrow your head.
and if I die early, that's just the way it is.
maybe, but i bet you'll see a doctor if you break your arm.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 1:17pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 2:07pm
great passage from Psalm 10. However it has nothing to do with govt involvement
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 1:25pm
"of the people, by the people, for the people"
plus, you are for regulation.
you want your neighbour bill, dioxin expert, to do it. fine.
how about agrochemicals?
should they be regulated?
by whom?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 2:10pm
the people with the best resources and understanding of the issue are the ones who must do the regulating.
who knew about dioxin 200 years ago?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 3:44pm
You keep equating no fed involvement with no govt at all.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 2:27pm
so you are for regulations?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 3:49pm
If you have ever had to battle to obtain appropriate quality health care for your current needs or medical issues, you know that paying for it is only one of several important considerations. Good health is not simply for personal use, but alsoan asset which allows each person to make greater personal contributions to each other. If we believe that basic needs is more than supporting convenient roads and shopping malls with our tax dollars, then helping "improve the lives of others", including our own neighbors, friends and families, deserves our commitment. Silicon Valley Dem
Posted by CAPTAINSKIPPY at 08/12/2008 @ 4:00pm
Not really, but if they are implemented, it should be a the state and local levels, not the federal govt.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 3:58pm
not really!?!?!??!?!?
have you lost your mind?
well, i'm gonna set up my beryllium refinery next to your house then!
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 4:05pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 12:03am
What I don't understand is. Why is it when the courts make a decision about warrantless wire tapping which is not covered by the Constitution you are fine with it. When the courts make a decision about some program or taxes you are up in arms saying that is not the right of the court that that should have to be passed as law. Shouldn't there be a law declaring WHAT martial law is. The suspension of habeus corpus only covers right to trial.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/12/2008 @ 12:03am
Damn activist judges.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:17pm
The question seems simple. Is health care a priviledge or a human right? It is true that cockroaches don't need health care, but it seems to me that human beings should "all" have the best health care
Posted by julien38 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:21pm
Re: Health Care for everyone. Does anyone know how much eash of the the health insurance corporations have contributed to each candidate running for President? I wonder if the candidates views aren't colored by these contributions.
Ann Hamilton eponamed@sbcglobal.net
Posted by DrAnn at 08/12/2008 @ 6:30pm
It is true that cockroaches don't need health care,
Posted by julien38 at 08/12/2008 @ 4:21pm
how do you know?
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:41pm
I wonder if the candidates views aren't colored by these contributions.
Posted by DrAnn at 08/12/2008 @ 6:30pm
well, they are promissory notes, after all.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/12/2008 @ 7:43pm
I think a little history would be helpful here. Universal health care was introduced into Germany in the 1860s by Otto von Bismark and the Kaiser. They realized that the German population was a national asset and that universal health care was essential for a healthy and thriving populus which would provide German factories with good workers and the German army with effective soldiers. These conclusions still hold true today for every nation, including the US. Universal health care is not a liberal or socialist idea. One can not accuse Bismark or the Kaiser of being liberals or socialists. Universal health care is a practical policy that is vital to the long term vitality of a nation. A nation is only as strong as it people, be it economic, social or military strength. The argument here loses sight of this fundamental truth. If this nation is to continue as a great nation, it needs a healthy and robust population that is educated, hard working and dedicated to its success. A sick populus is not capable of that. End of story.
Posted by jsiannucci at 08/12/2008 @ 8:48pm
Posted by jsiannucci at 08/12/2008 @ 8:48pm
Except that the US already has as healthy a population as any in the world. And we don't need the Post Office running our health care, with 10 week wait times for urgent cancer diagnoses, as they do in CAnada, England, and other countries with 'Universal Health Care". We don't need trilions more in government expenditures, and trillions more in taxes to pay for the. And we don't need the 10 percent unemployment of France and Germany, either. End of story.
Posted by pontificus at 08/13/2008 @ 12:58am
I am the proud greatgrandmother of 8 & still counting, giving me a vested interest in the availability of future health care for my progenies. I worked in various industries, from food production/packaging to aeronautics, specifically one of the Appollo contracts. John Pointer's remarks regarding the extortion tactics of the insurance industry was right on point. Most of the factories I worked in were union shops, with the perpetual renegotiating of contracts and employee demands for more health coverage. As young as I was, I was intelligent enough to understand that you don't get something for nothing and discussed this on numerous occasions with fellow employees. I foresaw a future where the insurance companies would own us, and sadly have lived long enough to see that vision fulfilled. The American people have no one to blame but ourselves for handing over the control of our health & our very lives to the insurance companies. Prior to our current insurance coverage fiasco, even people of limited income could afford a doctor's appointment or needed prescriptions. Insurance premiums were low & coverage was for catastrophic care. In 1968, my daughter needed 3 separate operations including hospitalization. It only took me 9 months of working a second job at a small family restaurant, 25 hours/week, to pay all of her incurred charges without the benefit of insurance coverage. We complain about the blatant greed of the insurance companies, but it was our own initial greed which gave it life & power. I truly believe if we would make our elected representatives end their relationships($) with these leeches, we could once again have control over our health needs.
Posted by ProudGGma at 08/13/2008 @ 03:21am
Except that the US already has as healthy a population as any in the world.
Posted by pontificus at 08/13/2008 @ 12:58am
#1 in obesity.
Posted by frosty zoom at 08/14/2008 @ 3:31pm
Posted by pontificus at 08/13/2008 @ 12:58am
in addition to obesity: (30.6%)
#1 in nearly all forms of cancer: http://tinyurl.com/5ufhe5
middle of the road on heart disease deaths: http://tinyurl.com/ypvzbe
An infant mortality rate of 6.8/1000 (per the CDC .. unchanged since 2004) puts us smack in between Cuba and Croatia {around #35 internationally}
8% diabetes rate (highest in the world per the CDC and expected to double in the next decade)
Per Nationmaster.com: % of life lived in ill health (females) US in #6 at 13.5%
Female life expectancy at birth: 44th out of 220 nations
#1 in teen birth rate
ad also #1 in monies spent on health care (13.9$ of the GDP) ... it would seem though that it is not well spent.
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/14/2008 @ 6:20pm
ooops ..13.9%
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/14/2008 @ 7:37pm
ooops ..13.9%
Posted by leftofcenter at 08/14/2008 @ 7:37pm