The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on March 20, 2017, 03:38:36 pm
-
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/19/mark-cuban-amend-u-s-constitution-to-make-healthcare-a-right/
“I think healthcare should be a right. If there’s a legitimate way to modify the Constitution, I literally think there should be an amendment to the Constitution for healthcare for chronic illnesses and serious injury. We all play the genetic lottery,” he said.
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder668/59458668.jpg)
-
Mark should stick to what he knows...and health care isn't one of those areas.
-
Mark should stick to what he knows...and health care isn't one of those areas.
Cuban once said, getting insanely rich in a short time happens because you're lucky. It doesn't mean that you're suddenly an expert.
-
I wonder if he would mind if we did a 90% one time wealth tax to pay for this.
-
So what if doctors decided they will say no and not service this 'right'? Will they be forced to perform services by the government if it is Constitutionally required?
Or more realistically, what if there are areas doctors don't want to service but there are citizens who have the 'right'? What if you have a severe doctor shortage in middle of nowhere Alaska? If people have the right to their service, will doctors be forced to move there and service those people?
-
Dear moron billionaire,
The Constitution doesn't confer rights to the people from the government. It is an instrument to limit the federal government's ability to meddle with our natural liberties.
Sincerely,
Just your average American
-
Cuban once said, getting insanely rich in a short time happens because you're lucky. It doesn't mean that you're suddenly an expert.
And getting insanely sick in a short time happens because you're unlucky. It can happen to any of us, and when it does it can cause financial ruin. I agree with Cuban - insurance for chronic illnesses and serious injury should be available to all. And if it's financed by general tax revenues, then it's paid for by all, and does away with the current distortions that equate affordable health insurance with the good fortune of working for a large employer.
Such a change helps the poor, and helps employers be more competitive with their overseas counterparts whose employees get health insurance through general taxation, not their employer's bottom line.
In a global economy, we can no longer afford to be outliers, placing the burden for health insurance for catastrophic health expenses on the backs of employers, and leaving millions with no viable option to bankruptcy and ruin.
-
Dear moron billionaire,
The Constitution doesn't confer rights to the people from the government. It is an instrument to limit the federal government's ability to meddle with our natural liberties.
Sincerely,
Just your average American
If you get sick, you can die. Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve?
Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.
-
@AbaraXas
Further...
A Right is something that a person has IRRESPECTIVE of anyone or anything else. By its nature, if it requires someone to do something for you, it is NOT a right.
I have the right to speak freely.
I have the right to practice whatever religion I choose.
I have the right to defend myself.
I have the right to use those same weapons to secure my liberty
etc.
What this fool is advocating, as you have said, is that I have the "right" to force someone else to perform healthcare...or at a minimum to force someone else to PAY for my healthcare.
The only healthcare I have a RIGHT to is that healthcare that I would perform upon myself.
-
I say attending NBA games should be a Right.
-
Even if what you say is a "good idea", that still doesn't make it a "Right."
-
If you get sick, you can die. Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve?
Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.
@Jazzhead
You are absolutely free to make that argument and to convince enough of your fellow citizens that you are correct.
However, you are not free to twist words into the meanings you choose. What you are advocating for is NOT a right...it is just another government run entitlement, which will likely turn, like every other one...into just another ponzi scheme.
Rights are really pretty finite. Don't diminish the ones we have to further your own advocacy.
It ain't pretty and it sure as hell ain't "fair", but sometimes sh!t happens...and sometimes it even happens to good people. It is NOT the governments role to ensure it doesn't. And it sure as hell isn't a right.
-
But there is a natural right to health care, just as there are natural rights to keep and bear arms, to speak one's mind freely, to publish writings on most any subject, to worship and follow the dictates of one's religiously informed conscience.
None of these natural rights create any obligation on the part of others to provide us with the means of exercising them. Freedom of the press does not create a right to subsidized paper, ink and printing presses or to compel publishers to print and distribute one's writings; the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that others should be taxed to buy each of us an AR-15, ammo and range time or that firearms manufacturers be compelled to provide us with their products at government mandated prices; nor does the non-enumerated right to health care create a right to have anyone pay physicians on one's behalf, or to compel physicians to provide health care outside of contracts willingly entered into.
Most government regulations of health insurance and health care actually represent infringements of the natural right to health care.
What Cuban means is not a right to health care, but a "right" to compel others to provide us with the product of their labors to subsidize the exercise of that right. This "right" is nothing of the sort, but a form of tyranny exercised on the plea of benefiting the citizenry (as all modern forms of tyranny now are).
-
Even if what you say is a "good idea", that still doesn't make it a "Right."
I didn't say it was a "right", and it's not necessary to change the Constitution to make it a "right". What we need is a populist President and Congress than can see the merit in the idea, and the abject unfairness and arbitrariness of the current system.
Old age income security is paid for by taxes imposed on all employers/employees. Security against financial ruin due to ill health should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
-
If you get sick, you can die. Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve?
Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.
Here are the three most important words you'll ever hear: Life Isn't Fair.
Either you accept that, or you don't. People that accept it are, on balance, happier and better adjusted than those that do not.
-
I say attending NBA games should be a Right.
000hehehehe
-
Taking Constitutional advice from someone who can't even get his team into the NBA playoffs, where practically every team gets in, is foolish, at best.
-
@Jazzhead
You are absolutely free to make that argument and to convince enough of your fellow citizens that you are correct.
However, you are not free to twist words into the meanings you choose. What you are advocating for is NOT a right...it is just another government run entitlement, which will likely turn, like every other one...into just another ponzi scheme.
Rights are really pretty finite. Don't diminish the ones we have to further your own advocacy.
It ain't pretty and it sure as hell ain't "fair", but sometimes sh!t happens...and sometimes it even happens to good people. It is NOT the governments role to ensure it doesn't. And it sure as hell isn't a right.
You're trying to reason with a Communist.
Don't bother.
His arguments are simply fodder for all of us to practice our combat skills against the insanity of Leftism.
You will no more convince him of the inalienable truth than you would convince Obama or the Clinton's of it.
He's not interested in being persuaded, but rather to preach Socialism/Communism/Leninism/Maoism on this board wrapped within the thin veneer of reason and compassion in a vain attempt to portray us all as intolerant, racist, unfeeling bigots.
-
Security against financial ruin due to ill health should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against homelessness should likewise be provided by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against hunger and bad nutrition should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of fashionable clothing should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of personal transportation should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against job loss should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against emotional anguish should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of personal internet and cable access to vital information should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of cell phone should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lethargy due to historical affronts to ancestry should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against white privilege should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
That's where Jazzhead's mindset takes us. To full-blown Soviet/Stalinist Godless Communism - where the State is god and people like Jazzhead are their priests.
-
I didn't say it was a "right", and it's not necessary to change the Constitution to make it a "right". What we need is a populist President and Congress than can see the merit in the idea, and the abject unfairness and arbitrariness of the current system.
Old age income security is paid for by taxes imposed on all employers/employees. Security against financial ruin due to ill health should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
@Jazzhead
Why should the govt step in and provide healthcare to everyone? Name one place where that works well. UK's system is going bankrupt and the wealthy have supplemental. Canada is rationing care to avoid bankruptcy.
What about letting people save their money themselves. Sure have a safety net but that should be the exception and not the rule. Why should we spend tax dollars to help someone stay in their cushy mansion using tax dollars?
Why not reduce regulation, reduce interference and allow the free market to provide a solution. The real answer is to have a healthy labor market so people are working and getting health benefits through their employer. Or perhaps being able to buy a reasonable plan at a reasonable price.
Reduce healthcare costs by reducing regulation and legal reform and all of the above is easier.
-
Security against homelessness should likewise be provided by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against hunger and bad nutrition should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of fashionable clothing should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of personal transportation should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against job loss should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against emotional anguish should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of personal internet and cable access to vital information should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of cell phone should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lethargy due to historical affronts to ancestry should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against white privilege should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
That's where Jazzhead's mindset takes us. To full-blown Soviet/Stalinist Godless Communism - where the State is god and people like Jazzhead are their priests.
Sounds good comrade!!!!
-
@Jazzhead
Why should the govt step in and provide healthcare to everyone? Name one place where that works well. UK's system is going bankrupt and the wealthy have supplemental. Canada is rationing care to avoid bankruptcy.
What about letting people save their money themselves. Sure have a safety net but that should be the exception and not the rule. Why should we spend tax dollars to help someone stay in their cushy mansion using tax dollars?
Why not reduce regulation, reduce interference and allow the free market to provide a solution. The real answer is to have a healthy labor market so people are working and getting health benefits through their employer. Or perhaps being able to buy a reasonable plan at a reasonable price.
Reduce healthcare costs by reducing regulation and legal reform and all of the above is easier.
I like what I think Mark Cuban is advocating - provide by means of broad-based taxes basic protections for all citizens against financial ruin with respect to medical catastrophe - serious injury and chronic illness. Perhaps just simple taxpayer-funded "stop loss" insurance that would pick up when a citizen's total medical expenses exceed a threshold amount.
Then couple that with a robust, competitive private insurance marketplace for common medical expenses, that would be neither controlled nor mandated by government. That seems to me to be the best of both worlds - competition and innovation in the market for insurance covering most medical expenses, with security against catastrophic less provided by government, just as Social Security provides income security for the aged.
-
I didn't say it was a "right", and it's not necessary to change the Constitution to make it a "right". What we need is a populist President and Congress than can see the merit in the idea, and the abject unfairness and arbitrariness of the current system.
Old age income security is paid for by taxes imposed on all employers/employees. Security against financial ruin due to ill health should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
What you have taught us rubes on TBR is you don't even need a President or Congress to enact your superior vision, just a Court because decisions made by a Court are very wise and inviolate. That politics stuff is messy, just get a wise Judge and all will be well.
Your approach to these things is remarkable consistent...except for educating your particular children. In that case you should be allowed to sacrifice to provide them a better education than other children get. Rubes don't need that, they just need to shut up and knuckle under to their betters.
-
I like what I think Mark Cuban is advocating - provide by means of broad-based taxes basic protections for all citizens against financial ruin with respect to medical catastrophe - serious injury and chronic illness. Perhaps just simple taxpayer-funded "stop loss" insurance that would pick up when a citizen's total medical expenses exceed a threshold amount.
Then couple that with a robust, competitive private insurance marketplace for common medical expenses, that would be neither controlled nor mandated by government. That seems to me to be the best of both worlds - competition and innovation in the market for insurance covering most medical expenses, with security against catastrophic less provided by government, just as Social Security provides income security for the aged.
@Jazzhead
Sounds a lot like what Social Security was meant to do, but wait that system is bankrupt.
hmmmmm seems to be a trend
-
I like what I think Mark Cuban is advocating - provide by means of broad-based taxes basic protections for all citizens against financial ruin with respect to medical catastrophe - serious injury and chronic illness. Perhaps just simple taxpayer-funded "stop loss" insurance that would pick up when a citizen's total medical expenses exceed a threshold amount.
Then couple that with a robust, competitive private insurance marketplace for common medical expenses, that would be neither controlled nor mandated by government. That seems to me to be the best of both worlds - competition and innovation in the market for insurance covering most medical expenses, with security against catastrophic less provided by government, just as Social Security provides income security for the aged.
I read an article in which the credit bureaus were going to de-emphasize medical debt for other types of debt.
So if you're poor, don't have any substantial assets, then that will act as a sort of safety net for medical issues. If you don't have an assets, why pay medical bills at all if it won't hurt your credit?
-
Now I do agree that burdening employers with providing their employees' healthcare does put our workers at a disadvantage, and is one of the main reasons why offshoring is so prevalent.
We need to decouple healthcare from employment.
-
In a global economy, we can no longer afford to be outliers, placing the burden for health insurance for catastrophic health expenses on the backs of employers, and leaving millions with no viable option to bankruptcy and ruin.
So in your view, the USA should strive to be more like Greece, Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist nations the world over, with respect to universal government funded health care ??
Leftists think we should mirror the immigration and refugee practices of Germany and Sweden, too.
Contrary to some, nobody in the US goes without health care due to lack of money or insurance. Babies do get birthed, bones do get set, wounds do get sown.
-
Now I do agree that burdening employers with providing their employees' healthcare does put our workers at a disadvantage, and is one of the main reasons why offshoring is so prevalent.
We need to decouple healthcare from employment.
That was the stated goal of Obamacare. The result was decoupling people from employment and, as a result, coupling healthcare with government. A perfect solution for Socialists and Communists.
-
Sounds like Cuban is getting ready to run for office. Here come the promises that can't and won't be kept.
-
That was the stated goal of Obamacare. The result was decoupling people from employment and, as a result, coupling healthcare with government. A perfect solution for Socialists and Communists.
Seems to me Conservatives are comfortable with the concept of School Vouchers. So why couldn't there be a similar approach with healthcare insurance?
-
Dear moron billionaire,
The Constitution doesn't confer rights to the people from the government. It is an instrument to limit the federal government's ability to meddle with our natural liberties.
Sincerely,
Just your average American
:thumbsup:
-
What you have taught us rubes on TBR is you don't even need a President or Congress to enact your superior vision, just a Court because decisions made by a Court are very wise and inviolate. That politics stuff is messy, just get a wise Judge and all will be well.
Your approach to these things is remarkable consistent...except for educating your particular children. In that case you should be allowed to sacrifice to provide them a better education than other children get. Rubes don't need that, they just need to shut up and knuckle under to their betters.
What the **** are you talking about? Have you lost your mind?
-
So in your view, the USA should strive to be more like Greece, Cuba, Venezuela and other socialist nations the world over, with respect to universal government funded health care ??
No, that's not what I advocate. To repeat:
I like what I think Mark Cuban is advocating - provide by means of broad-based taxes basic protections for all citizens against financial ruin with respect to medical catastrophe - serious injury and chronic illness. Perhaps just simple taxpayer-funded "stop loss" insurance that would pick up when a citizen's total medical expenses exceed a threshold amount.
Then couple that with a robust, competitive private insurance marketplace for common medical expenses, that would be neither controlled nor mandated by government. That seems to me to be the best of both worlds - competition and innovation in the market for insurance covering most medical expenses, with security against catastrophic loss provided by government, just as Social Security provides income security for the aged.
Leftists think we should mirror the immigration and refugee practices of Germany and Sweden, too.
But you'd be mistaken to think I give a crap about what "leftists" think. I think for myself.
Contrary to some, nobody in the US goes without health care due to lack of money or insurance. Babies do get birthed, bones do get set, wounds do get sown.
And the cost gets passed on to those who play by the rules and purchase insurance.
The current luck-based system is flawed at its core. Now's as good a time as any to fix it.
-
No, that's not what I advocate. To repeat:
I like what I think Mark Cuban is advocating - provide by means of broad-based taxes basic protections for all citizens against financial ruin with respect to medical catastrophe - serious injury and chronic illness. Perhaps just simple taxpayer-funded "stop loss" insurance that would pick up when a citizen's total medical expenses exceed a threshold amount.
This would require massive taxation. I think we pay enough taxes already.
-
And the cost gets passed on to those who play by the rules and purchase insurance.
@Jazzhead @INVAR
and instead what you're advocating is for the government to play the middleman...because their track record at that sort of thing is so stellar?!?
Either INVAR is right...or you've lost your derned mind...not a whole lot of other options.
-
Dear moron billionaire,
The Constitution doesn't confer rights to the people from the government. It is an instrument to limit the federal government's ability to meddle with our natural liberties.
Which is why Obama called the Constitution a 'negative charter'.
He and Mark Cuban much prefer conferring a 'positive charter of rights' on the People, obligations the government has to make its citizens comfortable and happy.
Kind of like an American version of the Great Leap Forward.
We know how well that worked out for China. For the Party anyway, if not for the average yokel.
-
Health Care is already a right.
He means Health Care paid by someone else.
-
This would require massive taxation. I think we pay enough taxes already.
That tax burden would be offset by a reduction in your health insurance premiums.
-
Health Care is already a right.
He means Health Care paid by someone else.
That's functionally correct. A hospital can't refuse to treat someone who shows up in the emergency room. And the cost of that uncompensated care is passed along in higher charges to those with medical insurance. So, in that sense, we already have the right to health care paid for by others. But broad-based taxes are at least a lot fairer than placing the cost only on that segment of the community that plays by the rules.
-
That tax burden would be offset by a reduction in your health insurance premiums.
Now this I find extremely hard to believe. Your tax dollars would be supporting those who cannot afford it, not your own healthcare.
There are no free lunches in life. You cannot cover po' folk without paying more. Period.
-
Now this I find extremely hard to believe. Your tax dollars would be supporting those who cannot afford it, not your own healthcare.
There are no free lunches in life. You cannot cover po' folk without paying more. Period.
We are already paying for the po' folks - just not all of us, just those of us who have medical insurance. I'd rather that burden be shared more fairly by means of broad-based taxes.
-
We are already paying for the po' folks - just not all of us, just those of us who have medical insurance. I'd rather that burden be shared more fairly by means of broad-based taxes.
Still trying to find the word "fair" in the Constitution. It must be near "waltzing."
-
We are already paying for the po' folks - just not all of us, just those of us who have medical insurance. I'd rather that burden be shared more fairly by means of broad-based taxes.
Are you advocating for single payer or what? Those advocating for single payer need to understand the scale of the taxation involved. My brother married a German woman and I was talking to her friends. They pay very close to 50% of their taxes to the government over there.
You will never get Americans to agree to pay 50% of their taxes to the government.
-
Are you advocating for single payer or what? Those advocating for single payer need to understand the scale of the taxation involved. My brother married a German woman and I was talking to her friends. They pay very close to 50% of their taxes to the government over there.
You will never get Americans to agree to pay 50% of their taxes to the government.
We already do!
-
You will never get Americans to agree to pay 50% of their taxes to the government.
They already do, they just don't know it because there's so much tax buried in the price of goods. I hate to think what the true tax rate of Germany is because they have a lot of taxes buried in the VAT.
-
They already do, they just don't know it because there's so much tax buried in the price of goods. I hate to think what the true tax rate of Germany is because they have a lot of taxes buried in the VAT.
That is true. I'm just talking as income taxes.
-
As long as it says 'a right paid for by billionaires'
-
I pay 100% of my taxes to the government. Federal, State, or local, all of my taxes go to the government.
-
That's functionally correct. A hospital can't refuse to treat someone who shows up in the emergency room. And the cost of that uncompensated care is passed along in higher charges to those with medical insurance. So, in that sense, we already have the right to health care paid for by others. But broad-based taxes are at least a lot fairer than placing the cost only on that segment of the community that plays by the rules.
Total horse shiiite. 'Broad-based taxes' my ass.
According to ObamaCare, the Socialist entitlement you consistently defend and promote - EVERYONE is forced to have health insurance or suffer punishment.
Offsetting the costs from the insured to broad-based taxes so everyone can bear the burden is utter bullshit when ObamaCare already imposes the broad-based "TAX" (Roberts) on those who do not have insurance along with the higher premiums (broad based 'tax') every single one of us WITH insurance now has to pay.
What you advocate is higher broad-based wealth redistribution on top of the bane of Obamanation that the ACA already is.
You advocate more Socialism, misery and stupidity.
-
That is true. I'm just talking as income taxes.
"Tax Freedom Day" is defined as April 24 this year, which is the average day among the 50 States (and DeeCee). That means states like NY and CA are probably paying pretty close to half right now, between the State and Fed Income Taxes. It should not come as a surprise these are the states with the worst gun laws.
-
As long as it says 'a right paid for by billionaires'
"Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree."
-
Total horse shiiite. 'Broad-based taxes' my ass.
According to ObamaCare, the Socialist entitlement you consistently defend and promote - EVERYONE is forced to have health insurance or suffer punishment.
Offsetting the costs from the insured to broad-based taxes so everyone can bear the burden is utter bullshit when ObamaCare already imposes the broad-based "TAX" (Roberts) on those who do not have insurance along with the higher premiums (broad based 'tax') every single one of us WITH insurance now has to pay.
What you advocate is higher broad-based wealth redistribution on top of the bane of Obamanation that the ACA already is.
You advocate more Socialism, misery and stupidity.
Mythology and lies - your stock in trade.
And for the record, I am a critic, not a defender, of the ACA. The ACHA, which I support, would do away with the mandate/taxes you foam at the mouth about, and would allow free riders to be punished by paying higher rates for insurance.
-
That tax burden would be offset by a reduction in your health insurance premiums.
Part of the new paradigm of electing Trump, is the realization by many, that "Little boys Have Cried Wolf" too often.
We already listened to the "your healthcare costs will be reduced by $2,500 per year" claims. (Along with keep your plan, and keep your doctor)
There is only so much room, for "middle men," in efficient systems. The fewer, the better.
Home maintenance and repair, works pretty well. Few people have insurance policies. They go to Home Depot or Lowes, get what they need and install it.
In that regard, we do not rely on government to direct our home maintenance and repairs.
But if we followed the health care model, we would utilize a big corporation to sell us insurance, and a big government to arrange and rearrange the entire industry every few years.
Eventually the overhead cost of so many middlemen crushes it in terms of cost, complexity and efficiency.
-
Mythology and lies - your stock in trade.
Says our resident Leftist/Communist sympathizer and advocate in nearly every post you make to this board.
-
and I have already seen posts that reference the need to pay off that middleman if he gets cut out. I say no way.
-
Home maintenance and repair, works pretty well. Few people have insurance policies. They go to Home Depot or Lowes, get what they need and install it.
In that regard, we do not rely on government to direct our home maintenance and repairs.
That's because the traditional purpose of insurance - to protect against the risk of catastrophic, unexpected loss that cannot be budgeted for out-of-pocket - doesn't exist with respect to home maintenance and repair.
Health insurance is desired by most rational folks because health care expense can happen to anyone, and can lead to financial ruin.
But if we followed the health care model, we would utilize a big corporation to sell us insurance, and a big government to arrange and rearrange the entire industry every few years.
Eventually the overhead cost of so many middlemen crushes it in terms of cost, complexity and efficiency.
You sound like an advocate for single payer. There's a lot less overhead (and a lot less choice) in a single payer system.
What I'm advocating is a hybrid system - single payer insurance, broadly supported by taxation, for catastrophes, and a competitive, flexible and voluntary system of private insurance for routine and/or predictable medical costs.
-
Says our resident Leftist/Communist sympathizer and advocate in nearly every post you make to this board.
Mythology and lies.
-
Mythology and lies.
Oh no. The board sees you for what you really are now.
No more hiding the fact that you are a Leftist.
You can call that lies and mythology all you like.
Your own words and posts reveal to everyone what you really are.
-
Oh no. The board sees you for what you really are now.
No more hiding the fact that you are a Leftist.
You can call that lies and mythology all you like.
Your own words and posts reveal to everyone what you really are.
Of course my posts "reveal to everyone what I really am". I'd sure hope so, anyway. For those of you obsessed by labels, call me a pragmatic Republican, who's moderate or conservative or even libertarian depending on the issue, who insists on thinking for himself without being bound by ideology or mythology.
-
Of course my posts "reveal to everyone what I really am". I'd sure hope so, anyway. For those of you obsessed by labels, call me a pragmatic Republican, who's moderate or conservative or even libertarian depending on the issue, who insists on thinking for himself without being bound by ideology or mythology.
Your posts on nearly every issue you make a crusade about on this board - reveal you to be a Leftist/Communist Anti-biblical Liberal pretending to be a Conservative.
You are pragmatic only about things tilting Left and things anathema to Conservative and Christian principles.
-
@Jazzhead
Respectfully, I'll not call you anything except a damned fool. One who is willing to give the government even MORE power and MORE of our money and MORE control over our lives when they have amply and completely demonstrated that they are utterly incapable of doing so responsibly.
Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity...and in this application (government) a technique used by useful idiots and power hungry ideologues. Which are you?
-
You sound like an advocate for single payer.
Only to the extent of the consumer being the "single payer."
The additions of health insurance corporations, government involvement and lucrative lawsuits drove costs higher and higher.
Between my wife and my family our parents somehow managed to scrape together the means to pay for there eleven children's births, and raise them to adult hood without health insurance.
Two self-reliant self-employed people without four year college degrees, either. WWII combat wounded vets, I must add.
In about 2005 we paid cash for major female surgical procedures, for my wife. We were "self-insured," and I was an independent contractor.
I realized Americans and others have become "gibmedats," but I don't like it.
Leftists continually bemoan the unfairness of some people having little. To a large extent, it is because however little they obtain, they save nothing.
I should NOT have to subsidize people that refuse to save for their own financial need.
-
@Jazzhead
Respectfully, I'll not call you anything except a damned fool. One who is willing to give the government even MORE power and MORE of our money and MORE control over our lives when they have amply and completely demonstrated that they are utterly incapable of doing so responsibly.
Trying the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity...and in this application (government) a technique used by useful idiots and power hungry ideologues. Which are you?
The problem is, damned fools like that are doing their best to drag the rest of us to Hell with them. It would be nice if, just once, he'd advocate a government policy that left everybody else alone, but no.
"Those who forget History are doomed to repeat it, but those who remember history are doomed by the bloody fools who don't."
-
The problem is, damned fools like that are doing their best to drag the rest of us to Hell with them. It would be nice if, just once, he'd advocate a government policy that left everybody else alone, but no.
I favor the AHCA, which repeals the ACA's requirement that you purchase insurance or pay a tax, and that your employer provide you with insurance or pay a tax. See? You're left alone to be a free rider and a burden on your local hospital when you show up without insurance. Unfortunately, the law doesn't go far enough and let the hospital just leave you alone too.
-
It's not going to be easy to tax people for health care because so many people don't pay income taxes. Unless you plan on a National Sales Tax, you won't get enough money. The ONLY way to generate that kind of money it to tax the "poor". That's where the money is.
Medicaid is already bankrupting states that expanded it and they pay a small percentage of it. Take a hint, America.
-
I favor the AHCA, which repeals the ACA's requirement that you purchase insurance or pay a tax, and that your employer provide you with insurance or pay a tax. See? You're left alone to be a free rider and a burden on your local hospital when you show up without insurance. Unfortunately, the law doesn't go far enough and let the hospital just leave you alone too.
You're already done such a good job of burying yourself under all the ridiculous claims of the wonders of government help, I no long believe you. Sorry. Your credibility is shot from months of claiming to be something you're obviously not.
Good day, I have a dentist that needs visiting. Much more pleasant.
-
Between my wife and my family our parents somehow managed to scrape together the means to pay for there eleven children's births, and raise them to adult hood without health insurance.
Then you were damned lucky, if not a damned fool.
I should NOT have to subsidize people that refuse to save for their own financial need.
One cannot save for a catastrophic medical event. And you are mistaken (the mildest word I can think of) that the poor lack virtue. The community is, thankfully, less selfish than you.
-
It's not going to be easy to tax people for health care because so many people don't pay income taxes. Unless you plan on a National Sales Tax, you won't get enough money. The ONLY way to generate that kind of money it to tax the "poor". That's where the money is.
Medicaid is already bankrupting states that expanded it and they pay a small percentage of it. Take a hint, America.
Maybe you're on to something - use a sales tax or VAT or a tariff on imports. Or just raise either or both FICA taxes on wages. I have no problem whatsoever with the basic point you're making - income taxes are only paid by about half of us, if I recall correctly. Something that's a benefit to the entire community should be paid for by the entire community.
-
Your credibility is shot from months of claiming to be something you're obviously not.
I think for myself, without regard to ideology or mythology.
-
Maybe you're on to something - use a sales tax or VAT or a tariff on imports. Or just raise either or both FICA taxes on wages. I have no problem whatsoever with the basic point you're making - income taxes are only paid by about half of us, if I recall correctly. Something that's a benefit to the entire community should be paid for by the entire community.
@Restored Did you see the way the eyes lit up when you suggested a new tax?? :laugh: Just like a Holiday Tree!
-
Then you were damned lucky, if not a damned fool.
One cannot save for a catastrophic medical event. And you are mistaken (the mildest word I can think of) that the poor lack virtue. The community is, thankfully, less selfish than you.
@truth_seeker @Jazzhead
Govt and the insurance companies are the problem. Today a simple birth can easily cost $20,000 if everything goes right. Slightest problem and you're easily looking at $100,000. Perhaps you could pay that back at 1965 rates then but most people can't today.
Meanwhile the insurance company pays about $5000 for that normal birth, something most people COULD pay. But you and I can't get that rate for paying cash.
Govt isn't the solution, GOVT IS THE PROBLEM. That and the lawyers who force the OB/GYN to pay half his income in insurance premiums.
-
I think for myself, without regard to ideology or mythology.
Why don't you explain to all us rubes what you mean by "mythology?" You keep saying that, and I think it's high time you define it for us, otherwise it's just another Jazzhead weasel word.
-
Other sectors of the economy are able to bring costs down by cutting out the middle man.
The problem with our healthcare is that the US mandates a middle man. And every middle man you add adds to cost and overhead.
-
That tax burden would be offset by a reduction in your health insurance premiums.
Do you honestly believe we could provide more service than we do today for less cost, by passing that function through the federal government?
Really?
-
Then you were damned lucky, if not a damned fool.
One cannot save for a catastrophic medical event. And you are mistaken (the mildest word I can think of) that the poor lack virtue. The community is, thankfully, less selfish than you.
On to name calling (again). I am just an ordinary guy that can remember when we had better people, instead of entitled gibmedats.
And poor people did not go without medical treatment.
You are part of the problem, an overeducated elite, who thinks that just one more adjustment, and socialism will be okay.
You have not commented on much substance, ie. the middlemen. The insurance companies and the government involvement.
Could that be that you are yourself a lawyer in employee benefits, giving you a vested interest in the status quo?
Ronald Reagan:
"Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem. ... Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them."
-
Do you honestly believe we could provide more service than we do today for less cost, by passing that function through the federal government?
Really?
I've asked him similar questions, and he really thinks government can create and enforce "fairness." Not a stretch to think the government can do anything the private sector can do, but faster, cheaper and more fair. He keeps deflecting people by calling things "mythology," and I'd like to know exactly what he's calling mythology.
-
Mark Cuban: Amend U.S. Constitution to Make Healthcare a Right
I thought we already had the discussion about slavery, and didn't slavery lose?
-
I thought we already had the discussion about slavery, and didn't slavery lose?
I thought so too, but I guess people like Cuban want to refight it.
-
One cannot save for a catastrophic medical event.
Yes, they can.
If they can't, the doctors are overcharging anyway and deserve to get ripped off.
-
Yes, they can.
If they can't, the doctors are overcharging anyway and deserve to get ripped off.
Indeed they can. I had two hip replacements, and the fully inflated cost (not what the insurance paid) was about $150K per. When you consider my 401K is several times what I would have ended up paying, it's not unrealistic to have had that money saved up over a life time.
And I'm not rich, just middle class, never made $100K per year in my life.
-
Indeed they can. I had two hip replacements, and the fully inflated cost (not what the insurance paid) was about $150K per. When you consider my 401K is several times what I would have ended up paying, it's not unrealistic to have had that money saved up over a life time.
And I'm not rich, just middle class, never made $100K per year in my life.
Yes what we need are wage controls for doctors. By golly just because they went to school for 12 years after high-school they think they can charge whatever.
Never mind a lot of that was for the hospital.
And probably at least 25% went to pay their malpractice insurance because the common worker likes to sue.
Or the massive regulations they have to contend with.
Sheeeeee those greedy good for nothings are to blame.
It's certainly not the insurance companies. Or federal govt which reimburses them for less than cost so they have to make it up off paying customers.
Nope it's those greedy doctors who allowed you to walk again.
-
Indeed they can. I had two hip replacements, and the fully inflated cost (not what the insurance paid) was about $150K per. When you consider my 401K is several times what I would have ended up paying, it's not unrealistic to have had that money saved up over a life time.
And I'm not rich, just middle class, never made $100K per year in my life.
300k total? Yikes.
-
That tax burden would be offset by a reduction in your health insurance premiums.
That lie...first told by Obama has already been dispelled.
-
300k total? Yikes.
I think that was the highly inflated first total, I imagine the insurance settled it for less, which brings up an interesting question. If I had to buy the hardware and labor in cash, could I have gotten the better insurance adjusted price, or would I be on the tab for the full 300K? I had really good insurance, I paid 2K per.
Mrs Liberty did a shoulder a couple years later, another couple K..This will kill you: That summer one of our kitties got an intestinal blockage, and cost us more than all three of our joint replacements put together. I shit you not.
-
Yes what we need are wage controls for doctors. By golly just because they went to school for 12 years after high-school they think they can charge whatever.
That university that requires 12 years to get a working degree certainly thinks it can charge whatever. The only thing inflating faster than health costs are college tuitions.
Perhaps when we stop treating certain classes of society as sacred, they'll stop holding us hostage.
-
That university that requires 12 years to get a working degree certainly thinks it can charge whatever. The only thing inflating faster than health costs are college tuitions.
Perhaps when we stop treating certain classes of society as sacred, they'll stop holding us hostage.
Prices are inflating faster than ever, meanwhile doctors are leaving their practices in record numbers. My own doctor is a case in point - he left his practice and became a hospitalist. Trying to find a doctor who'll take new patients is becoming more and more difficult.
That money is going somewhere, but it ain't going to doctors.
-
That university that requires 12 years to get a working degree certainly thinks it can charge whatever. The only thing inflating faster than health costs are college tuitions.
Perhaps when we stop treating certain classes of society as sacred, they'll stop holding us hostage.
Universities need to be "socialized." They believe in "sharing the wealth", except perhaps when it comes to their own.
They need to be *FORCED* to share their wealth, which in fact only stems from one source; Credentialism.
Knowledge nowadays is free to anyone who wants it. What people cannot get is the imprimatur from a certifying agency without paying through the nose to get it.
We need to destroy these bastards that control the credentials so that anyone who wants one can have a college degree. There is no reason on earth why it should cost $50,000-$100,000 per year to go to college.
Texas has the right idea with it's $10,000 scholarship program. The college monopoly needs to be defunded and broken, and thereafter we would see a lot less harmful indoctrination of people.
-
Prices are inflating faster than ever, meanwhile doctors are leaving their practices in record numbers. My own doctor is a case in point - he left his practice and became a hospitalist. Trying to find a doctor who'll take new patients is becoming more and more difficult.
That money is going somewhere, but it ain't going to doctors.
The legal authority of "Doctor" is indirectly a government controlled monopoly, and directly a University controlled monopoly.
To get into the guild, you have to pay through the nose to get the credentials from a University. The government backs the Universities play on this.
-
He keeps deflecting people by calling things "mythology," and I'd like to know exactly what he's calling mythology.
The Bible, Biblical Christianity and Constitutional Conservatism are what he calls mythology based on his past replies of invective to those issues.
-
Guess Cuban the dumbass doesn't realize what precedent this would set by institutionaling a "entitlement nanny state". The flood gate would open and would wash our economy down the drain.
He may be a shark specific to VC, but his understanding of "macro-economy" issues is sorely lacking.
-
Mark Cuban clearly has no understanding of where our rights come from.
Government does not grant rights. It only takes them away.
-
Universities need to be "socialized." They believe in "sharing the wealth", except perhaps when it comes to their own.
They need to be *FORCED* to share their wealth, which in fact only stems from one source; Credentialism.
Knowledge nowadays is free to anyone who wants it. What people cannot get is the imprimatur from a certifying agency without paying through the nose to get it.
We need to destroy these bastards that control the credentials so that anyone who wants one can have a college degree. There is no reason on earth why it should cost $50,000-$100,000 per year to go to college.
Texas has the right idea with it's $10,000 scholarship program. The college monopoly needs to be defunded and broken, and thereafter we would see a lot less harmful indoctrination of people.
When government made it easy to get money for a college education via federally backed college loans people could "afford" more and tuition costs went up accordingly. It is no different than the easy home mortgage money in and around 2004. When access to easy money was made available, the prices of houses went up because people could "afford more". Government intervention causes unnatural distortion to the market and eventually there is hell to pay.
-
When government made it easy to get money for a college education via federally backed college loans people could "afford" more and tuition costs went up accordingly. It is no different than the easy home mortgage money in and around 2004. When access to easy money was made available, the prices of houses went up because people could "afford more". Government intervention causes unnatural distortion to the market and eventually there is hell to pay.
And this is exactly right. Government intervention has also caused most of the problems with health care expenses.
-
Mark should stick to what he knows...and health care isn't one of those areas.
The Constitution has evaded him as well. It doesn't grant Rights, it only points out that the Federal Government isn't supposed to abrogate them and lists some of them. If he thinks there is a tenth Amendment issue, perhaps he should take it up in court.
-
And this is exactly right. Government intervention has also caused most of the problems with health care expenses.
Policy design is critical. It's true that insurance that provides "free" services and low deductibles and copays makes us into poor consumers, especially if our employers have paid most of the premium costs. One of the better changes made by the ACA - and one of the most universally reviled, by both employers and unions - is the Cadillac tax, that would tax employers who maintain the most generous health plans. Those sorts of plans are what allow doctors and hospitals to charge so much - patients don't care because those costs are being paid for with other peoples' money.
For this reason I've supported tax-favored medical savings accounts coupled with high-deductible insurance coverage. It gives patients real skin in the game and discourages profligate use of health care services. But what individuals really need are better choices and better information. If the AHCA reforms can restore a robust and competitive individual insurance market, I'd like to see employers incentivized to replace their traditional plans with tax-favored contributions to medical reimbursement accounts, that could be used by employees to purchase insurance - the insurance they want - in the individual marketplace.
Much of the revenue needed to support health insurance for the poor could be obtained by eliminating the employer's deduction for health coverage provided over a certain dollar amount, say $7,000 for individuals and $12,000 for families. Maybe increase the deduction to $8,000 and $13,000 if the employer declines to sponsor a group health plan and instead contributes that dollar amount to a health reimbursement account that the employee could use to either purchase insurance in the individual market or use to self-insure his or her medical expenses. Millions of employees would, with such a change, bring their healthy lives into the individual marketplace, expanding the pool, increasing competition and lowering premium costs.
I have no ideological aversion to government involvement in health care financing. What I care about is good policy vs. bad policy. Good policy makes the difference. The ACA is bad policy in most respects. The ACHA is a step in the right direction, but the real hurdle will be to change fundamentally the current employer-based system.
-
Ironically, every country that has Socialized Medicine passed Tort Reform and capped Malpractice amounts before taking on health care.
-
Ironically, every country that has Socialized Medicine passed Tort Reform and capped Malpractice amounts before taking on health care.
What do you consider to be just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of a medical mistake? Do you favor a no-fault system with awards based on a schedule?
-
What do you consider to be just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of a medical mistake? Do you favor a no-fault system with awards based on a schedule?
Punitive damages need to be capped IMO.
One problem with tort reform is that it's basically a state level thing. Hard for the GOP to implement it nationally.
-
If you get sick, you can die. Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve?
Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.
I've grown used to strawman arguments from progressives. You'd rather the Government take complete control of every individual's physical being than bear the responsibility of personal responsibility. I get it.
-
Old age income security is paid for by taxes imposed on all employers/employees.
If that is true, why is there a constant discussion about starving seniors that have to eat dog food to survive? In other words, you "feel" better because of that tax, regardless of the actual effectiveness of the program or the real outcome.
I just did a quick google search and according to the SSA, the average monthly (Jan 2016 data) benefit is $1,341. That is an outright failure, no matter who pays for it.
You can dream about the same outcome in healthcare, I'll fight for people to have the right to achieve something better.
-
I've grown used to strawman arguments from progressives. You'd rather the Government take complete control of every individual's physical being than bear the responsibility of personal responsibility. I get it.
That is a complete mischaracterization and fabrication of my position.
-
If you get sick, you can die. Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve?
Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.
Bad luck can bring ruin for almost anything.
In Connecticut there are a bunch of houses that were built with bad foundations from a single company in the 1980's-90's. If your foundation is failing, your house is uninsurable and is basically uninhabitable. People's $300,000 investment is worthless overnight.
Do we get the government to step in and protect us from all forms of possible failure?
Bankruptcy sucks, but it's not death. And Bankruptcy, from what I've heard, is not the financial kiss of death it's often presented as. If you search online you'll find that people's credit is often repaired well before the 7 years it technically lasts on your credit report.
In any system on earth you will find horror stories. There are plenty of horror stories from socialized systems when you start to dig. I don't even believe those are the norms in those systems.
People who hate our system tend to take a few general numbers, like longevity, without considering the very complex factors that goes into those numbers.
Here's an interesting number you won't see publicized:
(https://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/files/2013/11/CONCORD-table12.jpg)
Heart attack survivablity rates in the US are very good (although liberals say that for the money we spend, not so).
So would you rather be debt-free or alive?
There are huge massive problems with our system, and just repeating that "we have the best system" (as some in the GOP have done in the past) falls flat with people for good reason. But just declaring that our system is unsolvably terrible and needs to be completely scrapped is just as wrong IMO.
-
Security against homelessness should likewise be provided by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against hunger and bad nutrition should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of fashionable clothing should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of personal transportation should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against job loss should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
Security against lack of cell phone should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
That's where Jazzhead's mindset takes us.
@INVAR @Jazzhead
That's exactly the problem. I don't see how you can declare healthcare to be a right that must be provided/guaranteed by the government without doing the same for things that are even more essential for life -- food/shelter/clothing, etc.. We're (literally) going broke as a country trying to provide reduced versions of that just to senior citizens via Medicare and Social Security. What the hell happens when those things are guaranteed to all?
Whether it is laudable as an aspiration or not, it is simply not affordable. Period.
-
The Bible, Biblical Christianity and Constitutional Conservatism are what he calls mythology based on his past replies of invective to those issues.
I think that's exactly what he's saying, and notice he won't answer me with his own face? He's called God everything except "sky fairy."
-
call me a pragmatic Republican, who's moderate or conservative or even libertarian depending on the issue,
In other words, you are simply a populist that has no guiding principle at his core. Given that, I'm not surprised that you have no understanding individual liberty and responsibility.
-
That is a complete mischaracterization and fabrication of my position.
No it isn't. My characterization only clarified your position and much like all other progressives, you are not keen to the clarification.
You support a broad based tax in order to make "health care a right." Anyone who is willing to abdicate such responsibilities to the government is also handing over control of their bodies to that same government. Much like SSIP, which you have also supported on this thread, the government is using a broad based tax to "protect" and as a result they now DICTATE when people can retire and how much they receive as compensation.
-
:eatdrink:
-
I do hope he runs for President.
Cuban envisions himself as a leftist populist alternative billionaire to Trump.
-
What do you consider to be just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of a medical mistake?
What do you consider to be a just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of federal government interference in the health insurance market?
-
That's exactly the problem. I don't see how you can declare healthcare to be a right that must be provided/guaranteed by the government without doing the same for things that are even more essential for life -- food/shelter/clothing, etc..
@INVAR
@Maj. Bill Martin
Rights are granted by God - not by government. The second any liberal proposes that education be a right, or healthcare, or food, etc., then they are proposing that so-called right be granted by taking away from someone else at the point of a gun.
-
I do hope he runs for President.
Cuban envisions himself as a leftist populist alternative billionaire to Trump.
Cuban's ethics, especially with sports team negotiations is beyond sleazy. His business practices make Trump look like a saint.
-
I do hope he runs for President.
Cuban envisions himself as a leftist populist alternative billionaire to Trump.
Let's face it, Trump's run opened the door for multiple narcissistic billionaires to run for POTUS. Reality show producers are rejoicing everywhere.
-
@INVAR
@Maj. Bill Martin
Rights are granted by God - not by government. The second any liberal proposes that education be a right, or healthcare, or food, etc., then they are proposing that so-called right be granted by taking away from someone else at the point of a gun.
I understand and agree with that, but in essence, that means tossing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and every other program completely. And politically, that's a losing argument. Push for that, and you end up with nothing.
But the cost issue is completely legitimate, and one that can persuade some people to at least limit the welfare state. It is simply not affordable.
-
Let's face it, Trump's run opened the door for multiple narcissistic billionaires to run for POTUS. Reality show producers are rejoicing everywhere.
Isn't Oprah yapping about it?
-
But there is a natural right to health care, just as there are natural rights to keep and bear arms, to speak one's mind freely, to publish writings on most any subject, to worship and follow the dictates of one's religiously informed conscience.
None of these natural rights create any obligation on the part of others to provide us with the means of exercising them. Freedom of the press does not create a right to subsidized paper, ink and printing presses or to compel publishers to print and distribute one's writings; the right to keep and bear arms does not mean that others should be taxed to buy each of us an AR-15, ammo and range time or that firearms manufacturers be compelled to provide us with their products at government mandated prices; nor does the non-enumerated right to health care create a right to have anyone pay physicians on one's behalf, or to compel physicians to provide health care outside of contracts willingly entered into.
Most government regulations of health insurance and health care actually represent infringements of the natural right to health care.
What Cuban means is not a right to health care, but a "right" to compel others to provide us with the product of their labors to subsidize the exercise of that right. This "right" is nothing of the sort, but a form of tyranny exercised on the plea of benefiting the citizenry (as all modern forms of tyranny now are).
Right on.
-
But the cost issue is completely legitimate, and one that can persuade some people to at least limit the welfare state. It is simply not affordable.
Not according to Leftists like Jazzhead. Just tax the rich more and then supplement with 'broad-based tax increases' and spread the misery equally. There's always money in the mind of a Leftist. The government is simply empowered to take more and regulate more and then these imbeciles think there will be plenty for everyone when it is redistributed.
-
I'm so glad it takes an arm and a leg to amend the Constitution.
-
@INVAR @Jazzhead
That's exactly the problem. I don't see how you can declare healthcare to be a right that must be provided/guaranteed by the government without doing the same for things that are even more essential for life -- food/shelter/clothing, etc.. We're (literally) going broke as a country trying to provide reduced versions of that just to senior citizens via Medicare and Social Security. What the hell happens when those things are guaranteed to all?
Whether it is laudable as an aspiration or not, it is simply not affordable. Period.
Folks can plan to provide themselves with food, shelter and clothing. The cost of an unexpected health crisis? Not so much. That's why most responsible folks turn to insurance, just as they do when what's at stake is the protection of their home against fire or flood, or their life savings against a lawsuit in the event of an auto accident.
The purpose of insurance is to protect against unexpected catastrophe. A problem with health care insurance is that it covers stuff well beyond the normal purpose of insurance - like free annual check-ups and vaccinations. No one pays for auto insurance that covers oil changes.
Is protection against ruin in the event of medical catastrophe a "right"? No, but the members of a community can decide -as we've done with Social Security - to devise a system by which such risks can be spread among the community at large. As I've mentioned before, I apply a Rawlesian analysis to a matter such as this - if you were ignorant of your circumstance - wealth or poverty, health or sickness - is this the sort of risk you'd agree should be spread among the community at large so that an individual can have peace of mind against the ill winds of arbitrary fate?
As you've pointed out, Bill, we must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it could be. We cannot be selfish islands of individuality without a care for the larger community. Programs derided by (some) conservatives as welfare and part of the unconstitutional government safety net have existed for our entire lifetimes. These programs aren't going away, nor is the mentality that we as a community should, when appropriate, pool our resources to address the less fortunate.
As for protection against medical catastrophe, of course it is affordable. We pay already for the cost of uncompensated care provided to others. But we do so in a way that is arbitrary and unfair, imposing the price on those who play by the rules and act responsibly. I'd like to see a better way, and am not averse to government playing its role because, let's face it, the risk of financial ruin exists for us all. (Even for social conservatives who've convinced themselves they're more virtuous than the rest of us godless communists).
-
I'm so glad it takes an arm and a leg to amend the Constitution.
So true @kevindavis but it isn't infallible-Exhibit 1 (among many) The 17th and 18th Amendment.
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-it-does-not-take-a-majority-to-prevail-but-rather-an-irate-tireless-minority-keen-on-samuel-adams-0-20-45.jpg)
-
the members of a community can decide -as we've done with Social Security - to devise a system by which such risks can be spread among the community at large.
...is this the sort of risk you'd agree should be spread among the community at large so that an individual can have peace of mind against the ill winds of arbitrary fate?
...We cannot be selfish islands of individuality without a care for the larger community..... (Even for social conservatives who've convinced themselves they're more virtuous than the rest of us godless communists).
As if we needed any more proof from your own mouth that you are a Godless Communist.
-
As if we needed any more proof from your own mouth that you are a Godless Communist.
So because I support Social Security I'm a Godless Communist? You truly do live in Cloudcuckooland.
-
Who do you trust for your health care?
--A good doctor
--A good lawyer
Do you think that most doctors are honest?
Do you think that most lawyers are honest?
-
I understand and agree with that, but in essence, that means tossing Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and every other program completely.
Not at all. Social Security is not a right. Neither is Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, etc.
-
So because I support Social Security I'm a Godless Communist?
THAT and the emphasis and necessity you place upon the 'Community' to empower government on behalf of "community" demands and desires upon the people to create and mandate 'rights' out of thin air.
Textbook Communism. That's what you spew here.
-
THAT and the emphasis and necessity you place upon the 'Community' to empower government on behalf of "community" demands and desires upon the people to create and mandate 'rights' out of thin air.
Textbook Communism. That's what you spew here.
At least I'm not batshit crazy. Spew your mythology at someone else.
-
At least I'm not batshit crazy. Spew your mythology at someone else.
Give it up, you just lost the argument.
-
Give it up, you just lost the argument.
I think it was lost way back, but that's just me.
-
I think it was lost way back, but that's just me.
No, it's not just you.
-
At least I'm not batshit crazy. Spew your mythology at someone else.
That is what all Commies, Liberals, Leftists, Maoists and Big Government Statists call Principled Conservative Christians.
At least you are consistent.
I will wear your batshit crazy accolade as a badge of honor.
-
I think it was lost way back, but that's just me.
Lost and getting loster
-
Lost and getting loster
He should never have taken that left turn in Trier.
-
@Jazzhead
Folks can plan to provide themselves with food, shelter and clothing. The cost of an unexpected health crisis? Not so much. That's why most responsible folks turn to insurance, just as they do when what's at stake is the protection of their home against fire or flood, or their life savings against a lawsuit in the event of an auto accident.
With all due respect, this seems contradictory. You first claim that health care is different from food, shelter, and clothing, because we cannot plan for unexpected health care costs. But you then (rightly) note the existence of the insurance market, which means we can plan for those unexpected costs. So I'm not understanding the distinction you're drawing between the government providing food, shelter, and clothing, and the government providing health care.
Is protection against ruin in the event of medical catastrophe a "right"? No, but the members of a community can decide -as we've done with Social Security - to devise a system by which such risks can be spread among the community at large. As I've mentioned before, I apply a Rawlesian analysis to a matter such as this - if you were ignorant of your circumstance - wealth or poverty, health or sickness - is this the sort of risk you'd agree should be spread among the community at large so that an individual can have peace of mind against the ill winds of arbitrary fate?
I think there are a lot of problems with Rawls and his Veil of Ignorance, but if you're going in that direction, then government also should provide food, shelter, and clothing -- again, according to Rawls. And you haven't distinguished how professional health care is any more necessary to life than food, shelter, and clothing (it's clearly even less necessary), or why government should provide that to everyone but not the others.
As you've pointed out, Bill, we must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it could be. We cannot be selfish islands of individuality without a care for the larger community.
Actually, we can be. What is becoming very clear is that we cannot -- in the literal sense -- provide everyone with all the basics they need to live -- food, shelter, and clothing -- plus health care. We are collapsing under the weight of providing much less only to limited segments of society, and it is not sustainable in the long term. Honestly, your plea that we must deal with the world "as it is" rather than "as we wish it could be" seems a very odd point for you to make. You're talking about something that is desireable in a moral sense without first establishing that it is even possible to do it in the long-term. I'd suggest that your position may be the one that is dealing with the world as he wishes it to be, rather than what it really is.
-
Actually, we can be. What is becoming very clear is that we cannot -- in the literal sense -- provide everyone with all the basics they need to live -- food, shelter, and clothing -- plus health care. We are collapsing under the weight of providing much less only to limited segments of society, and it is not sustainable in the long term.
Other places are collapsing under the failure of all-out socialism. Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, etc.
Even with nearly unlimited resources like Venezuela, it doesn't work in the long run. Europe's several nations are examples of where it looks like it is working, but only with total tax rates that Americans would revolt against.
Across the US municipalities are going bankrupt, over promises for pensions and health care beyond their own financial means.
Haircuts for all.
-
What do you consider to be a just and fair compensation for an individual who is the victim of federal government interference in the health insurance market?
Good question, considering that has been one of the biggest medical mistakes ever.
-
Other places are collapsing under the failure of all-out socialism. Cuba, Venezuela, Greece, etc.
Even with nearly unlimited resources like Venezuela, it doesn't work in the long run. Europe's several nations are examples of where it looks like it is working, but only with total tax rates that Americans would revolt against.
Across the US municipalities are going bankrupt, over promises for pensions and health care beyond their own financial means.
Haircuts for all.
@truth_seeker @Maj. Bill Martin
The false assumption is that someone will have to suffer. There are ways that peoples needs can be met.
Mostly it requires those with able bodies and minds to work and create the wealth needed to buy the services and products they need. This of course requires an economy where work is to be found and the necessary products are available at a fair price. Some people will fall between the cracks of that model and its not unreasonable for those people to receive help.
Our current systems (social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid) all support too many people who are able to work for themselves. They just aren't willing too. This disparity is bankrupting the system.
-
@truth_seeker @Maj. Bill Martin
The false assumption is that someone will have to suffer. There are ways that peoples needs can be met.
Mostly it requires those with able bodies and minds to work and create the wealth needed to buy the services and products they need. This of course requires an economy where work is to be found and the necessary products are available at a fair price. Some people will fall between the cracks of that model and its not unreasonable for those people to receive help.
Our current systems (social security, welfare, medicare, medicaid) all support too many people who are able to work for themselves. They just aren't willing too. This disparity is bankrupting the system.
When the priest or pastor helped someone in the past, they usually knew or knew of someone to ask about getting someone even temporary work, if the person had problems could direct them to help for those (medical or psychological troubles), who had an old car for sale cheap, or a room to let, etc., and they knew the frequent flyers and their family situations. They had that subtle ability to push a person in the right direction.
Now a 'client' gets referred to another agency as a 'client' etc. Privacy safeguards limit information sharing, and the community pays its taxes to support multiple levels of bureaucracy, but I have to question if the results are anywhere near as good.
-
When the priest or pastor helped someone in the past, they usually knew or knew of someone to ask about getting someone even temporary work, if the person had problems could direct them to help for those (medical or psychological troubles), who had an old car for sale cheap, or a room to let, etc., and they knew the frequent flyers and their family situations. They had that subtle ability to push a person in the right direction.
Now a 'client' gets referred to another agency as a 'client' etc. Privacy safeguards limit information sharing, and the community pays its taxes to support multiple levels of bureaucracy, but I have to question if the results are anywhere near as good.
The big difference is the moral hazard argument. Private charity is discretionary -- if the people doing the giving believe you are milking it, or taking advantage of the system, they can withdraw support in a heartbeat.
But government entitlement is far different. You have a legal right to those benefits, and our rightful preference for a government of laws rather a government of men means that the low level administrators don't have much discretion. So, you risk creating a class of dependents who are willing to trade the chance of earning greater wealth for a lazy lifestyle with less benefits. And that's what is happening/has happened.
-
Who do you trust for your health care?
--A good doctor
--A good lawyer
Do you think that most doctors are honest?
Do you think that most lawyers are honest?
There's honest lawyers. Never actually seen one, but the law of averages says they must exist.
-
There's honest lawyers. Never actually seen one, but the law of averages says they must exist.
Really? Ever see an honest thief?
-
Really? Ever see an honest thief?
Yep. That I have.
-
I think it's a right that everyone be billionaires. We should amend the Constitution.
-
Really? Ever see an honest thief?
I think Captain Jack Sparrow spoke with quite a degree of profundity on the issue.
https://youtu.be/1UT9Y6coFT8
-
Is protection against ruin in the event of medical catastrophe a "right"? No, but the members of a community can decide -as we've done with Social Security - to devise a system by which such risks can be spread among the community at large.
How odd that you decry this same standard when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage.
-
Yep. That I have.
So the impossible can be possible?
Impossible.
-
So the impossible can be possible?
Impossible.
No. Merely improbable.
-
By definition alone, you are incorrect.
-
Hate to say it but this is one of the few Constitutional Amendnent proposals that has a chance getting through the states. Luckily it doesn't have a chance of getting through Congress...for now...
-
By definition alone, you are incorrect.
If a thief only steals from thieves is he still a thief? It's a double negative... And regarding honesty and thievery are they necessarily at odds with each other? If a thief never tells a lie or misrepresents himself is he/she not honest? Just thinking out loud...
-
How odd that you decry this same standard when it comes to abortion or same-sex marriage.
There's quite a difference between the community deciding to create a system of insurance to address income security in old age, and the community deciding to take away the Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals.
How do you feel about the community taking your guns away? Now who's the hypocrite?
-
Yep. That I have.
To live outside the law you must be honest.
- Bob Dylan
-
There's quite a difference between the community deciding to create a system of insurance to address income security in old age, and the community deciding to take away the Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals.
Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals? This ought to be good. Exactly what Constitutional rights are you referring to here? Please be specific.
How do you feel about the community taking your guns away?
Amendment II (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having difficulty with?
Now who's the hypocrite?
That would be you due to your selective advocacy of empowering the people to mold and shape their society as they see fit.
-
Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals? This ought to be good. Exactly what Constitutional rights are you referring to here? Please be specific.
I think @Jazzhead uses the one that says that when it comes to health care: from each according to their means to each according to their needs.
-
Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals? This ought to be good. Exactly what Constitutional rights are you referring to here? Please be specific.
The Constitutional rights of gays to the equal protection of the law - disfavored by social conservatives
The Constitution rights of women to privacy and self-determination - disfavored by, again, mostly by social conservatives
The Constitutional rights of gun owners - disfavored by brain-dead liberals.
In each case, my position is consistent - preserve the right subject to reasonable regulation.
-
The Constitutional rights of gays to the equal protection of the law - disfavored by social conservatives
The Constitution rights of women to privacy and self-determination - disfavored by, again, mostly by social conservatives
The Constitutional rights of gun owners - disfavored by brain-dead liberals.
In each case, my position is consistent - preserve the right subject to reasonable regulation.
Only one set of rights there are mentioned in the Constitution, knowing that by "equal protection" you refer to "gay marriage". The reason I say that is a fallacy is that gays had the exact same rights anyone else did. They were free to marry someone of the opposite sex.
-
Our Resident Christian-hating Hedonist and Communist is as always, a demonstration in morbid hypocrisy and failed liberal logic.
-
Only one set of rights there are mentioned in the Constitution, knowing that by "equal protection" you refer to "gay marriage".
So what? A Constitutional right can be found by the SCOTUS exercising its power under Article III to interpret the Constitution and apply it to a set of facts. The abortion right is rooted in the natural and fundamental right to privacy - which the courts have recognized in a variety of contexts for many, many years. Judge Gorsuch affirmed just yesterday that the Constitution protects the right of privacy.
A woman's right to self-determination is no less valid than a gun-owner's right to keep and bear arms. Each is protected by the Constitution, and each is subject to reasonable regulation.
-
Our Resident Christian-hating Hedonist and Communist is as always, a demonstration in morbid hypocrisy and failed liberal logic.
So says our resident purveyor of ignorance and mythology.
-
@INVAR @Jazzhead Are you folks married? Sheesh. 22222frying pan
-
The Constitutional rights of gun owners - disfavored by brain-dead liberals.
Are you calling yourself "brain-dead?" Because you sure as heck don't believe in the Constitutional rights of gun owners, despite the right being clearly enumerated in the Second Amendment. Last I heard was you were OK with guns, so long as you are free to infringe on the rights of gun owners waltzing around in your neighborhood.
-
I think @Jazzhead uses the one that says that when it comes to health care: from each according to their means to each according to their needs.
Merely a lawyer that thinks the constitution is a community organizer's handbook, to level out the inequalities of life.
Like Obama, you cite a good outcome for somebody that worked hard, and our member says he was lucky.
-
@INVAR @Jazzhead Are you folks married? Sheesh. 22222frying pan
Jazzhead is simply an enemy of every principle and belief we hold sacred. He was stupid enough to pick a fight with the wrong person. His silly little promise to attack my posts as bigoted, intolerant xenophobia every time he saw them on a thread some time back was nothing but an invitation for prolonged warfare AFAIC.
I'm obliging.
I do not suffer bullies, tyrants or liars disguising what they really are in an attempt to beguile and push Leftism upon Conservatives. That is what Jazzhead is doing here. He's a Leftie pretending to be something his own words demonstrate he is not.
His ideas, mindset, ideology and perversions are a cancer that need exposure to what they really are and sustained resistance every single time he dumps his crap here.
-
Like Obama, you cite a good outcome for somebody that worked hard, and our member says he was lucky.
I think you put your finger on what many of us find so infuriating. We believe success comes from hard work and thrift. After decades of effort, we have the callouses and bank accounts to prove it. Then some lefty community organizer comes along who wants to separate us from those bank accounts, declaring us "selfish" and "lucky."
-
In a perpetual personal feud, Duelists generally don't menace anyone but each other, unless, of course, another Warrior foolishly gets between them. They may not even remember what started the fight, but not they cordially loathe one another and seize every to go at each other. When the other Warriors eventually weary of their endless kvetching the Duelists will be shouted down or Nanny will ban them. Even after getting the heave-ho from one forum, however, it is not unusual for them to seeking each other in other forums to renew their fight.
(http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/Assets/duelists.jpg)
http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/duelists.htm
Oldie but goodie. ^-^
-
I think you put your finger on what many of us find so infuriating. We believe success comes from hard work and thrift. After decades of effort, we have the callouses and bank accounts to prove it. Then some lefty community organizer comes along who wants to separate us from those bank accounts, declaring us "selfish" and "lucky."
You are indeed lucky. Be thankful, not resentful.
-
You are indeed lucky. Be thankful, not resentful.
I just fell into it, huh?
-
His silly little promise to attack my posts as bigoted, intolerant xenophobia every time he saw them on a thread some time back was nothing but an invitation for prolonged warfare AFAIC.
I'm obliging.
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. It's more interesting than stamp collecting, I'll give you that.
-
I just fell into it, huh?
No, I'm sure you worked hard. But so do millions who work for employers too small or prosperous to offer group health insurance. They are as virtuous as you. But not as lucky.
-
No, I'm sure you worked hard. But so do millions who work for employers too small or prosperous to offer group health insurance. They are as virtuous as you. But not as lucky.
So from each according to their luck to each according to their needs? Have I got it down now?
-
No, I'm sure you worked hard. But so do millions who work for employers too small or prosperous to offer group health insurance. They are as virtuous as you. But not as lucky.
@Jazzhead
You can get a small business group plan with 5 people. There are even plans for groups as small as 2.
-
No, I'm sure you worked hard. But so do millions who work for employers too small or prosperous to offer group health insurance. They are as virtuous as you. But not as lucky.
I see. Did I ever call anybody "not virtuous?" You are waving a red herring. Also, small matter: I don't usually thank "luck," I thank God for helping me with the hard work and thrift. "Lucky" is a cop out people use to explain why some people are rewarded in life while others are not.
-
I see. Did I ever call anybody "not virtuous?" You are waving a red herring. Also, small matter: I don't usually thank "luck," I thank God for helping me with the hard work and thrift. "Lucky" is a cop out people use to explain why some people are rewarded in life while others are not.
Which raises the question. Is government out to right the wrongs of God? :smokin:
-
Which raises the question. Is government out to right the wrongs of God? :smokin:
Report to indoctrination at once!
Government is God.
-
Everyone needs a hobby, I guess. It's more interesting than stamp collecting, I'll give you that.
The reason we lost the culture and our liberty is due the fact no one was willing to stand up and put down these insipid Marxist ideas masquerading as compassion and 'rights' when we had a chance to do so when the cost was minimal.
Sadly, a good chunk of folks still think letting that bullshit get spewed without challenge or to coddle it as 'reasonable' is somehow more civil,. Meanwhile people like Jazzhead deceive everyone into believing they're compassionate fellows while they empower the Beast to strip away your inalienable God-given rights for new rights for hedonists and Socialists that he and his fashion out of thin air. They are tyrants and need to be treated as such.
The Big Lie gets accepted as truth because no one bothers to challenge it.
Marxism and Statism gets imposed for the same reason.
-
I see. Did I ever call anybody "not virtuous?" You are waving a red herring. Also, small matter: I don't usually thank "luck," I thank God for helping me with the hard work and thrift. "Lucky" is a cop out people use to explain why some people are rewarded in life while others are not.
Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?
- Tom Waits
-
Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?
- Tom Waits
Beats me.
That information's not available to mortal man.
- Paul Simon
-
Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?
- Tom Waits
Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers
- Garth Brooks
-
Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?
- Tom Waits
We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will. - John 9:31
The LORD is far from the wicked, But He hears the prayer of the righteous. - Proverbs 15:29
But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, So that He will not hear. - Isaiah 59:2
Thus says the Lord to this people: "Thus they have loved to wander; They have not restrained their feet. Therefore the Lord does not accept them; He will remember their iniquity now, And punish their sins." Then the Lord said to me, "Do not pray for this people, for their good. When they fast, I will not hear their cry; and when they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I will not accept them. But I will consume them by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence. - Jeremiah 14:10-12
One who turns away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer is an abomination. - Proverbs 28:9
But since you refuse to listen when I call and no one pays attention when I stretch out my hand, since you disregard all my advice and do not accept my rebuke,
I in turn will laugh when disaster strikes you;
I will mock when calamity overtakes you— when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you.
Then they will call to me but I will not answer they will look for me but will not find me, since they hated knowledge and did not choose to fear the Lord.
Since they would not accept my advice and spurned my rebuke, they will eat the fruit of their ways and be filled with the fruit of their schemes.
For the waywardness of the simple will kill them, and the complacency of fools will destroy them - Proverbs 1: 24-32
-
The reason we lost the culture and our liberty is due the fact no one was willing to stand up and put down these insipid Marxist ideas masquerading as compassion and 'rights' when we had a chance to do so when the cost was minimal.
Sadly, a good chunk of folks still think letting that bullshit get spewed without challenge or to coddle it as 'reasonable' is somehow more civil,. Meanwhile people like Jazzhead deceive everyone into believing they're compassionate fellows while they empower the Beast to strip away your inalienable God-given rights for new rights for hedonists and Socialists that he and his fashion out of thin air. They are tyrants and need to be treated as such.
The Big Lie gets accepted as truth because no one bothers to challenge it.
Marxism and Statism gets imposed for the same reason.
And I both admire you (a fairly common thing) and respect you (much, much rarer) for doing it. Don't mean I'm not going to tease you about it sometimes. :beer:
-
Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers
- Garth Brooks
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy. -Billy Currington.
-
And I both admire you (a fairly common thing) and respect you (much, much rarer) for doing it. Don't mean I'm not going to tease you about it sometimes. :beer:
Oh please do tease and poke when necessary.
Keeps me humble (the right kind of humble - not the kind that cowers when confronted by tyrants pushing tyranny).
-
So what? A Constitutional right can be found by the SCOTUS exercising its power under Article III to interpret the Constitution and apply it to a set of facts. The abortion right is rooted in the natural and fundamental right to privacy - which the courts have recognized in a variety of contexts for many, many years. Judge Gorsuch affirmed just yesterday that the Constitution protects the right of privacy.
Does the right of privacy, which I do not disagree with when it comes to ones personal affairs overrun the right to live? It is no accident that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." with Life placed first. Why? because without Life all else is moot. Dead people don't exercise rights. If you had, in your personal papers, information which could lead to saving a person's life, would you be justified in standing on your 'Right to Privacy' to the point of their demise?
You have given many excuses to justify the elective slaughter of over 50,000,000 babies as a "right", but none of them would hold sway with the Founders, and frankly, none holds sway with me. Once established, the Right to murder the helpless will only increase its jurisdiction with a wide variety of justifications and rationalizations until it is all encompassing.
A woman's right to self-determination is no less valid than a gun-owner's right to keep and bear arms. Each is protected by the Constitution, and each is subject to reasonable regulation.
What of the (see above), over 25,000,000 women who were shredded, vacuumed, scraped, or chemically burned to death in their mothers' wombs? How can people who are so squeamish over even the fully adjudicated capital punishment of a brutal serial killer be so passe about the brutal slaying of their own innocent offspring, much less claim it as a "woman's right" when at half of those they kill are female?
Where I grew up, we had a saying for that.
"Those people aren't wired right."
The RKBA exists anyway, but was mentioned in an attempt to safeguard that right to possess the means to protect the Rights of our people, among them and first and foremost the right to Life itself.
-
Does the right of privacy, which I do not disagree with when it comes to ones personal affairs overrun the right to live? It is no accident that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." with Life placed first. Why? because without Life all else is moot. Dead people don't exercise rights. If you had, in your personal papers, information which could lead to saving a person's life, would you be justified in standing on your 'Right to Privacy' to the point of their demise?
You have given many excuses to justify the elective slaughter of over 50,000,000 babies as a "right", but none of them would hold sway with the Founders, and frankly, none holds sway with me. Once established, the Right to murder the helpless will only increase its jurisdiction with a wide variety of justifications and rationalizations until it is all encompassing. What of the (see above), over 25,000,000 women who were shredded, vacuumed, scraped, or chemically burned to death in their mothers' wombs? How can people who are so squeamish over even the fully adjudicated capital punishment of a brutal serial killer be so passe about the brutal slaying of their own innocent offspring, much less claim it as a "woman's right" when at half of those they kill are female?
Where I grew up, we had a saying for that.
"Those people aren't wired right."
The RKBA exists anyway, but was mentioned in an attempt to safeguard that right to possess the means to protect the Rights of our people, among them and first and foremost the right to Life itself.
You are smoking, @Smokin Joe
Your rationale is eminently reasonable and one that readers can use to solidify their mindset in like manner; however, the one you directed your response to is in comprehensively too dense or too indoctrinated to cogently absorb. Am trying to be kind here, as it might just be simply evil in form.
-
Tell me how does God choose, just whose prayers he will refuse?
- Tom Waits
Anyone asking a question like that could sure benefit from watching the current movie The Shack. Well worth it to comprehend God.
-
I think you put your finger on what many of us find so infuriating. We believe success comes from hard work and thrift. After decades of effort, we have the callouses and bank accounts to prove it. Then some lefty community organizer comes along who wants to separate us from those bank accounts, declaring us "selfish" and "lucky."
It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.
Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.
They had big families, remained married, etc.
It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."
-
It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.
Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.
They had big families, remained married, etc.
It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."
It's like telling business owners: "You didn't build that!"
-
It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."
Jazzhead simply heralds from the same school of Statism and Thought as Dick Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and Obama.
Simple as that, and screams it from nearly every post he makes.
-
You are smoking, @Smokin Joe
Your rationale is eminently reasonable and one that readers can use to solidify their mindset in like manner; however, the one you directed your response to is in comprehensively too dense or too indoctrinated to cogently absorb. Am trying to be kind here, as it might just be simply evil in form.
While I may never change the mind of the one I engage in such matters, I cannot let such egregious misconceptions stand unchallenged, lest the casual visitor be led astray.
-
It's like telling business owners: "You didn't build that!"
That torques me, too. You build something in spite of government, and then the government finds ways to tear it down, and then the b@st@rds have the unmitigated gall to say 'You didn't build that'.
BS!--and I'd have built a hell of a lot more of it if they'd got the Hell out of the way.
-
In each case, my position is consistent - preserve the right subject to reasonable regulation.
The only consistency in your post is the conspicuous absence of any citation from the Constitution that supports your claim.
-
It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.
Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.
They had big families, remained married, etc.
It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."
@truth_seeker his mentality echoes that of more Liberals in that they believe that anyone who is successful didn't get there by the sweat of their brow...liong hours and such...they look at it as he/she got "lucky" as you stated and that they were the winners of "Life's lottery".
Hard work...either in practice or theory doesn't compute with the Liberal mindset. If you got rich...is HAS to be because you stole it for someone else.
-
@truth_seeker his mentality echoes that of more Liberals in that they believe that anyone who is successful didn't get there by the sweat of their brow...liong hours and such...they look at it as he/she got "lucky" as you stated and that they were the winners of "Life's lottery".
Hard work...either in practice or theory doesn't compute with the Liberal mindset. If you got rich...is HAS to be because you stole it for someone else.
JH sounds just like Obama. Socialist ideas, using different words. They think anybody else that is successful must have had it easy, like they did. And they think they are smarter.
And never mind "getting rich." I am talking about olde fashioned middleclass America.
The goofy ideas, like everybody is "entitled" to free college, or free health care, just for participating in life are among things which are seriously wrong.
Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Liberals believe in equal outcomes.
-
JH sounds just like Obama. Socialist ideas, using different words. They think anybody else that is successful must have had it easy, like they did. And they think they are smarter.
And never mind "getting rich." I am talking about olde fashioned middleclass America.
The goofy ideas, like everybody is "entitled" to free college, or free health care, just for participating in life are among things which are seriously wrong.
Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Liberals believe in equal outcomes.
:thumbsup:
-
Cuban is a rich idiot.
-
For awhile there in the early days of the campaign I thought he was in love with Trump, when he was informed he wasn't up for consideration as SoS, he bailed.
His Mavericks are second only to the Spurs in NBA teams I love to hate.
-
His Mavericks are second only to the Spurs in NBA teams I love to hate.
Maybe my most fearful "sports" moment in my history was when it was rumored he was buying the Astros several years ago.
Cuban is past sleazy.
-
Cuban is a wuss.
(http://i.imgur.com/CU5GQWJ.jpg)
-
Does the right of privacy, which I do not disagree with when it comes to ones personal affairs overrun the right to live? It is no accident that the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence were "...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit..." with Life placed first. Why? because without Life all else is moot. Dead people don't exercise rights. If you had, in your personal papers, information which could lead to saving a person's life, would you be justified in standing on your 'Right to Privacy' to the point of their demise?
You have given many excuses to justify the elective slaughter of over 50,000,000 babies as a "right", but none of them would hold sway with the Founders, and frankly, none holds sway with me. Once established, the Right to murder the helpless will only increase its jurisdiction with a wide variety of justifications and rationalizations until it is all encompassing. What of the (see above), over 25,000,000 women who were shredded, vacuumed, scraped, or chemically burned to death in their mothers' wombs? How can people who are so squeamish over even the fully adjudicated capital punishment of a brutal serial killer be so passe about the brutal slaying of their own innocent offspring, much less claim it as a "woman's right" when at half of those they kill are female?
Where I grew up, we had a saying for that.
"Those people aren't wired right."
I don't excuse abortion; I'm horrified by it. I understand your perspective, SJ, and the passion you feel about the millions of potential lives lost to abortion.
But I believe the focus of the pro-life movement should be on saving lives - using persuasion and providing concrete help to women in crisis - rather than the vain task of stuffing genies back in bottles. The choice right has existed as part of the Constitution for over forty years now. Not as long as the gun right, to be sure, but long enough - there isn't a woman of child-bearing age who hasn't always had the right to determine for herself whether to procreate. Like it or not, women have been liberated from the patriarchy. The genie's long gone.
Moral matters such as this - which are inherently religious in nature - are best addressed by persuasion rather than coercion. The state is charged with respecting our natural rights to liberty and self-determination, not usurping them. Liberty includes the right to make bad choices, even immoral choices. The task is to appeal to conscience in favor of religious values, not appeal to the state to compel adherence to religious values.
The good news is, persuasion (and education) works. Abortion is now at its lowest levels since before Roe v. Wade.
-
It is stunning such individuals have so much influence. I recite for him how my father and my FIL provided for their families, and he calls it lucky.
Fact is both were wounded vets home from WWII, worked hard, followed the rules, active in their respective different churches, etc. Neither were college graduates, like our "lucky" lawyer.
They had big families, remained married, etc.
It insults my intelligence to say such people are "lucky."
I've never stopped working since I was 16, TS. I've followed the rules and been married to the same woman for 40 years. My kids are the greatest.
Damn right I've been lucky. I thank the stars every day for my good fortune. Why does it "insult your intelligence" to acknowledge, and be thankful for, good fortune?
The greatest virtue, IMO, is humility. My hard work and perseverance means nothing; it may all be gone tomorrow. I don't wish for a moment that I had INVAR's cocksure certainty that he knows the mind of God. I know nothing of God and deserve nothing from Him. My good fortune is just that - luck - and I'm reminded of Bob Dylan's words that to live outside the law one must be honest.
-
I don't wish for a moment that I had INVAR's cocksure certainty that he knows the mind of God. I know nothing of God and deserve nothing from Him.
The most honest thing you have probably ever posted to this board.
My good fortune is just that - luck - and I'm reminded of Bob Dylan's words that to live outside the law one must be honest.
Which answers why I know the mind of God and you do not (and choose not to) : I quote the scriptures and you quote Bob Dylan.
-
The most honest thing you have probably ever posted to this board.
Correct. I don't ever want to be like you. Folks like you are what convinced me I had to leave the church to stay true to Christ.
-
Moral matters such as this - which are inherently religious in nature - are best addressed by persuasion rather than coercion. The state is charged with respecting our natural rights to liberty and self-determination, not usurping them. Liberty includes the right to make bad choices, even immoral choices. The task is to appeal to conscience in favor of religious values, not appeal to the state to compel adherence to religious values.
The good news is, persuasion (and education) works. Abortion is now at its lowest levels since before Roe v. Wade.
I wonder how all that feel-good persuasion works when the sword of an Islamist is at your throat saying "convert or die"?
Then idealists will die.
I choose to live.
-
Correct. I don't ever want to be like you. Folks like you are what convinced me I had to leave the church to stay true to Christ.
Your disdain for the bible and invective towards biblical Christians more than illustrates the fact you are not true to Christ, His Word, His Teachings or morality itself.
No wonder you left your church.
You are true only to the god of your imagination.
-
Please stay on topic.
And, remember, some things once said can't be taken back.
-
I don't excuse abortion; I'm horrified by it. I understand your perspective, SJ, and the passion you feel about the millions of potential lives lost to abortion.
But I believe the focus of the pro-life movement should be on saving lives - using persuasion and providing concrete help to women in crisis - rather than the vain task of stuffing genies back in bottles.
"potential lives"? Genies in bottles? How crass a term for human life. Perhaps some meatbag like yourself prefers to be referred to as five bucks worth of salts and water in a skin sack, but short of posting images of shredded babies, perhaps I can't bring home to you that which you so casually dismiss. These were people, alive, not mythical (Islamic mythical, no less, the djinn) creatures, whose murder was very real, and ongoing. Of course, dehumanizing those to be slaughtered is the method of mass murderers throughout history, so you have adopted a time honored technique. The choice right has existed as part of the Constitution for over forty years now.
It may be case law, but if you can't quote Article, section, or Amendment, it is not part of The Constitution. It is a badly crafted judicial decision, a decree, and the antithesis of an unalienable right. No healthy creature in nature would advocate the slaughter of its own offspring. Not as long as the gun right,
The "gun right", the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, has been an understood facet of self-defense for far longer than our Constitution exists, and that Amendment does not use the word "firearm" of "gun" anywhere, leaving the choice of martial device to the individual. Despite the absence of limitations on that Right, (in fact, codified, a right which "shall not be infringed"), I would wager you and many others of your ilk would gladly place restrictions on the type and effectiveness of the arms to be kept and borne by any individual. With rare exception, all but the most staunch advocates of the RKBA accept limitations to the RKBA. ...to be sure, but long enough - there isn't a woman of child-bearing age who hasn't always had the right to determine for herself whether to procreate.
Correct, and with the exception of acts of force and violence, it has always been thus. There are a host of means by which a woman can avoid procreation, the most effective is abstinence, which faithfully practiced has had only one well documented exception in effect.
Understanding that any other method carries a risk of failure, there have been condoms for centuries, other blocking devices, spermacides, intrauterine devices, tubal ligation/vasectomy, and for at least as long as Roe other means of tricking the body into not accepting the implantation of a fertilized egg, including, but not limited to "the Pill".
All these methods involve no fetal development, no baby to kill, and all have been available, some for a pittance in vending machines, corner drugstores, or in the big-box stores, handed out at free clinics, made available to people interested in not procreating. Like it or not, women have been liberated from the patriarchy.
Patriarchy? Where have you been? The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Real women know this and ever have, and have had no illusions about their power. Their Fathers, husbands, brothers and sons have gone forth on their behalf to keep it so. The genie's long gone.
Is it? Did the little spirit that grants wishes pop out of the bottle? (An interesting metaphor for the birth of a baby, formerly in utero)
Rub it (the lamp) gently, lovingly, hold it, when it comes out tell it your dreams and they will perhaps come true? Such is a child.
Beats the heck out of sticking a fancy coathanger in the bottle and playing mixmaster with the 'genie', which might not get you any wishes granted at all.
Moral matters such as this - which are inherently religious in nature - are best addressed by persuasion rather than coercion. The state is charged with respecting our natural rights to liberty and self-determination, not usurping them.
The State is charged with protecting those rights and keeping the exercise of rights by one (especially one more powerful) from infringing on the rights of another (especially one less powerful).
What of the rights of those not yet born (but in utero) to liberty and self-determination?
They are in a situation NOT of their own choosing (Who wouldn't rather be born into a family where they would be a welcome addition and treated as a blessing, rather than have those who carry you literally out for your blood from before your birth).
They have committed no crime, stolen nothing from anyone. By accident or design, their presence is one commanded by the actions of others. Yet they get no 'choice' about living, nor opportunity to choose. Liberty includes the right to make bad choices, even immoral choices.
I'll take issue with that. Liberty does not include any right to infringe on the rights of others. It does not include the right to make 'bad moral choices' like stealing, lying, or murder, to name just a few. Nor does Liberty include the 'right' to be free of the consequences of those bad choices--especially at the suffering or death of those who had no choice, who are indeed innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever.
What religion permits the sacrifice of your offspring for absolution from your 'sins'?
The task is to appeal to conscience in favor of religious values, not appeal to the state to compel adherence to religious values.
But wait. We have laws against murder, against adultery, against stealing, against perjury, and these laws all reflect religious values (numbers 6,7,8,9 of the Ten Commandments, respectively) Should we repeal those?
Your argument doesn't stand.
The good news is, persuasion (and education) works. Abortion is now at its lowest levels since before Roe v. Wade.
How do you measure the levels before it was decreed legal? Sad that there was a 'murder bubble' at all.
-
"potential lives"? Genies in bottles?....
What religion permits the sacrifice of your offspring for absolution from your 'sins'?
But wait. We have laws against murder, against adultery, against stealing, against perjury, and these laws all reflect religious values (numbers 6,7,8,9 of the Ten Commandments, respectively) Should we repeal those?
Your argument doesn't stand. How do you measure the levels before it was decreed legal? Sad that there was a 'murder bubble' at all.
All of that was excellent refutation of the time-honored wickedness that JH purveys here on this board.
You are not going to be persuading him of the truth of what you posted (because he outrightly rejects all truth and the Supreme Source of Truth), but just know that those of us reading your evisceration of his inane comments is appreciated.
-
Outstanding rebuttal Smoken Joe.
-
Outstanding rebuttal Smoken Joe.
Thanks!
-
Moral matters such as this - which are inherently religious in nature - are best addressed by persuasion rather than coercion.
This isn't a moral discussion. It is a Constitutional one. You specifically stated that it was unconstitutional for the members of a society to shape their society by regulating marriage and abortion. And in response, you were specifically asked to site where in the Constitution those prohibitions could be found.
Yet now it suddenly becomes a moral issue? Thus, one can only conclude that you are full of it, knowing full well that the Constitution itself plays zero role in your support for abortion and "gay" marriage. So not only does it make you a hypocrite when it comes to societal self-determination, it also makes you an enemy of the Constitution of the United States since it is to its detriment that your support for the above is based.
-
Yet now it suddenly becomes a moral issue? Thus, one can only conclude that you are full of it, knowing full well that the Constitution itself plays zero role in your support for abortion and "gay" marriage. So not only does it make you a hypocrite when it comes to societal self-determination, it also makes you an enemy of the Constitution of the United States since it is to its detriment that your support for the above is based.
That needed to be highlighted as the hard, sharp truth of anything anyone has posted in regards to whom you are addressing.
-
This isn't a moral discussion. It is a Constitutional one. You specifically stated that it was unconstitutional for the members of a society to shape their society by regulating marriage and abortion. And in response, you were specifically asked to site where in the Constitution those prohibitions could be found.
Grrrrrr .... it's cite, not site. Sorry, pet peeve. I call that peeve Jim.
-
Outstanding rebuttal Smoken Joe.
I agree, it was a good rebuttal.
Except, SJ, that you insist that I'm not on the same side as you. I think persuasion will do a BETTER JOB of saving lives than coercion.
The problem with coercion is that people will resist it. The criminalization of abortion has been the pivotal issue that's divided us for 40 years, split us into warring camps, and led IMO directly to the hyperpartisan clusterflip that is Washington today.
I am sick of the abortion issue. I am sick of abortion. Let's get folks clued in that we're dealing with a soul here. Lets get folks educated about responsibility and abstinence. Let's encourage contraception. Let's encourage adoption. Let's provide financial support for mothers in crisis.
But let's not take women's Constitutional rights away. The fight is too costly - persuasion, not coercion.
-
Grrrrrr .... it's cite, not site. Sorry, pet peeve. I call that peeve Jim.
Sorry about that. I knew better.
-
I agree, it was a good rebuttal.
Except that you insist that I'm not on the same side as you. I think persuasion will do a BETTER JOB of saving lives than coercion.
Only a perverted, twisted and wicked mind equivocates Infanticide as a Constitutional Right and that abolishing institutionalized murder as being coercion and 'forcing a woman to reproduce'. This when you consistently ridicule notions of morality and religion in terms of shaming society into keeping their genitals to themselves unless they are ready to bear the responsibility of raising a family. That you call intolerance.
We are definitely NOT on the same side as you are on nearly every issue of importance to Conservatism. You are an enemy of our principles as Hoodat rightly noted.
-
Grrrrrr .... it's cite, not site. Sorry, pet peeve. I call that peeve Jim.
I'm a grammatical wreck... I think its due to drain bamage... I blame my parents (gotta blame somebody)...
-
Sorry about that. I knew better.
:beer:
You, Joe, and Invar are pretty much speaking for me on all this too.
-
But let's not take women's Constitutional rights away.
Show me where in the Constitution I can find that.
(https://cdn.meme.am/Instance/Preview?imageID=5754965&text0=constitutional%20.%20.%20.%20yOU%20KEEP%20USING%20THAT%20WORD.&text1=i%20DON%27T%20THINK%20IT%20MEANS%20WHAT%20YOU%20THINK%20IT%20MEANS.)
-
Only a perverted, twisted and wicked mind equivocates Infanticide as a Constitutional Right and that abolishing institutionalized murder as being coercion and 'forcing a woman to reproduce'. This when you consistently ridicule notions of morality and religion in terms of shaming society into keeping their genitals to themselves unless they are ready to bear the responsibility of raising a family. That you call intolerance.
We are definitely NOT on the same side as you are on nearly every issue of importance to Conservatism. You are an enemy of our principles as Hoodat rightly noted.
You're so cute when you're angry. :seeya:
-
Except, SJ, that you insist that I'm not on the same side as you. I think persuasion will do a BETTER JOB of saving lives than coercion.
But let's not take women's Constitutional rights away. The fight is too costly - persuasion, not coercion.
Let's begin the conservation on 'persuasion' by showing some videos to expectant mothers of how an abortion proceeds. The way a squirming baby in the womb is denied a right to being born by the incision of a lethal instrument that sucks out its lifeblood, and its tissue is discarded in the trash like a meat butcher would do to remains of his work.
Is that the 'persuasion' conversation you were envisioning? If not, what do you believe is more effective at eliminating abortion once and for all by 'persuasion'?
-
Let's begin the conservation on 'persuasion' by showing some videos to expectant mothers of how an abortion proceeds. The way a squirming baby in the womb is denied a right to being born by the incision of a lethal instrument that sucks out its lifeblood, and its tissue is discarded in the trash like a meat butcher would do to remains of his work.
Is that the 'persuasion' conversation you were envisioning? If not, what do you believe is more effective at eliminating abortion once and for all by 'persuasion'?
Well, I prefer moral persuasion to forcing young girls to watch splatter films, but it that's what you think might work, who am I to discourage you?
-
You're so cute when you're angry. :seeya:
Wrong again.
Not angry at all. I love pointing out the truth and calling evil what it is when I see it.
I'm actually laughing at you.
-
Well, I prefer moral persuasion to forcing young girls to watch splatter films, but it that's what you think might work, who am I to discourage you?
It is disingenuous to fake concern about moral persuasion when you can't even be honest about what the Constitution says.
-
Well, I prefer moral persuasion to forcing young girls to watch splatter films
And what 'moral persuasion' would that be from considering you have referenced the bible as nothing but 'myth' and Christians who attend biblically-based churches as bigots?
Would that be from the god of your imagination?
-
Well, I prefer moral persuasion to forcing young girls to watch splatter films, but it that's what you think might work, who am I to discourage you?
War is real clean and easy when you can have some one else quietly do the dirty work for you, especially when they profit from it and looking for more business, without having to concern yourself with the reality of it.
Being exposed to the actual consequences is the moral persuasion. Those "splatter films" are the real consequences to real children, not some Hollywood production.
-
I agree, it was a good rebuttal.
Except, SJ, that you insist that I'm not on the same side as you. I think persuasion will do a BETTER JOB of saving lives than coercion.
But here is where you and I differ. I see Roe as coercion. It forced States to permit slaughter by finding a "right" which has never existed. The problem with coercion is that people will resist it. The criminalization of abortion has been the pivotal issue that's divided us for 40 years, split us into warring camps, and led IMO directly to the hyperpartisan clusterflip that is Washington today.
You have your harness backwards, there, the horse goes in front.
Roe didn't criminalize abortion, for thousands of years people have recognized killing babies in the womb is as wrong as murdering adults with axes, and both were forbidden by law. No one sees laws against axe murderers as coercion.
It was the whole cloth creation of some 'right' to murder children yet to be born that has caused a divide, and if we can't fight for the lives of the helpless among us, we have no moral basis, period.
I am sick of the abortion issue. I am sick of abortion.
Fine. help overturn Roe. There are ample adequate means to prevent pregnancy. Let's get folks clued in that we're dealing with a soul here.
Fifty million souls and counting, not to mention their mothers, fathers, abortion providers, etc. Quit calling murder a 'right' and call it what it is. Stop the slaughter and close the abattoirs. Lets get folks educated about responsibility and abstinence. Let's encourage contraception. Let's encourage adoption. Let's provide financial support for mothers in crisis.
All of that, I'm all for it, and each of those options is more attractive without the easy out of legalized murder.
But let's not take women's Constitutional rights away.
Do not, even for one second, even ask me to believe that the framers would see the wholesale slaughter of offspring in the womb as a "Right". Recall, in speaking of unalienable Rights, they put "Life" first? The most fundamental, first and foremost Right. No way they would have considered abortion a "right".
How about the roughly 50% of those babies, the twenty five million 'women' who will never coo or smile at daddy or the cute kid down the street, never dance at prom, never hold their own babies because they were deprived of the most fundamental right of all: Life itself?
Don't they have Rights?
It is in their memory we fight, and for those who will follow if we do not. The fight is too costly - persuasion, not coercion.
No fight is too costly if it is for what is right. How often are we told we need to give up this or that because "if it only saves one life, it will be worth it"? How could a fight to save millions of lives be "too costly"?
-
But here is where you and I differ. I see Roe as coercion. It forced States to permit slaughter by finding a "right" which has never existed. You have your harness backwards, there, the horse goes in front.
Roe didn't criminalize abortion, for thousands of years people have recognized killing babies in the womb is as wrong as murdering adults with axes, and both were forbidden by law. No one sees laws against axe murderers as coercion.
It was the whole cloth creation of some 'right' to murder children yet to be born that has caused a divide, and if we can't fight for the lives of the helpless among us, we have no moral basis, period. Fine. help overturn Roe. There are ample adequate means to prevent pregnancy. Fifty million souls and counting, not to mention their mothers, fathers, abortion providers, etc. Quit calling murder a 'right' and call it what it is. Stop the slaughter and close the abattoirs. All of that, I'm all for it, and each of those options is more attractive without the easy out of legalized murder. Do not, even for one second, even ask me to believe that the framers would see the wholesale slaughter of offspring in the womb as a "Right". Recall, in speaking of unalienable Rights, they put "Life" first? The most fundamental, first and foremost Right. No way they would have considered abortion a "right".
How about the roughly 50% of those babies, the twenty five million 'women' who will never coo or smile at daddy or the cute kid down the street, never dance at prom, never hold their own babies because they were deprived of the most fundamental right of all: Life itself?
Don't they have Rights?
It is in their memory we fight, and for those who will follow if we do not. No fight is too costly if it is for what is right. How often are we told we need to give up this or that because "if it only saves one life, it will be worth it"? How could a fight to save millions of lives be "too costly"?
You have articulated the Framers, the Constitution, Biblical Christianity, logic, decency and basic morality in one fell swoop.
How anyone can refer to themselves as Conservative, Christian or American at all by disagreeing with any of that is deceived beyond their comprehension, or they are a pusher and purveyor of evil and it's agenda.
-
All that matters (or should matter) is saving unborn lives. Persuasion can and will do that. Agitating to take away the Constitutional rights of women is a distraction from the task at hand. The genie is out of the bottle - the patriarchy is no more. All that's left is the matter of saving lives. I advocate the most effective way of doing that, given current realities.
-
All that matters (or should matter) is saving unborn lives.
All that matters is the Constitution and the ability of the people to mold and shape their society through their legislatures - something that you championed when it came to social security, yet something you wholeheartedly reject when it comes to abortion and "gay" [sic] marriage.
The genie is out of the bottle - the patriarchy is no more.
The exact same argument that Jefferson offered in defense of slavery.
-
How anyone can refer to themselves as Conservative, Christian or American at all by disagreeing with any of that is deceived beyond their comprehension, or they are a pusher and purveyor of evil and it's agenda.
Speak for yourself. You're all meaningless talk. Agitating to bring back the subjugation of women on the basis of holy books is not going to save a single unborn life. No, that takes persuasion based on the TRUE Christian values of compassion, empathy, and charity. Not coercion.
Plenty of REAL Christians are doing the hard work of persuading and supporting women - one life at a time - to do the right thing. Lazy Bible-thumpers like yourself who want the State to enforce their old-school patriarchy are more interested in power than stemming the tide of this holocaust.
-
All that matters is the Constitution and the ability of the people to mold and shape their society through their legislatures - something that you championed when it came to social security, yet something you wholeheartedly reject when it comes to abortion and "gay" [sic] marriage.
As a conservative, I support individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution against the government leviathan. Yes, that includes the Constitutional rights of women.
-
As a conservative, I support individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution against the government leviathan.
Again, show me where this right exists in the Constitution.
-
But here is where you and I differ. I see Roe as coercion. It forced States to permit slaughter by finding a "right" which has never existed. You have your harness backwards, there, the horse goes in front.
Roe didn't criminalize abortion, for thousands of years people have recognized killing babies in the womb is as wrong as murdering adults with axes, and both were forbidden by law. No one sees laws against axe murderers as coercion.
:thumbsup:
-
Again, show me where this right exists in the Constitution.
Article III.
-
Speak for yourself. You're all meaningless talk. Agitating to bring back the subjugation of women on the basis of holy books is not going to save a single unborn life.
Whoa, wait just a minute here. The subjugation of women? This whole argument started because of women exercising the liberty to get knocked up any time they please. You call that subjugation?
And the only reason this argument continues is because of men who want to have that out from 18 years of child support after exploiting those non-subjugated women by treating them like sperm receptacles.
And of course none of this addresses your abject failure of showing anything at all 'Consitutional' about Roe. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the tyranny of denying States or other jurisdictions from regulating abortion. Yet you keep pushing the falsehood that there is. Why lie?
-
I see Roe as coercion. It forced States to permit slaughter by finding a "right" which has never existed.
SJ, why should a woman be forced by the State to reproduce? You don't even want to be forced by the State to purchase a damn insurance policy. Why are your individual rights precious, but not your daughter's?
And again - abortion is morally wrong. I understand your passion about the millions of lives lost. All I'm saying is that agitating to take away the Constitutional rights of half the population is a fool's errand, when that energy could be invested in the difficult but ultimately effective work of saving lives, one at a time.
-
Whoa, wait just a minute here. The subjugation of women? This whole argument started because of women exercising the liberty to get knocked up any time they please. You call that subjugation?
Denying a woman the freedom to decide whether to reproduce is subjugation.
Give it up. Persuasion is the way to go.
And of course none of this addresses your abject failure of showing anything at all 'Consitutional' about Roe. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the tyranny of denying States or other jurisdictions from regulating abortion. Yet you keep pushing the falsehood that there is. Why lie?
The Constitution exists to protect the individual rights of citizens against subjugation by the State. You've got this whole tyranny thing ass-backwards.
-
Denying a woman the freedom to decide whether to reproduce is subjugation.
Yet no one is denying women that right. They are perfectly free to reproduce a new unique singular human life.
The Constitution exists to protect the individual rights of citizens against subjugation by the State. You've got this whole tyranny thing ass-backwards.
Again, show me where I can find this right to abortion and gay marriage in the Constitution.
-
All that matters (or should matter) is saving unborn lives. Persuasion can and will do that.
Closing the slaughterhouses where those lives are taken just might be a good step, too, ya think? You don't stop drug dealers by letting them take over a strip mall. Agitating to take away the Constitutional rights of women is a distraction from the task at hand.
I have asked before and will ask again. Please cite the Article, Section, or Amendment that gives women the right to kill their babies in the womb. You can't. That 'right' was granted by judicial fiat, and nothing else. The instinct seen readily in Nature is for the mother to protect their offspring, for the herd to protect the young, the females, and even the pregnant, in an effort to ensure the survival of the species. The 'right' you assert flies in the face of all that is natural. The genie is out of the bottle - the patriarchy is no more.
So is nuclear fission, but we don't set up a 'Nukes R Us' in every town.
Women have always had control over their sexual activity in Western Culture. They are the ones with the right to say "no". Anything else would be forcible rape, and we have laws against that. Additionally, there are the means to prevent pregnancy. They are cheap and readily available. All that's left is the matter of saving lives. I advocate the most effective way of doing that, given current realities.
You would assert that shutting down clinics killing thousands a day would not be an effective method of saving lives? *****rollingeyes*****
Persuasion to prevent pregnancy won't save lives, it will prevent them. While that is a step in the right direction, keeping the abattoirs open will only ensure the slaughter continues. Nothing short of removing that option to murder will stop it from being used.
-
Your passion is noted, SJ But what stands in the way of "closing down the abattoirs" is the United States Constitution.
I say devote that passion to persuasion - you're good at it - not the advocacy of coercion.
-
Your passion is noted, SJ But what stands in the way of "closing down the abattoirs" is the United States Constitution.
Repeating the lie will not make it true.
-
Article III.
This?
Article III:
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
-
Speak for yourself. You're all meaningless talk. Agitating to bring back the subjugation of women on the basis of holy books is not going to save a single unborn life. No, that takes persuasion based on the TRUE Christian values of compassion, empathy, and charity. Not coercion.
Plenty of REAL Christians are doing the hard work of persuading and supporting women - one life at a time - to do the right thing. Lazy Bible-thumpers like yourself who want the State to enforce their old-school patriarchy are more interested in power than stemming the tide of this holocaust.
In spite of your anti-bible rhetoric, stopping the killing of these lives is most like to come about by all of us treating it as a life. It is murder. To pretend otherwise is how we got into this mess in the first place.
-
This?
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States; — between a State and Citizens of another State; — between Citizens of different States; — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Note how it does not extend to cases between a citizen and the state in which they reside.
-
Repeating the lie will not make it true.
Refusing to acknowledge reality does not mean you have changed it. The Supreme Court has ruled - time and again - that the Constitution guarantees the right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce. All we can do is persuade her to do the right thing.
-
Note how it does not extend to cases between a citizen and the state in which they reside.
Well, it does if the case involves a federal law, the Constitution, or treaties.
-
stopping the killing of these lives is most like to come about by all of us treating it as a life.
I agree. Persuasion works. Hearts and minds can be changed.
-
This?
Yes.
-
This?
Yes.
I've read it five times now. Still don't see where it says abortion and gay marriage are federal rights.
-
I agree. Persuasion works. Hearts and minds can be changed.
And telling people it is okay to kill an unborn child if it is not convenient for you, defeats that argument of treating them as a life.
-
Yes.
@Jazzhead, you know that doesn't work. Very lazy answer.
-
And telling people it is okay to kill an unborn child if it is not convenient for you, defeats that argument of treating them as a life.
Then tell them otherwise! And help a woman in crisis whose partner has flown the coop - because that's what "convenience" boils down to in the real world - a woman gets pregnant, and gets abandoned by her partner and perhaps even her family. That's when abortion appears to be the only way out.
-
@Jazzhead, you know that doesn't work. Very lazy answer.
So consider me lazy. What's the point of trying to persuade the unpersuadable? Forgive me, but I'd never thought it was a controversial proposition that the Supreme Court (as per Article III) has the authority to interpret and construe the Constitution.
-
Dumb argument. The whole thing.
Does a woman have the right to choose who she has sex with? Absolutely.
Does a woman have the right to enjoy sex? Absolutely.
No one argues those, because they'd be laughed out of the country if they tried.
Does a woman have the right to murder? No.
RIGHTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!!
Contraception availability and education is the solution. Not abortion. If it were up to me, contraceptives for both men AND women would be free. In a bowl at the end of the bar, next to the tip jar.
-
Contraception availability and education is the solution. Not abortion. If it were up to me, contraceptives for both men AND women would be free. In a bowl at the end of the bar, next to the tip jar.
Are condoms really that expensive?
-
So consider me lazy. What's the point of trying to persuade the unpersuadable? Forgive me, but I'd never thought it was a controversial proposition that the Supreme Court (as per Article III) has the authority to interpret and construe the Constitution.
But that's not what you said. You specifically stated that abortion and gay marriage were rights guaranteed by the Constitution. No one is disputing the tyranny of the court here. Yet even in with Article III, there is nothing there that allows the federal court to intervene in any case between a citizen of Texas and the State of Texas (See: Roe).
So again, please show me where in the Constitution it says that abortion and gay marriage are constitutional rights.
-
Your passion is noted, SJ But what stands in the way of "closing down the abattoirs" is the United States Constitution.
I say devote that passion to persuasion - you're good at it - not the advocacy of coercion.
Third request: Kindly cite the Article, Section of, or Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which mentions a right to abortion.
This is a judicial fiat, and nothing more, not an unalienable Right.
-
Third request: Kindly cite the Article, Section of, or Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which mentions a right to abortion.
Only your third request? I have been in double digits for weeks now.
-
Then tell them otherwise! And help a woman in crisis whose partner has flown the coop - because that's what "convenience" boils down to in the real world - a woman gets pregnant, and gets abandoned by her partner and perhaps even her family. That's when abortion appears to be the only way out.
I have. We are raising a child that is not our own for that very reason. The second group of family members told (after us) tried to talk her into an abortion, because it was cheap and easy. That child turns 8 today. The father is in his second jail term for assault of other family members.
My wife was the result of a college affair that left a student pregnant by a married professor. If this had happened significantly after Roe v. Wade, she would likely not have been born. She was given up for adoption, thank God. In today's society, she would not exist, neither would my children.
Abortion appears to them to be the way out, because we have normalized it as birth control in today's society. We have taught generations that it is just part of a women's body and not another life. The child can be disposed of like fingernail clippings.
We don't need to fund abortion centers. We need to donate to adoption centers. People wait for years to get access to child. The problem isn't that no one will help take care of the child. The problem is we have made it convenient not to care for the child.
-
SJ, why should a woman be forced by the State to reproduce?
No one is forcing anyone to reproduce. The fundamental act that leads to pregnancy is engaged in voluntarily, and there are laws against compulsion, and such have been adjudicated, even between man and wife. Her headaches are safe.
You don't even want to be forced by the State to purchase a damn insurance policy.
Not just for breathing, no I don't. That isn't any of the State's business, how I pay for medical care. Why are your individual rights precious, but not your daughter's?
All rights are precious, but my daughter's rights have always been precious, FROM CONCEPTION. You would rob her of the right to see the light of day, should I have had sex with someone who decided she was inconvenient--and rob me of the right to have any say in whether she lived or died. I am advocating for my daughter's rights, and her daughter's and her daughter's...right on down the line, because without life, there can be no other rights. It is the most fundamental unalienable right of all.
And again - abortion is morally wrong. I understand your passion about the millions of lives lost.
mmmmmkay. All I'm saying is that agitating to take away the Constitutional rights of half the population is a fool's errand, when that energy could be invested in the difficult but ultimately effective work of saving lives, one at a time.
First off, advocating for the reversal of a bad judicial decision is never a fool's errand. That is the source of this alleged 'right' to murder children in the one place they should be safe--the womb. There are multitudes out there advocating for counseling, adoption, alternatives to abortion, and by the Grace of God, that has had effect.
Close the slaughterhouses, and you'll save even more lives.
You see, I recall a time before Roe, when people were more careful about having sex if they did not wish to create a life. Now, that there are more means than ever to prevent pregnancy, it is past time to abolish this barbaric practice.
-
You see, I recall a time before Roe, when people were more careful about having sex if they did not wish to create a life.
WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER
-
So consider me lazy.
Way ahead of you, there. I already think you're intellectually lazy because when challenged you simply repeat the same talking points over and over, rather than thinking a little and amplify your argument.
I'd already given up. :shrug:
-
RIGHTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!!
Contraception availability and education is the solution. Not abortion. If it were up to me, contraceptives for both men AND women would be free. In a bowl at the end of the bar, next to the tip jar.
Agree, 100%.
The right fights to "close the abattoirs" and the left fights to keep them open, and to provide free contraceptives. I find it to be the height of irony that the left has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and, by extension, abortions) than the right ever has.
-
Agree, 100%.
The right fights to "close the abattoirs" and the left fights to keep them open, and to provide free contraceptives. I find it to be the height of irony that the left has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and, by extension, abortions) than the right ever has.
Wow, you find death of children to be an ironic way to end pregnancies? I hope I misunderstand you.
-
I find it to be the height of irony that the left has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and, by extension, abortions) than the right ever has.
I think that statement is completely unsubstantiated.
Thousands of years of preaching responsibility from the pulpit, in the form of abstinence until marriage, (with the effect that whatever means of making sure there was no 'issue' were used by those who did not succeed in practicing abstinence). The advocacy of personal responsibility for one's actions, of fidelity in marriage, and the sanctity of life from the Right, and you credit the Left's fifty years of "If it feels good do it", sexual revolution, free love, and irresponsible behaviour, and the subsidization thereof by Government programs, from the same cadre that pushed to force legal slaughterhouses for the unborn on every State, and continues to advocate the slaughter, for reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortion?
What incredible nonsense.
You have gone through some verbal and logical contortions here, but you outdo yourself.
-
I think that statement is completely unsubstantiated.
Thousands of years of preaching responsibility from the pulpit, in the form of abstinence until marriage, (with the effect that whatever means of making sure there was no 'issue' were used by those who did not succeed in practicing abstinence). The advocacy of personal responsibility for one's actions, of fidelity in marriage, and the sanctity of life from the Right, and you credit the Left's fifty years of "If it feels good do it", sexual revolution, free love, and irresponsible behaviour, and the subsidization thereof by Government programs, from the same cadre that pushed to force legal slaughterhouses for the unborn on every State, and continues to advocate the slaughter, for reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortion?
What incredible nonsense.
You have gone through some verbal and logical contortions here, but you outdo yourself.
He's just doing all he can to ensure the continuation of a practice that keeps females available for free sex. There really isn't much more to it than that.
-
Wow, you find death of children to be an ironic way to end pregnancies? I hope I misunderstand you.
You did.
-
Agree, 100%.
The right fights to "close the abattoirs" and the left fights to keep them open, and to provide free contraceptives. I find it to be the height of irony that the left has done more to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and, by extension, abortions) than the right ever has.
Do you think abortion and condoms have led to reductions in teen sexual activity?
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db209.htm
In 2011–2013, 44% of female teenagers and 47% of male teenagers aged 15–19 had experienced sexual intercourse; the percentage has declined significantly, by 14% for female and 22% for male teenagers, over the past 25 years.
-
I agree. Persuasion works. Hearts and minds can be changed.
So why don't we repeal all laws against violence?
-
He's just doing all he can to ensure the continuation of a practice that keeps females available for free sex. There really isn't much more to it than that.
If that's the case he should put his harem on the pill/implants/IUDs/have ligations/shots/wear a fricking 'raincoat', already, instead of just send them down for a possibly life threatening procedure that will kill his get.
-
I've read it five times now. Still don't see where it says abortion and gay marriage are federal rights.
It's in the emanations from the penumbra which is lawyer for: what we really want it to say, but it doesn't; so we say it does.
-
I think it's very cute how @Jazzhead managed to dodge the fact that he's pushing Marxist theory for healthcare for two pages by turning it to his other pet peeve: the alleged Constitutional right of women to murder their children.
:threadjack:
-
Dumb argument. The whole thing.
RIGHTS HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES!!!!!
Amen, but that makes us both hard hearted outdated relics of the past.
-
Why are we talking about abortion here? Thought this thread was about healthcare?
-
Why are we talking about abortion here? Thought this thread was about healthcare?
Because "healthcare" is a leftist euphemism for "must include abortion".
-
Why are we talking about abortion here? Thought this thread was about healthcare?
When Dems talk about "health care," they mean "woman's healthcare," which is a horrifying distortion of "Women's right to murder the infant inside of them."
-
Why are we talking about abortion here? Thought this thread was about healthcare?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Speak for yourself. You're all meaningless talk. Agitating to bring back the subjugation of women on the basis of holy books is not going to save a single unborn life. No, that takes persuasion based on the TRUE Christian values of compassion, empathy, and charity. Not coercion.
You have NO understanding of TRUE ' Christian values whatsoever given your wholesale bashing of the bible itself and those who adhere to it. You worship a god of your imagination, the god of this world.
Your mindset is one of true and unabashed evil disguised as an angel of light.
You have made it perfectly clear on this board that you do not value a single unborn life. What you value is industrial mass murder and defending the "right" of a woman to kill her infant when she does not want the consequence of extra-marital sex.
Plenty of REAL Christians are doing the hard work of persuading and supporting women - one life at a time - to do the right thing.
That's hilarious coming from you, the person who asserts that Christians persuading homosexuals to overcome their sin are bigots and infringing on their 'freedom' to 'love'. I'm curious what your 'supporting' women comment actually means. I am assuming, given your posting history that means we are to coddle and embrace the woman if she chooses to murder her infant. Because you know, to dissuade her from committing murder is FORCING HER to procreate. Your own words bub.
Lazy Bible-thumpers like yourself who want the State to enforce their old-school patriarchy are more interested in power than stemming the tide of this holocaust.
Lazy? You wouldn't last one day in the slums of Andrha Pradesh pal. And, as your own words have revealed - you have no intention of stopping the holocaust of infanticide - because maintaining the death camps is something you say is a Constitutional 'Right' of the woman to choose to send her infant to.
-
I love when he talks about "Patriarchy." Subjecting women to the dangerous procedure to carve out a baby is purely to keep the modern-day concubines available for free fun, and that's about as male-dominant as it comes.
-
I love when he talks about "Patriarchy." Subjecting women to the dangerous procedure to carve out a baby is purely to keep the modern-day concubines available for free fun, and that's about as male-dominant as it comes.
:amen:
-
I love when he talks about "Patriarchy." Subjecting women to the dangerous procedure to carve out a baby is purely to keep the modern-day concubines available for free fun, and that's about as male-dominant as it comes.
I find it hilarious from our double-minded resident Leftist that in the same breath he says he wants to stop infanticide, he vigorously and vehemently insists that the abortion death camps must remain open and available for any woman who chooses 'not to procreate' after procreating. Because as he asserts, it is a 'Constitutional Right' that he cannot cite outside of tossing Article III in the air without a shred of comprehension of what that covers.
He is beholden to a god of his imagination and a constitution which exists within the pages of Marx and Engels.
-
the "right" of a woman to kill her infant when she does not want the consequence of extra-marital sex.
You are no Christian, sir. Your lack of empathy is astonishingly cruel and un-Christlike. Yours is the mindset of evil, not mine.
-
You are no Christian, sir. Your lack of empathy is astonishingly cruel and un-Christlike. Yours is the mindset of evil, not mine.
@Jazzhead, do you really believe what you are saying? You don't see any contradictions there?
-
You are no Christian, sir. Your lack of empathy is astonishingly cruel and un-Christlike. Yours is the mindset of evil, not mine.
You don't get to define what's "Christian." This post of your is about the most noxious in a rather large stack of posts from you.
-
You are no Christian, sir. Your lack of empathy is astonishingly cruel and un-Christlike. Yours is the mindset of evil, not mine.
Who who died and made you Jesus. I always wondered was the last Pope in the book of life; could you check for me please? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Put the pitchforks away. All of you.
This is the reason we don't have religion threads. They degenerate into people calling each other evil. Dial it back.
-
You are no Christian, sir. Your lack of empathy is astonishingly cruel and un-Christlike. Yours is the mindset of evil, not mine.
Lack of empathy? Pregnancy is a predictable outcome of conjugal relations. No surprises there.
Now, envision being stuffed into a wood chipper or a rock crusher.
How is wanting to prevent babies from suffering a much similar fate, being shredded alive, cruelty or a lack of empathy? How is that un-Christ-like?
Jesus said "Suffer the children to come unto me."
Empathy, indeed.
-
Proverbs 24:11-12 "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"
I'll fight planned parenthood in every way I can.
-
Proverbs 24:11-12 "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"
I'll fight planned parenthood in every way I can.
888high58888
-
Proverbs 24:11-12 "If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?"
I'll fight planned parenthood in every way I can.
I'll fight abortion. Not necessarily planned parenthood (or equivalent). If they stuck to contraception and education (like they claim is most of their business) and dropped abortions, I'd probably fundraise for them. :shrug:
-
I'll fight abortion. Not necessarily planned parenthood (or equivalent). If they stuck to contraception and education (like they claim is most of their business) and dropped abortions, I'd probably fundraise for them. :shrug:
A valid point, but I think they'll drop abortion sometime after pigs fly through a frozen hell.
-
They'll never drop the baby killing willingly.
-
SJ, why should a woman be forced by the State to reproduce?
The state doesn't force anyone to get pregnant
-
I'll fight abortion. Not necessarily planned parenthood (or equivalent). If they stuck to contraception and education (like they claim is most of their business) and dropped abortions, I'd probably fundraise for them. :shrug:
Not me, they need to be banned from schools instead of encouraging kids to have sex as they do.
-
I'll fight abortion. Not necessarily planned parenthood (or equivalent). If they stuck to contraception and education (like they claim is most of their business) and dropped abortions, I'd probably fundraise for them. :shrug:
Planned Parenthood even encourages youths with HIV-AIDS to lie to partners about it to get sex. That is a felony in this country.
-
You are no Christian, sir. Your lack of empathy is astonishingly cruel and un-Christlike. Yours is the mindset of evil, not mine.
You are a living epitome of Isaiah 5:20 and call the bible a myth, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to declare Christians who are beholden to scripture 'unChrist-like' because we refuse to condone the infanticide and homosexuality you insist are Constitutional rights?????
You make us all laugh.
-
You are a living epitome of Isaiah 5:20 and call the bible a myth, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to declare Christians who are beholden to scripture 'unChrist-like' because we refuse to condone the infanticide and homosexuality you insist are Constitutional rights?????
You make us all laugh.
Nope. I find nothing even remotely amusing in those sentiments.
-
You are a living epitome of Isaiah 5:20 and call the bible a myth, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to declare Christians who are beholden to scripture 'unChrist-like' because we refuse to condone the infanticide and homosexuality you insist are Constitutional rights?????
You make us all laugh.
This is about when the Mod came in and asked us to dial it back. Let's not get the thread locked.
-
His Mavericks beat the Clippers last night, somehow, still 26 games out and should be eliminated from the playoffs definitely next week.
:tongue2:
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting for you to identify that wording in the Constitution that prohibits the members of a society from establishing their own laws concerning abortion and marriage.
-
You are a living epitome of Isaiah 5:20 and call the bible a myth, and yet you have the unmitigated gall to declare Christians who are beholden to scripture 'unChrist-like' because we refuse to condone the infanticide and homosexuality you insist are Constitutional rights?????
You make us all laugh.
I do not remember Christ telling us to have empathy for evil
-
This is about when the Mod came in and asked us to dial it back. Let's not get the thread locked.
We are dealing with a person who is spewing Communist/Hedonist/Anti-Christian ideology on a Conservative forum who insists and pretends to be a Conservative. As is self evidenced by the efforts so many have made here to 'reason' with him, we are dealing with an unreasonable pusher and advocate for evil - both in political ideology as well as morality.
I'm curious why we should 'dial back' attacking his statements, positions, posts and replies?
We lost this entire culture by refusing to engage and destroy ideas anathema to our fundamental liberties. It would be a form of suicide to think this board could not suffer the same fate from those who have told us they intend to purge it of the "kind of Conservatives" that most of us are.
-
We are dealing with a person who is spewing Communist/Hedonist/Anti-Christian ideology on a Conservative forum who insists and pretends to be a Conservative. As is self evidenced by the efforts so many have made here to 'reason' with him, we are dealing with an unreasonable pusher and advocate for evil - both in political ideology as well as morality.
I'm curious why we should 'dial back' attacking his statements, positions, posts and replies?
We lost this entire culture by refusing to engage and destroy ideas anathema to our fundamental liberties. It would be a form of suicide to think this board could not suffer the same fate from those who have told us they intend to purge it of the "kind of Conservatives" that most of us are.
If I understand the rule correctly, I think it's OK to point out the problems with his positions, but they don't want us calling each other "evil" or "un-Christian."
-
If I understand the rule correctly, I think it's OK to point out the problems with his positions, but they don't want us calling each other "evil" or "un-Christian."
Socialism, Communism, Statism, Abortion, Homosexuality which are core issues Leftists like to push upon everyone to be accepted as good, are evil. Plain. Simple. Evil. Incompatible with liberty or the Constitution that governs a free people. That ideology and mindset is wholly unbiblical and unChristian, yet from a person who ridicules the bible and the morality that it teaches - we are said to be the ones that are evil and unChristian.
-
Socialism, Communism, Statism, Abortion, Homosexuality which are core issues Leftists like to push upon everyone to be accepted as good, are evil. Plain. Simple. Evil. Incompatible with liberty or the Constitution that governs a free people. That ideology and mindset is wholly unbiblical and unChristian, yet from a person who ridicules the bible and the morality that it teaches - we are said to be the ones that are evil and unChristian.
I can't argue with that. The note upthread from the Mod applies to us all, including JH.
-
You don't get to define what's "Christian." This post of your is about the most noxious in a rather large stack of posts from you.
And INVAR does? Do you see the filth he spews at me post after post? I am evil, wicked, godless, communist, a baby killer, you name it. Just because I disagree with him and a few others on this board about politics and public policy!
INVAR is a disgrace. And so are you.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Come on guys.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thread locked for now.
-
Good grief.
(https://img.memesuper.com/8421b99bc9f1a53831fdb59bfa7bb913_i-know-you-are-but-what-am-i-but-i-am-meme_400-400.jpeg)
-
Locked? Are you sure? :tongue2:
-
You guys are too fast for me.
-
And INVAR does? Do you see the filth he spews at me post after post? I am evil, wicked, godless, communist, a baby killer, you name it. Just because I disagree with him and a few others on this board about politics and public policy!
INVAR is a disgrace. And so are you.
Let's see:
(courtesy tag @INVAR)
Invar +Jazzhead +evil = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bevil%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +wicked = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bwicked%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +godless = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bgodless%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +communist = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bcommunist%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +baby killer = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bbaby+killer%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Hmmmm...
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting for you to identify that wording in the Constitution that prohibits the members of a society from establishing their own laws concerning abortion and marriage.
-
Healthcare is a specialized service few are capable of performing properly. You'll end up with terrible results if few are asked to do more or the unqualified are brought into the fold.
-
@Jazzhead
Still waiting for you to identify that wording in the Constitution that prohibits the members of a society from establishing their own laws concerning abortion and marriage.
Good luck. All I can find are emanations of penumbras. You know, nuance that only really smart leftists can understand.
-
Are you advocating for single payer or what? Those advocating for single payer need to understand the scale of the taxation involved. My brother married a German woman and I was talking to her friends. They pay very close to 50% of their taxes to the government over there.
You will never get Americans to agree to pay 50% of their taxes to the government.
With income tax, property tax and sales tax I easily pay over 50% in taxes right there - and then there's all those buried taxes in all the services/products you buy. Phones, power, gas, water, cars, gas, registrations, licenses, permits you name it. It is death by a thousand cuts.
-
And INVAR does? Do you see the filth he spews at me post after post?
Oh yes. Quoting the scriptures is such filth according to you.
And quoting Bob Dylan is an exercise in holiness by comparison.
I am evil, wicked, godless, communist, a baby killer, you name it.
Promoting and pushing homosexuality, depriving one of private property and freedom to exercise their religion, mandating robbery via the government to provide health insurance as a 'right' and insisting that death camps for Infants must remain open and accessible is most certainly evil, wicked, godless and Communist. Not to mention your defense of Islam.
Just because I disagree with him and a few others on this board about politics and public policy!
There is a difference between disagreement, and pushing an agenda and ideas hostile and anathema to what Conservatism stands for while pretending to be that which you, by your own words are not.
INVAR is a disgrace. And so are you.
Another badge of honor.
Thank you. I will wear it with pride.
-
Comeon Guys, they already shut this thing down once.
-
Can someone explain to me why killing obamacare is causing so much grief? All I've seen is people complaining about its existence. Kill it. What is the harm?
-
Let's see:
(courtesy tag @INVAR)
Invar +Jazzhead +evil = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bevil%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +wicked = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bwicked%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +godless = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bgodless%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +communist = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bcommunist%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Invar +Jazzhead +baby killer = no results https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Agopbriefingroom.com+%22Invar+%2BJazzhead+%2Bbaby+killer%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Hmmmm...
Hmmmm... HO!
Yer doing it ALL wrong @AbaraXas :nono:
Yer using their screen names winky. :thud:
GOD+SATAN+evil got me 21 million hits in .34 seconds.... :tongue2:
:laugh:
-
Can someone explain to me why killing obamacare is causing so much grief? All I've seen is people complaining about its existence. Kill it. What is the harm?
My best guess @bigheadfred is that the Lobbyist representing the Insurance companies, Doctors, Hospitals, Equipment Manufacturers and the Pharmaceutical companies were there for even more favorable treatment and GOV handouts. Hell, even the AMA and AARP was against it.
But I have been wrong on many occasions.
-
My best guess @bigheadfred is that the Lobbyist representing the Insurance companies, Doctors, Hospitals, Equipment Manufacturers and the Pharmaceutical companies were there for even more favorable treatment and GOV handouts. Hell, even the AMA and AARP was against it.
But I have been wrong on many occasions.
Right. No reason to keep it.
Corruption, fraud, boondoogle, bad idea, waste, failure...oh...wait...
-
Comeon Guys, they already shut this thing down once.
Should we just ignore and pretend Communism, wickedness and evil isn't what it is for the sake of keeping a thread from getting shut down?
Everything JH has opined on this thread is rooted in Leftist ideology and the talking points he spews are right out of the Democrat/Marxist playbook. Witness:
I agree with Cuban - insurance for chronic illnesses and serious injury should be available to all. And financed by general tax revenues, then it's paid for by all, and does away with the current distortions that equate affordable health insurance with the good fortune of working for a large employer...
Such a change helps the poor, and helps employers be more competitive with their overseas counterparts whose employees get health insurance through general taxation, not their employer's bottom line.
If you get sick, you can die. Is that the "natural liberty" you're so keen to preserve?
Average Americans can no longer tolerate our system where SHEER LUCK determines whether a catastrophic illness brings bankruptcy and ruin.
Security against financial ruin due to ill health should likewise be provided for by means of broad-based taxes.
I like what I think Mark Cuban is advocating - provide by means of broad-based taxes basic protections for all citizens against financial ruin with respect to medical catastrophe - serious injury and chronic illness. Perhaps just simple taxpayer-funded "stop loss" insurance that would pick up when a citizen's total medical expenses exceed a threshold amount.
The current luck-based system is flawed at its core. Now's as good a time as any to fix it.
... we already have the right to health care paid for by others. ...broad-based taxes are at least a lot fairer than placing the cost only on that segment of the community that plays by the rules. ...I'd rather that burden be shared more fairly by means of broad-based taxes.
The community is, thankfully, less selfish than you. ...Something that's a benefit to the entire community should be paid for by the entire community.
I have no ideological aversion to government involvement in health care financing.
There's quite a difference between the community deciding to create a system of insurance to address income security in old age, and the community deciding to take away the Constitutional rights of disfavored individuals.
That's just the first few pages of this thread.
Is what he typed not pure unabashed, unadulterated Communism? Did he not attempt to dress it up as 'Conservative pragmatism'??
These are things you hear come out of Nancy Pelosi's maw, or Obama's. I'm waiting for the post to soon come wherein JH will lecture us about income inequality and about how empowering government to mandate fairness is a good thing.
He's pushing an agenda which countermands everything we subscribe to as an ideology and belief system.
Communism is evil. It is anathema to liberty and incompatible with the Constitutional system set up to prevent government from becoming a meddlesome tyranny - which this poster blatantly advocates.
I am perfectly fine and good with his posting his Leftist propaganda here, as often as he likes. I think we should simply call it what it is and stop mincing words about it to pretend it isn't what it is.
-
I think what they are asking @INVAR is to go ahead and call it out, but couch it in more couched terms.
Like:
"Apparently the lack of understanding on a particular poster's part leaves them to corrupted and immoral thought and practices that I oppose."
Instead of:
"Jane, you ignorant slut."
I think most of us would understand. My two sense.
-
Should we just ignore and pretend Communism, wickedness and evil isn't what it is for the sake of keeping a thread from getting shut down?
Everything JH has opined on this thread is rooted in Leftist ideology and the talking points he spews are right out of the Democrat/Marxist playbook. Witness:
That's just the first few pages of this thread.
Is what he typed not pure unabashed, unadulterated Communism? Did he not attempt to dress it up as 'Conservative pragmatism'??
These are things you hear come out of Nancy Pelosi's maw, or Obama's. I'm waiting for the post to soon come wherein JH will lecture us about income inequality and about how empowering government to mandate fairness is a good thing.
He's pushing an agenda which countermands everything we subscribe to as an ideology and belief system.
Communism is evil. It is anathema to liberty and incompatible with the Constitutional system set up to prevent government from becoming a meddlesome tyranny - which this poster blatantly advocates.
I am perfectly fine and good with his posting his Leftist propaganda here, as often as he likes. I think we should simply call it what it is and stop mincing words about it to pretend it isn't what it is.
Of course not @INVAR I'm not advocating that at all and I know from experience, like most here, that have debated @Jazzhead , that it is an exercise in futility.
No one is gonna change HIS mind and I don't see him changing anyone's mind here, particularly when he starts hurling out the insults (which, in fairness, others do also).
In conclusion: In a fair and just world perhaps we'd just lock him up or shot him (just kidding JH) but alas we are in myst's house and any damn time the mods get involved it makes it worse for others (locks content/threads). Just put him on IGNORE, I did it for awhile, it works wonders for my Blood Pressure!
just my opinion
-
Of course not @INVAR I'm not advocating that at all and I know from experience, like most here, that have debated @Jazzhead , that it is an exercise in futility.
No one is gonna change HIS mind and I don't see him changing anyone's mind here, particularly when he starts hurling out the insults (which, in fairness, others do also).
In conclusion: In a fair and just world perhaps we'd just lock him up or shot him (just kidding JH) but alas we are in myst's house and any damn time the mods get involved it makes it worse for others (locks content/threads). Just put him on IGNORE, I did it for awhile, it works wonders for my Blood Pressure!
I have no intention of ignoring him. Ignoring those pushing ideas anathema to liberty is how we lost our liberty and civil society to begin with.
I have no allusions of the fact debating JH is an exercise in futility - because as he demonstrates, he is not interested in forwarding Conservative principles, but rather pushing the Leftist agenda. I do what I do as others also do for the sake of sharpening our combat skills and inspiring others who are reading the board to do likewise when encountering the nonsense being spewed as 'reason' and 'compassion'. We are losing the art of effectively killing and shutting down evil being promoted as a natural and Constitutional right, because we bought the big lie from the Leftists themselves that we should not judge evil for what it is.
I guess at this stage, I prefer to call things what they are ... directly.
Evil is evil. Communism is Communism. I'm not interested in dressing up evil in a tux so we can dance with it because it soothes the sensibilities of everyone else in the room.
We've lost the culture because we were too timid to call sin and evil what they were.
Now they are being pushed on us by force and intimidation.
We used to call that tyranny.
-
Good points, all, @INVAR and they certainly explain your desire to continue ripping his head off, who am I to say otherwise.
I respect this in particular.
I guess at this stage, I prefer to call things what they are ... directly.
-
My best guess @bigheadfred is that the Lobbyist representing the Insurance companies, Doctors, Hospitals, Equipment Manufacturers and the Pharmaceutical companies were there for even more favorable treatment and GOV handouts. Hell, even the AMA and AARP was against it.
But I have been wrong on many occasions.
So, exactly the sort of thing the Constitution is supposed to prevent.
-
So, exactly the sort of thing the Constitution is supposed to prevent.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler
Largesse is something that lobbyists from big corporations understand as readily as the ghetto monkeys on welfare driving Escalades wearing $500 gym shoes.
-
INVAR is a disgrace. And so are you.
:bigsilly: