I don't know how. But just to make it clear to you: I do not reject evolution as a mechanism out of hand. I reject the blind worship of science as being the only way we can know truth. I also reject the science worshipers who insist that strong science removes the need for any kind of God. But I don't, as I say, reject evolution. I merely question how well established it really is, given the *religious* fervor of its staunch defenders.
You can't help yourself, I know ...
Tim Daneliuk wrote: [bandwidth snip]
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"We the people" Tim. In reading your postings, I get the picture of a frightened person who has circled his personal wagon and is waiting for the "we the people" to come and burn it down.
Should the collectivist/socialist democrats win in Nov. where will you go to live?
sigh, jo4hn
Your paranoia is showing.
Might be able to cover it if you change the way you comb your hair.
Lew
Methinks you're missing his point. The issue is not primarily people defrauding government programs (though that is surely *a* problem, no different than in the private sector). The issue has to do with the inherent nature of tax-funded programs - they apply to everyone who "qualifies" whether they pay taxes or not.
Private companies can avoid this by not granting benefits to people who don't pay for one of their insurance policies. But government-run programs provide coverage based on "class" (age, socio-economic standing, gender, and, sometimes, even race). There are inevitably many class members who pay nothing but get program benefits. They do this entirely *legally*. In so doing, the non-contributors burden the system to the detriment of the contributors. So, the contributor is forced - at the point of the government's gun - to participate in a program (possibly against their will) AND pay for other people who contribute nothing. Somehow in the Do-Gooders Lexicon, this qualifies as a noble act. I find that alone astonishing and a searing indictment of how deeply morally corrupt the ideas of the intellectual/political left have become...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com PGP Key:
Canada??
snort, chuckle, guffaw r
Yes we do (if we're decent people). What we don't do is pick up a gun and force our other neighbor who scared of heights to go out on the ledge on our behalf and then take credit for our "charity". Get the difference?
I'm not sure what you mean by "consolidate cops" but ... one of the very few things that government is *supposed* to do is interdict in matters of fraud, force, and threat. That is necessary to maintain a democratic republic designed to protect individual liberty. Cops, courts, the military and so forth are a necessary part of protecting the liberty of the citizens. Handing out other people's money taken at the point of a gun to do social engineering is not part of defending liberty. Get the difference?
I meant, you should be defending *your* position on its merits. If it had any, you wouldn't need to resort to ad hominems.
Of course I get the difference because it is not the same argument. Straw man with a hint of red herring. Now I'm supposed to go chasing you curve ball? Naaa.. I'm a bit more aware of that tactic of yours.
How kind of you to allow that much. So if a plague were to sweep the country, too bad, so sad, we all die? It wouldn't be cool for medical professionals to organize and force people to get immunized, right? Do you get the difference?
But not, under any circumstances would a universal medical solution be allowed, right? The CDC, a tax funded set up, is fraudulent?
You know I get the difference. You seem to have trouble deciding at what point life and liberty are separated.
But enough of your decoy arguments, that's okay in chess, but I'm not very good at chess.
A scenerio of pay your money and get your stuff is realistically a store and not a Government......
And a society that does not care for those in need is better because? Historically and/or simply world wide why are the most productive and successful countries those with more social programs than those with little to none? Should the aggregate whole produce and have less merely based on your principle of self reliance first and last?
They do this
Are you missing the purpose?....a big pool of people with some swimming, some treading water and others being furnished a life jacket.......the pooling of resources, abilities and talent makes for a stronger whole. If private voluntary charity is good (you seem to be a strong proponent) why would a country whom cares and provides for those less fortunate not be good as well? When my kids were home, while I much preferred voluntary household contributions or efforts, mandatory chores were both needed and a price for living here.
The gun thing is far more rhetorical than informational, even downright irritating at times.....It is also far from unique to Gov. run social welfare programs. Seriously refuse any Gov. mandate from military service to seat belts and eventually you'll find a gun poking you where it shouldn't.
to participate
The price of admission.....and also seriously dwarfed by current and past fiscal disasters....one might even argue that welfare queens are much cheaper to keep than our cherished wallstreet types.
It is...without doubt the majority of citizens wish to pool resources and provide for the elderly, those in need and the disabled. Ultimately a serious justification for any sovereign country is to fulfill the will, the needs or even the whim of the populous...... why else would it exist?
I see. So when your position is shown to be a fraud, you shrug and refuse to defend it.
There is no difference. Your analysis is bogus. Someone with a communicable disease who does not get vaccinated or treated is committing an act of *force* upon their fellow citizens by exposing them to the disease knowingly - presumably against their will.
Sure - if it's voluntary.
To the extent that the CDC needs to exist to prevent examples like the one you cite - people knowingly infecting one another - it is legitimate. As a general matter though, there is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to do this sort of thing.
They are the same thing. You take my money, you took my life because I spent some hours producing that money that I cannot get back.
Evidently. Wanna play for money?
Correct - which is why government has no business in this area.
That is not the alternative. The alternative is to allow people to keep what is theirs, thereby creating so much aggregate wealth that there is plenty of charity available for those really in need.
You have correlation and cause mixed up. The US - though blighted by collectivist sewage - is nowhere near as collectivized as most of Western Europe and has, for the most part, far out performed Europe in productivity and "success" (if by that you actually mean wealth creation).
But cutting every lifejacket in half so everyone gets a small piece leads to a net increase in drowning.
Because the act is involuntary, and done under threat of force. This is called "stealing".
Your home is a private place. At most, you could kick out the kids who would not pay. What you could not do, was make your neighbors pay for your kids to stay there. Big difference.
That's exactly right - that's *why* the Framers limited the scope and power of the government so carefully - to the defense of liberty itself and little more - well, that and running the Post Office. You seem to think that if it's OK for a cop to stick a gun in a criminals gut to stop them, that this constitutes moral authority for the state to put a gun to my head and pay for your childrens' rent (by analogy).
I had to read the document that granted me admission. It's called the Constitution Of The United State. No such price is stipulated anywhere therein. You are inventing this out of whole cloth.
The slimiest "wall street types" do more good (unintentionally) for more people in an afternoon than the whole of the welfare system does in a decade. That said, welfare for *anyone* is morally repugnant. Face it, you are articulating a loud form of class warfare. Welfare recipients are the noble poor, and successful and rich business people are eeeeeeevil. Try that theory out the next time you're looking for work - see how many of those po' folks are in a position to help you.
And I am among them. I "pool" my resources to help via private charity. Why do you mistrust your fellow citizens so much that you insist on using force to make them do what you think they want to do anyway? Here's a hint: Another core tenet of collectivism is a fundamental lack of respect for other people - not just their wallets - but their persons, intentions and actions.
This nation exists to preserve liberty, not flog your collectivist nonsense. Well, it used to. Now evil ideas like yours are prevailing and the path to hell has been nicely paved.
Proving that collectivism is not the sole province of the left...
Classic Lew, when confronted with an argument he cannot defend; stick fingers in ears, hum loudly.
Yep, that's Lew.
Well, I have to admit, you are the quintessential bulldog refusing to relinquish your grip for any reason. Your teeth are embedded into the word "free". It's NOT free, it's health insurance paid for by the citizens and collected by employers. Only difference to your private insurance system is that it's a much larger system and it's administered by the government.
And if you bothered to look into it, that minimum wage for health insurance premium exemption is pretty low. (
Lee, You were right. I just read that the no-shorting rule now applies to 800+ stocks.
Unfortunately, a rebuild of Glass-Steagal now appears impossible.
Not from me, and not because I wouldn't participate.
There you go again, injecting parameters which weren't part of the original discussion.
About the chess game?
No, I won't play with you, which means you already lost.
r
Classic Keith. Express disdain and contempt for anyone who disagrees.
scott
Blind? You don't really understand the scientific method, do you?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.