Chicago is creating urban gardens for food panties and food desert areasHello Carol:

What are these food panties you speak of? Do they come in chocolate?

excon

And you thought Chicago was a city full of crime, didn't you. That's just a front, the story that we tell out loud

I made no assertion that you would punish people so quit making up stuff,Geeeee.

Easily deduced from your comments. I'm not the one making stuff up.

You deduced wrong.

No one has said government has no role but we are talking about two different things. You want to talk motives when I am only addressing results.

Fact is and you seem to agree, the private sector is far more efficient regardless of motive.

I have no doubt that liberals are sincere (for the most part) in helping others via government means. In practice the government can't touch the efficiency of the private sector, so why keep investing more hope and resources in a failed system while destroying what works?

It's not logical.


Actually we are talking about the same thing. The private sector will always be more efficient because it gains results. Ipso facto, it's motivation is result gaining. No surprises here.

However, organizations are not governments. The private sector being touted as a substitute for government welfare administration is when we find ourselves on a slippery slope.

The important point being overlooked here is that a social contract is an agreement between government and individuals. It is not an agreement between government and private organizations. The Preamble to the Constitution provides an insight into how the social contract works. It is a case of, "We the people",not we the corporations.

Your Constitution is a social contract. Part of the deal is that individuals empower governments to look after the general welfare. Private organizations have an important role to play in making social welfare more efficient, but they should only ever be a signatory to the social contract. They should not make the contracts. Government should always maintain a coercive role when it comes to the general welfare.

If you don't think that some sections of the community fail to understand the importance of this distinction then we need look no further than Tanner's study.

Tom's link to the Tanner study doesn't tell us anything we don't already know in terms of increasing costs of welfare and inefficiencies we find in the programmes being provided. Everything is fine until we reach the concluding remarks. Suddenly we get these bolts from the blue:

We need to create the conditions and incentives that will make it easy for people to escape poverty and the best way is through the free market because the current War on Poverty is a failure.

AND

We should reform the failed school system.

Ok, I'll go along with everything up until the concluding summary of the study. Me thinks they have stuck in a conclusion from a different study?

Where are such things as the free market system providing the best solution and reforming the failed school system discussed in in main part of the study? The answer is they are not discussed in relation to any of the material presented. These comments are tacked on the end as some type of adjunct.

Why are we continually bombarded with poor quality studies when it comes to social welfare?

Tut

Interesting Tut, and unless I am mistaken a partnership that allows companies to meet their employment needs through funding, or subsidizing the many levels of education would keep jobs here in America, and reform the educational system into a more effective endeavor.

That sounds like a way to either drive down costs, or save the government a lot of money. Or will it extract even more loot from a cash strapped government?

Actually we are talking about the same thing. The private sector will always be more efficient because it gains results. Ipso facto, it's motivation is result gaining. No surprises here.

However, organizations are not governments. The private sector being touted as a substitute for government welfare administration is when we find ourselves on a slippery slope.

No one has suggested eliminating government welfare, but in my opinion the more dangerous slippery slope is touting government as a replacement for charity.


The important point being overlooked here is that a social contract is an agreement between government and individuals. It is not an agreement between government and private organizations. The Preamble to the Constitution provides an insight into how the social contract works. It is a case of, "We the people",not we the corporations.

Again, in reference to the original question you're assuming things that on my part are not in evidence. No one is suggesting eliminating the "coercive role" of government. What I am against is expanding it to the point where the 99 percent are just wards of the state.


My rights and my liberty are at stake here, Tut. You can't find a more perfect example of this than the contraceptive mandate which in essence forces the church to violate her conscience or cease her ministries to the very people this government claims to be looking out for. Our government is not prepared to take on the food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, etc. that will be closed if this mandate prevails.

Jefferson argued “to take from one … in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

What happened to that being a part of the social contract?

the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

What happened to that being a part of the social contract?Hello again, Steve:

What happened is, my street has potholes... What?? You don't drive on the street?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

What happened is, my street has potholes... What??? You don't drive on the street?

excon

I reckon your city should fix its potholes. You're veering off the path wildly again. Not wanting to buy everyone's birth control pills does not indicate I don't want potholes fixed. At least when I pay taxes to maintain the roads I get the benefit of using the roads. If I buy your wife's contraceptives I don't get the benefit of using your wife.

You deduced wrong.

So forcing someone to work when there is none or lose your benefits isn't a punishment? OK, we'll call it a penalty.

So forcing someone to work when there is none or lose your benefits isn't a punishment? OK, we'll call it a penalty.

No... It's a tax!!

But Speech, that was your position! YOU are the one who said people should be required to work to get benefits. If there is no work, then what? No benefits?

And because a person pays for insurance through PREMIUMS, and the INSURANCE COMPANY pays for the meds, whatever they are, doesn't mean YOU are paying for them. Or the church for that matter. What part of the INSURANCE company paying the benefits to its CUSTOMERS is it you don't get??

All of a sudden you think a church can dictate what private business does to service its customers? That's absurd. You rather the church replace the law, and the government. That's absurd too!

I don't recall the church having the right to get between a patient and physician, or stop a pharmacy from filling a perscription from the doctor, and INSURANCE paying for it. I also don't recall the church offering free insurance either.


No ....It's a tax !!!!!

A tax on who? The lazy guy who takes your money because he chose not to buy insurance and goes to the emergency room? I thought you guys hated paying for other peoples stuff?

Almost 50 % of American households already receive Federal Government assistance . How big do you want the safety net to grow ?Means-tested programs, designed to help the needy, accounted for the largest share of recipients last year. Some 34.2 percent of Americans lived in a household that received benefits such as food stamps, subsidized housing, cash welfare or Medicaid.

It wouldn't have to grow if job creators were making jobs here, instead of China. I mean a waitress or cook at Taco Bell doesn't make enough for rent, food, AND a baysitter while she works.

You know the working poor, mostly KIDS!!

Yeah life it tough. As I recall;I didn't start at the top wage scale of my profession either . There were plenty of Taco Bell like jobs in my youth ;and worse .Perhaps if someone was giving me a bunch of freebees while I worked those jobs ,there may not have been the incentive to move on to better jobs.

Things have changed since you walked a mile in a blizzard with no shoes on to go to school, and there are a lot more Taco Bells, but not a lot of higher paying jobs to go to, incentive or NOT!

But Speech, that was your position! YOU are the one who said people should be required to work to get benefits. If there is no work, then what? No benefits?

IF a person is able to work and can find work they should be required to do so. That's my position, and quite reasonable. Gutting the work requirements that decreased our welfare roles is stupid, it only promotes more abuse of the system. Benjamin Franklin observed while living in Europe, “in different countries … the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

It's even worse today, just look at the fits being thrown in Greece, France and Spain over the thought of losing some of their precious government benefits even in the face of it bringing their countries to complete economic failure.

And since you love facts, did you know that the percentage of poor declined from 1947 until the war on poverty and its massive spending increases?

So your choice again, do you want to go with what works or is that so old school?


And because a person pays for insurance through PREMIUMS, and the INSURANCE COMPANY pays for the meds, whatever they are, doesn't mean YOU are paying for them. Or the church for that matter.

You simply can't separate the two no matter how much thou doth protest.


What part of the INSURANCE company paying the benefits to its CUSTOMERS is it you don't get??

What part of without my premiums no benefits are paid don't you get?


All of a sudden you think a church can dictate what private business does to service its customers? That's absurd. You rather the church replace the law, and the government. That's absurd too!


If I'm providing the coverage I get to choose the coverage. Duh.

Gutting the work requirements that decreased our welfare roles is stupid, it only promotes more abuse of the system.
But much of the manufacturing and call-center work has been moved overseas.

Quote by Speech!
If I'm providing the coverage I get to choose the coverage. Duh.

You get to choose from what they OFFER, Duh!

Things have changed since you walked a mile in a blizzard with no shoes on to go to school, and there are a lot more Taco Bells, but not a lot of higher paying jobs to go to, incentive or NOT!!

I think the job situation was a lot worse when I entered the work force.
Unemployment peaked above 10% when I entered the workforce and was also pretty bad in the years after I graduated . What I recall was that when Mickey D's had a job opening there was a line outside of eager applicants. On top of that ,interest rates were almost 20% on some things like credit card and some loans ,and the official inflation rate was in double digits too.

I didn't park my asset in my parents home ,do whatever the equivant of social media all day long and get a government payout for 99 weeks. I took jobs that are evidently beneath the kids today . I say that because whenever I get served in a fast food store today ;the person serving me barely speaks English . So yeah ;things are indeed not the same as when I was starting . But then again... I started getting paid for doing work before I entered High School. I don't see kids shovelling driveways ,mowing lawns ,doing other odd jobs here in blue NY .

I didn't park my asset in my parents home ,do whatever the equivant of social media all day long
There was no equivalent except daytime TV (soaps) and reading books. Working was a far sight better and much more lucrative.

Working was a far sight better and much more lucrative As it is today. I know what I'm talking about . I don't see the ambition or drive from many of the kids. Because one takes a job they are over qualified for doesn't mean they should either assume that is where they will be the rest of their lives ;or even worse... give up and stop looking because Uncle Sam gave you a year and a half reprieve (followed by the new 2009 lax requirements for disability eligibility ) .

It all goes back to the feeling of entitlement too many of them have been infused with since birth. And who did that to them?

Get out of your neighborhood, the kids here are busting there butts.

Tal ,yes I'm sure in a red state they are. It all goes to that thing WG mentioned prior to your response. The kids here have their own personal butt wipers. And kids in your state are experiencing a private sector energy boom . Now I tell kids here all the time to go to Texas and the Dakotas where a young person can make something of themselves.

The kids here have their own personal butt wipers. and kids in your state are experiencing a private sector energy boom Hello again, tom:

Sounds like a good reason to FURNISH FREE birth control pills to the libs... It's even BETTER than voter suppression. They'll make themselves extinct.

excon

You get to choose from what they OFFER, Duh!

And if I don't like what they offer or they won't tailor to my needs I can go elsewhere. Duh.

Yes speech you always have that option

And if I don't like what they offer or they won't tailor to my needs I can go elsewhere. Duh.

Exactly, that's the free market.

My rights and my liberty are at stake here, Tut. You can't find a more perfect example of this than the contraceptive mandate which in essence forces the church to violate her conscience or cease her ministries to the very people this government claims to be looking out for. Our government is not prepared to take on the food pantries, soup kitchens, homeless shelters, orphanages, etc. that will be closed if this mandate prevails.




If this amounts to your position then I am not prepared to challenge it. I want to be the last person to claim you fears are unwarranted. I don't know what it is like to live in a society whereby you feel as though you are in a state of siege from various quarters.




Jefferson argued “to take from one … in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

What happened to that being a part of the social contract?




I don't really know what happened to the social contract in light of this quote.

This is largely because it seems to be a partial quote. I would also need to know the context of the quote.

I think we have talked about the problems of 'contextomy' in another post. I am not saying it is a problem here- but it may well be.

Tut

Unbelievable. How does the contract between a citizen and a private company hurt a homeless shelter, orphanage or hospital for that matter?

Exactly, thats the free market.

So you've finally realized it is the employer paying for the contraceptives. Now that we have that out of the way, that's wrong to force the church to violate their beliefs and pay for contraceptives and abortifacients.

Unbelievable. How does the contract between a citizen and a private company hurt a homeless shelter, orphanage or hospital for that matter?

What part of churches closing their ministries rather than violate their conscience do you not get? Is the government ready to take on that load or do you just have no concept of the vast number of people the church serves without costing you a cent?

What part of churches closing their ministries rather than violate their conscience do you not get? That's a business decision they are allowed to take. When businesses close their doors others often take over.

I think we have talked about the problems of 'contextomy' in another post. I am not saying it is a problem here- but it may well be.

Tut

Here you go:


Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch15s64.html)
6 Apr. 1816Writings 14:466

Whether property alone, and the whole of what each citizen possesses, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants, or whether the faculties of body and mind shall contribute also from their annual earnings, is a question to be decided. But, when decided, and the principle settled, it is to be equally and fairly applied to all. To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it.

the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it. Hello again, Steve:

I'm a Jeffersonian.. The problem we have is figuring out whether taxing the richest people in the land, people who are GETTING richer as we speak, is "extra-taxation"..

Me and Jefferson, say no.

Excon

The church won't close anything speech, and they haven't after all this time. Why should they? If tribal challenges didn't stop missionaries, then how are a few pills going to do it? Closing hospitals because of insurance companies doesn't make sense either.

Don't offer insurance, pay the church employees the difference, and let them get their own insurance. If the STATE they do business in allows that. 38 do NOT! That was before Obama.

Churches are tax exempt, employees are NOT!

What part of churches closing their ministries rather than violate their conscience do you not get?Hello again, Steve:

The part that they'll ACTUALLY do that.. Bwa, ha ha ha..

excon

That's a business decision they are allowed to take. When businesses close their doors others often take over.

A church is not a business.

The church won't close anything speech, and they haven't after all this time. Why should they? If tribal challenges didn't stop missionaries, then how are a few pills gonna do it? Closing hospitals because of insurance companies doesn't make sense either.

You really should pay more attention, I've proven this wrong on more than one occasion.

Hello again, Steve:

The part that they'll ACTUALLY do that.. Bwa, ha ha ha..

excon

They have done it, they are doing it, they will do it. Unlike the government the church as an institution will do everything in her power to maintain her integrity.

A church is not a business.Hello again, Steve:

Then maybe it shouldn't try to BE a business and expect to be treated like a church..

excon

They have done it, they are doing it, Unlike the government the church as an institution will do everything in her power to maintain her integrity.Hello again, Steve:

Got any links?

Their integrity?? Aren't they NOW paying state taxes on the same thing?? What?? A church doesn't have any integrity when it's being taxed by the STATE?

I didn't know that.

excon

They have done it, they are doing it, they will do it. Unlike the government the church as an institution will do everything in her power to maintain her integrity.

Including hiding rapists from prosecution. Oh wait that was the Catholic Church, not YOUR church. Sorry.

Hello again, Steve:

Then maybe it shouldn't try to BE a business and expect to be treated like a church..

excon

Back to that same, fallacious argument.

Including hiding rapists from prosecution. Oh wait that was the Catholic Church, not YOUR church. Sorry.

No, I'm not Catholic and that must be the new Godwin's Law. Any discussion about the church will inevitably lead to references to pedophile priests. You can do better.

Hello again, Steve:

Got any links?

Search my posts, it's there, even on this thread. I'm not going to keep repeating myself because you're too lazy to pay attention.


Their integrity?? Aren't they NOW paying state taxes on the same thing?? What?? A church doesn't have any integrity when it's being taxed by the STATE?

Got any links?

No, I'm not Catholic and that must be the new Godwin's Law. Any discussion about the church will inevitably lead to references to pedophile priests. You can do better.

Harshness Warning

The church can do better, and victimizing little boys for years isn't a small thing because if they are capable of rape,what else are they capable of. Harboring criminals is NOT integrity.

For a guy who is big on protecting the helpless unborn, you don't have a problem throwing the helpless born under the bus.

If World vision relieves your guilt, go for it. It doesn't relieve you of RESPONSIBILITY!

Those are not references, those are victims of church malfeasance,and criminality!! Worst, a betrayal of trust!!

Harshness Warning

The church can do better, and victimizing little boys for years isn't a small thing because if they are capable of rape,what else are they capable of. Harboring criminals is NOT integrity.

For a guy who is big on protecting the helpless unborn, you don't have a problem throwing the helpless born under the bus.

If World vision relieves your guilt, go for it. It doesn't relieve you of RESPONSIBILITY!

Those are not references, those are victims of church malfeasance,and criminality!!!! Worst, a betrayal of trust!!!!

You should have had a "Pulling sh*t out of my a$$ warning."

Really Tal, enough of your BS assumptions. What part of "No, I'm not Catholic" did you fail to comprehend, and even if I were why in the hell would I defend pedophiles? I don't, I haven't and I won't, so before you EVER accuse me of "throwing the helpless born under the bus" you'd better be d@mn sure you have your facts straight.

What part of "No, I'm not Catholic" did you fail to comprehend, and even if I were why in the hell would I defend pedophiles?
Well it's not just catholics - they get the headlines:
Catholic priests no guiltier of sex abuse than other clergy (http://blogs.denverpost.com/hark/2010/05/25/scandal-creates-contempt-for-catholic-clergy/39/)

Wisconsin-based Church Mutual Insurance Co. has 100,000 client churches and has seen a steady filing of about five sexual molestation cases a week for more than a decade, even though its client base has grown.

“It would be incorrect to call it a Catholic problem,” said Church Mutual’s risk control manager, Rick Schaber. “We do not see one denomination above another. It’s equal. It’s also equal among large metropolitan churches and small rural churches.”

Iowa-based Guide One Center for Risk Management, which insures more than 40,000 congregations, also said Catholic churches are not considered a greater risk or charged higher premiums.

“Our claims experience shows this happens evenly across denominations,” said spokeswoman Melanie Stonewall.

So people are just doing what they have learned to do from this Current Events board: find a few crazies and attribute it to a whole group.

And that doesn't tell the whole story but hints at it, pedophiles seek out places they can be around children and many of those are volunteers; church nursery workers, bible class teachers, coaches, etc. No one works with kids in my church without first undergoing a background check, volunteer or staff.

You should have had a "Pulling sh*t out of my a$$ warning."

Really Tal, enough of your BS assumptions. What part of "No, I'm not Catholic" did you fail to comprehend, and even if I were why in the hell would I defend pedophiles? I don't, I haven't and I won't, so before you EVER accuse me of "throwing the helpless born under the bus" you'd better be d@mn sure you have your facts straight.

Are you against Obama care?

Are you against a .05% tax on wages above $250,000 to build, repair, replace bridges schools, roads?

Are you for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, and the ever growing working poor?

So you want a voucher for medicare? Not just for YOU,but your kids too!

If there is no money, and we are so broke, how the hell can Mitt find a few trillion for him and his buddies to keep even more of their loot??

I got my facts straight all right, without the Tea Party paranoid stances, or right wing excuses to do nothing but say NO!

Its YOUR government, OURS, and I just cast my early vote, and can feel empowered.

Are you against Obama care?

Are you against a .05% tax on wages above $250,000 to build, repair, replace bridges schools, roads?

Are you for balancing the budget on the backs of the poor, and the ever growing working poor?

So you want a voucher for medicare? Not just for YOU,but your kids too!

If there is no money, and we are so broke, how the hell can Mitt find a few trillion for him and his buddies to keep even more of their loot??

I got my facts straight all right, without the Tea Party paranoid stances, or right wing excuses to do nothing but say NO!

Its YOUR government, OURS, and I just cast my early vote, and can feel empowered.

Irrelevant. I responded specifically to this charge:


The church can do better, and victimizing little boys for years isn't a small thing because if they are capable of rape,what else are they capable of. Harboring criminals is NOT integrity.

For a guy who is big on protecting the helpless unborn, you don't have a problem throwing the helpless born under the bus.

If World vision relieves your guilt, go for it. It doesn't relieve you of RESPONSIBILITY!

You declared me GUILTY of some nasty stuff and assuaging my GUILT by giving to World Vision. You're little diversion up there ain't going to fly.

Then have some empathy by not taking safety net money and giving it to the guy who has millions and billions and trillions. The safety net is more important than ever NOW given the robbery perpetrated by the elite class, that's making all us ordinary types have a really hard time.

And no, I wouldn't be sending my wealth to a hiding place. I would be building a road and a bridge to the biggest teaching hospital with a children's wing in the world. Free transportation and cable TV!! Across the park from a school that covers K-12, and a free college, with a technical school. Loan me a trillion bucks will you?

Then have some empathy by not taking safety net money and giving it to the guy who has millions and billions and trillions. The safety net is more important than ever NOW given the robbery perpetrated by the elite class, thats making all us ordinary types have a really hard time.

And no, I wouldn't be sending my wealth to a hiding place. I would be building a road and a bridge to the biggest teaching hospital with a children's wing in the world. Free transportation and cable TV!!! Across the park from a school that covers K-12, and a free college, with a technical school. Loan me a trillion bucks will ya?

Another diversion. This is the only point at hand here, you declared me GUILTY of some nasty stuff and of assuaging my GUILT by giving to World Vision. Back it up or take it back.

Hello again,

It's summertime... Relax. Have a beer. It's time to draft our football team. For the time being, THIS thread is closed.

I LOVE having power...

excon

Hello again,

Time out is over.. It's open. I LOVE power.

excon

Obviously you have nothing better to do, get a life

Thanks Ex, smart progressives like myself should be able to make a case without being personally insulting, or denigrating.

Here you go:

Thanks for the full quote.

Yes, there are a couple of sentences left out before and after the limited quote you provided. Let's just say this oversight is rather significant.

"Whether property alone, and the whole of which each citizen possessed, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants"

In other words, what particular part or parts of what the individual has amassed is subject to the distribution to the rest of society? Or shall it be only the surplus the individual produces is subject to this distribution process?

Jefferson says that this has yet to be decided. However, before we make such a decision we need consider a couple of important factors.

(a) Whatever we decide upon it should be just and fair to all.

(b) This position is covered in the selected quote you have provided and by itself supports a modern political position.

I am not saying this position is wrong, but what I am saying is that Jefferson is not advocating this position as a prescription for some type of modi operandi when it comes to such things as taxation.

Jefferson is asking us to balance things out.


The last part of the full quote provided also provided gives us an interesting insight into Jefferson's concerns when it comes to the wealthy being allowed to become too wealthy to the extent that they begin to pose a threat to government.

Clearly Jefferson is against extra taxation in this respect, but hopes to dilute the wealth and influence of such accumulations. Presumably redistribution upon death.

Overall the limited quote is taking his comments out of context.

Tut

Hello again,

Time out is over.. It's open. I LOVE power.

excon

But you don't love others having power.

But you don't love others having power.Hello again, Steve:

Nahh... I HATE others ABUSING their power, like arresting non violent POT smokers and ruining their lives... Yeah.. I HATE those people and I'll NEVER stop.

That you yawn while that's happening to your fellow citizens doesn't speak well of you.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Nahh... I HATE others ABUSING their power, like arresting non violent POT smokers and ruining their lives... Yeah.. I HATE those people and I'll NEVER stop.

That you yawn while that's happening to your fellow citizens doesn't speak well of you.

excon

I HATE people ignoring what I've actually said in favor of repeating crap they've made up that does not reflect my views in an attempt to make me look bad. I just went through that with Tal before you closed the thread, so do you want to discuss reality or do you two just want to keep making sh*t up about me?

I HATE people ignoring what I've actually said Hello again, Steve:

Actually, I listen very carefully... That you sit back saying it would OK with you if they DIDN'T put pot smokers in jail, is a LONG way from actively SUPPORTING it. When did you join Norml? When did you post your outrage? When did you write a letter? When did you DO anything about it?

Nahhh... Sitting back IS yawning...

excon

Thanks for the full quote.

Yes, there are a couple of sentences left out before and after the limited quote you provided. Let's just say this oversight is rather significant.

"Whether property alone, and the whole of which each citizen possessed, shall be subject to contribution, or only its surplus after satisfying his first wants"

In other words, what particular part or parts of what the individual has amassed is subject to the distribution to the rest of society? Or shall it be only the surplus the individual produces is subject to this distribution process?

Jefferson says that this has yet to be decided. However, before we make such a decision we need consider a couple of important factors.

(a) Whatever we decide upon it should be just and fair to all.

(b) This position is covered in the selected quote you have provided and by itself supports a modern political position.

There's nothing modern about it, it's the original position of the founders.


I am not saying this position is wrong, but what I am saying is that Jefferson is not advocating this position as a prescription for some type of modi operandi when it comes to such things as taxation.

Jefferson is asking us to balance things out.

No, he's asking it "to be equally and fairly applied to all" for the very reason I've argued for years and what I quoted, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.""


The last part of the full quote provided also provided gives us an interesting insight into Jefferson's concerns when it comes to the wealthy being allowed to become too wealthy to the extent that they begin to pose a threat to government.

Clearly Jefferson is against extra taxation in this respect, but hopes to dilute the wealth and influence of such accumulations. Presumably redistribution upon death.

He speaks only of inheritance, which would be kin. Nothing more.


Overall the limited quote is taking his comments out of context.

I disagree.

Hello again, Steve:

Actually, I listen very carefully... That you sit back saying it would OK with you if they DIDN'T put pot smokers in jail, is a LONG way from actively SUPPORTING it. When did you join Norml? When did you post your outrage? When did you write a letter? When did you DO anything about it??

Nahhh... Sitting back IS yawning...

excon

I've explained that before too. You have your causes, I have mine. You can't tell me you actively engage in a battle against every injustice. If you did I'd call you a liar, because for one our ideas of what's unjust don't match. You can have my support or reject it, your choice.

I'll even make a deal, when NORML joins my fight against killing babies I'll sign up.

The intent of the founders was severely limited in scope and had no idea that things would expand and grow,or be complicated by the diversity we have seen as the nation grew from 13 colonies to 50 states. Their ideas, and intents while a guideline cannot begin to address the problems of a modern very complex society.

It would take them a while to get us Wall Street, or the global economy that have changed so much in the centuries following independence, as they had no civil or social revolutions that the modern era has brought. So lets not let original intent be the sole governance to solving problems that were unheard of back then.

Just as a gun is only a threat in the wrongs hands, so is a derivative. So is writing laws that favors WHO?? So since in the modern world females want birth control, and for some very good reasons so stated simply, why make it hard for them to have them?

If the goa lis saving babies from abortions, why is this not a reasonable alternative? Seems you want government out of YOUR life, but in everyone else especially the bedroom. That's almost sick.

I mean does your wife use the pill? Tell me what you DO approve of in your house to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

The intent of the founders was severely limited in scope I strongly disagree . The founders studied all the Enlightenment philosophers and studied the history of Republics and democracies as far back as the Greeks.

and had no idea that things would expand and grow,or be complicated by the diversity we have seen as the nation grew from 13 colonies to 50 states. Their ideas, and intents while a guideline cannot begin to address the problems of a modern very complex society.

Most of them had the expansion of the nation in their eyesight ;and Jefferson engineered the biggest territorial expansion in the nations territory. Further ,many of them were some of the most brilliant scientists of their time. Do I have to dig up all the inventions of Frankin ?Jefferson ;besides being a politician and statesman, was an established architect, and inventor. Hugh Williamson was a renown scientist and physician. No ;they saw the future well and created a blueprint for governance that is ageless.

Most of them had the expansion of the nation in their eyesight ... they saw the future well
I want some of what you're smoking.

The intent of the founders was severely limited in scope and had no idea that things would expand and grow,or be complicated by the diversity we have seen as the nation grew from 13 colonies to 50 states. Their ideas, and intents while a guideline cannot begin to address the problems of a modern very complex society.

Horse hockey.


So since in the modern world females want birth control, and for some very good reasons so stated simply, why make it hard for them to have them?

There is no problem with access to contraceptives. We've had this dance before, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. Why not solve some actual problems instead of pandering to your base?


If the goa lis saving babies from abortions, why is this not a reasonable alternative? Seems you want government out of YOUR life, but in everyone else especially the bedroom. That's almost sick.

Another fallacy, another assumption and another insult. Are we going to do this again or can smart progressives like yourself "make a case without being personally insulting, or denigrating."


I mean does your wife use the pill? Tell me what you DO approve of in your house to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

My wife had a radical hysterectomy after her second child, my (step) daughter who is battling AIDS. We can't have more children. Care to try and touch on any more sensitive areas of my life?

Being smart and enlightened and learned, surely they believed in adjustments to changing conditions and times? Why don't YOU?

I want some of what you're smoking.
Insult aside; I suggest you brush up on what the founders really thought about expansion. Do you think their intent was to remain a coastal nation constantly threatened by European territory on their borders ? No they were in fact comfortable with the idea of territorial expansion. You should not think it a coincidence at all that one of the first things they did in the revolution was attempt to conquer Canada.

George Washington called the nation “a rising empire.” John Adams said it was “destined” to overspread all North America.
They had their eyes on the Mississippi river from the beginning . They saw Florida and Spains holdings as vulnerable They agreed that Canada must be seized and annexed ;and again attempted to conquer it in 1812 . As early as 1761, Benjamin Franklin targeted Cuba and Mexico for aggression. Franklin and Samuel Adams wanted to grab the entire West Indies. Jefferson considered the Gulf Stream an extension of the Mississippi River and argued that gave the US territorial rights to that part of the Atlantic.

No insult, Tom. I respect you too much for that, was speaking to what you said, not to who you are.

Just like they knew the Internet was coming and that tape cassettes would be obsolete faster than you can say "Jack Robinson."

Being smart and enlightened and learned, surely they believed in adjustments to changing conditions and times? Why don't YOU?

He says to a guy who sits in the comfort of his couch in an air conditioned room sending replies on a tablet PC, smoking the competition through an app on his smart phone whose job is purchasing cutting edge technology to keep people safe.

No insult, Tom. I respect you too much for that, was speaking to what you said, not to who you are.

Just like they knew the Internet was coming and that tape cassettes would be obsolete faster than you can say "Jack Robinson."

You neglected the key part of my comment " they saw the future well and created a blueprint for governance that is ageless. " That doesn't mean that they foresaw the details of what the future would be . But they created a governing model that was founded on principle ;and adaptable to a changing world . The means of amending it are written into the document ;and that is the evidence I need to make that statement .

Horse hockey.

I guess I should be use to you dismissing without explanation,facts, or opinion.

There is no problem with access to contraceptives. We've had this dance before, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. Why not solve some actual problems instead of pandering to your base?

You either have to be rich, or have some form of insurance for a doctor visit, to get examined and get a script. No money, no doctor. If their are nofree clinics servicing your area,that can accomodate you, No birth control. Thats changing with the ACA. We ain't there yet though,especially if republican governors keep fighting against the growing poor class.

Another fallacy, another assumption and another insult. Are we going to do this again or can smart progressives like yourself "make a case without being personally insulting, or denigrating."

We get further if you were not so defensive, sensitive, or take everything as a personal attack.

My wife had a radical hysterectomy after her second child, my (step) daughter who is battling AIDS. We can't have more children. Care to try and touch on any more sensitive areas of my life?

My wife, and I went thru the same thing, at the same time. After our second child. The experience made me quite aggresive in wanting females to have everything they need in the way of preventive health care. Hope that explains what are sensitive issues in my life to you.

Thanks for sharing.

Horse hockey.

I guess I should be use to you dismissing without explanation,facts, or opinion.

Refer to tom's answer previous to mine (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-32.html#post3209572). My additional comment on the on the nature of your response was sufficient.


There is no problem with access to contraceptives. We've had this dance before, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. Why not solve some actual problems instead of pandering to your base?

You either have to be rich, or have some form of insurance for a doctor visit, to get examined and get a script. No money, no doctor. If their are nofree clinics servicing your area,that can accomodate you, No birth control. Thats changing with the ACA. We ain't there yet though,especially if republican governors keep fighting against the growing poor class.

Nonsense. My assertion is correct and has been supported bby government studies which I have already posted. I'm not going to do your research for you, it's already on this site. Besides, contraceptives are readily available over the counter (http://www.walgreens.com/search/results.jsp?Ntt=contraceptives&x=0&y=0) and in many cities, given out like candy. No, they probably don't give candy any more, Condoms yes, but not candy.


Another fallacy, another assumption and another insult. Are we going to do this again or can smart progressives like yourself "make a case without being personally insulting, or denigrating."

We get further if you were not so defensive, sensitive, or take everything as a personal attack.


Since yesterday you've linked me to child rapists and called me sick. What exactly do you not understand about what constitutes a personal attack?


My wife had a radical hysterectomy after her second child, my (step) daughter who is battling AIDS. We can't have more children. Care to try and touch on any more sensitive areas of my life?

My wife, and I went thru the same thing, at the same time. After our second child. The experience made me quite aggresive in wanting females to have everything they need in the way of preventive health care. Hope that explains what are sensitive issues in my life to you.

Thanks for sharing.

Then you should know where I'm coming from. But contraceptives would not have done a thing to prevent my wife's issues.

Besides the day after pill, the only OTC birth control are condoms, gels and sperm blockers. Hormonal contraceptives require a doctors prescription.

And Planned Parenthood is all too eager to pass those out.

Why shouldn't they? If they have no health insurance, it's a good option.

Then what's the problem? Access is not an issue.

The issue is stopping the access by closing planned parenthood clinics. Or denying access to medicaid, or a job, maybe two. Access, that's afordable IS the issue.

And who is doing that? No one, that's just another straw man. Plus, I've already shown the affordability in both OTC and prescription (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/true-false-648677-6.html#post3080110) and noted the giveaways.

As I alluded to earlier and posted in May, in 2009 the CDC reported (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf) that "contraceptive use is virtually universal in the United States." Only the methods differ. So who exactly are we providing access to contraceptives that didn't already USE contraceptives?

Again, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. There is NO justification for it other than a political agenda, and to persecute the church while decimating the first amendment? Well that's just sick.

Jefferson argued “to take from one … in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”




I actually agree with this quote. I think that everyone should have the opportunity make something for themselves, or build on what they have inherited. They are entitled to the fruits of these labour.

Your society has many examples of these 'fruitful' individuals of this types. Having said that, it seems to me a lot of them are found in politics. It also seems to me there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about the power these individuals have when it comes to determining political policy or lobbying for a particular policy. Too much money is equal to too much power. It is not a good thing for the democratic process.

Tut

Having said that, it seems to me a lot of them are found in politics. It also seems to me there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about the power these individuals have when it comes to determining political policy or lobbying for a particular policy. Too much money is equal to too much power. It is not a good thing for the democratic process.
Are you familiar with Gordon Tullock's 'The Rent-seeking society' ? I've alluded to it in the past and gave the taxi driver example. When the political system changed it to a medallion system ;it closed the door of opportunity for the taxi driver who aspires to own their own business ;and concentrated the power and wealth into the few who could pay the medallion fees .
That is why I keep on saying that it is government policies that create large too big to fail cartels in the market .

Are you familiar with Gordon Tullock's 'The Rent-seeking society' ? I've alluded to it in the past and gave the taxi driver example. When the political system changed it to a medallion system ;it closed the door of opportunity for the taxi driver who aspires to own their own business ;and concentrated the power and wealth into the few who could pay the medallion fees .
That is why I keep on saying that it is government policies that create large too big to fail cartels in the market .


Yes, I do remember that post.

I did say I support the Jefferson quote, but it seems to me that rent-seekers are out to get as much money as possible in the shortest possible time. Because money can buy power they are not interested in creating wealth. It also seems to me that there is nothing in the Jefferson quote that is against rent-seeking. It seems to me rent-seeking is a quick solution to wealth and an equally quick solution to power grabbing.

Tut

I understand their motives .But they would not have the opportunity if government regulation wasn't rigged to create that outcome.

There's nothing modern about it, it's the original position of the founders.



No, he's asking it "to be equally and fairly applied to all" for the very reason I've argued for years and what I quoted, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.""





Tut said, and therefore supports the Jefferson quote:

To take from one... in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."


But hang on... I said that but didn't I also question the potential problems associated with such a principle? Namely, the risk to the political system by wealthy individuals.

Didn't I say this in the next few lines after the given quote.? In other words, I was saying something like,"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the state, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree, and to the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it".


My apologies to Jefferson for using his quotes. I don't mind you selectively quoting me. But selectively quoting Jefferson is of far greater significance.

When we look at this particular aspect of the full quote we can clearly see that the carefully selected bit is not to be understood as a universal principle.

By being selective we are quoting out of context.

Tut

You neglected the key part of my comment " they saw the future well and created a blueprint for governance that is ageless. " That doesn't mean that they foresaw the details of what the future would be . But they created a governing model that was founded on principle ;and adaptable to a changing world . The means of amending it are written into the document ;and that is the evidence I need to make that statement .


If you are talking about blueprints that are ageless then would would be talking about some type of universal principle. You definitions entails this.

In Lockeian terms the only universal principle when it comes to the social contract is the universality of human rights in a state of nature. These take the form of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The important point is that these rights are said to be self-evident. This is why they are a universal principle. Equally important is the fact that this principle found in a state of nature is actually pre-political.

Therefore, it must necessarily be the political principle that allows it to be adaptable to a changing world not the universal pre-political position.

Tut

I think we already addressed the fact that the Founders drew from more than Locke .My comment addressed this observation I constantly have to answer that the founders did not foresee the future . I already addressed the point that many of them were the premier scientists ,inventors ,thinkers of their age . But the point I addressed above was that since the founders added an amendment process to change the constitution for a changing time;that argument is mute.

And who is doing that? No one, that's just another straw man. Plus, I've already shown the affordability in both OTC and prescription (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/true-false-648677-6.html#post3080110) and noted the giveaways.

As I alluded to earlier and posted in May, in 2009 the CDC reported (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf) that "contraceptive use is virtually universal in the United States." Only the methods differ. So who exactly are we providing access to contraceptives that didn't already USE contraceptives?

Again, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease. There is NO justification for it other than a political agenda, and to persecute the church while decimating the first amendment? Well that's just sick.

I checked this a while ago and the fact remains the $9 dollar contraceptive you cited is on through a program offered toemployees of local businesses,

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/sandra-flukes-testimony-contradicted-by-9-birth-control-at-target/


A spokesperson from Target told TheDC that the rate is exclusive to a program called ScriptSave, which provides discount prescription drug rates to the employees of participating area businesses.

The spokesperson told TheDC via email that in order to “better serve the community, Target Pharmacy has partnered with ScriptSave® to offer this pharmacy savings program to its neighboring businesses and their employees"

So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of precription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its to long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is noproblemis a FALSE one.

I checked this a while ago and the fact remains the $9 dollar contraceptive you cited is on through a program offered toemployees of local businesses,

$9 birth control at Target for discount prescription cardholders | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/sandra-flukes-testimony-contradicted-by-9-birth-control-at-target/)

Wow, now that changes everything. Anyone can get a 3 month supply of that item online for $44 (http://www.healthwarehouse.com/tri-sprintec-28-tablet-pack.html). You can get a 90 day supply of generic Depo-Provera at Walmart for $10.


So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of precription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its to long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is noproblemis a FALSE one.

You've just moved from one straw man to another. If contraceptive use in the US is "virtually universal" it still means access is not an issue.

By being selective we are quoting out of context.

Tut

No one understands that more than I, but in this case I don't believe the context contradicted the point.

Reread your own link Speech, PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!!!

Reread your own link Speech, PRESCRIPTION REQUIRED!!!

No kidding? I'm quite certain I specifically addressed that portion of your response. Why yes, yes I did. Plus, we've already had that discussion yesterday - getting a prescription for contraceptives is not that hard. My last point stands as is without alteration.

"You've just moved from one straw man to another. If contraceptive use in the US is "virtually universal" it still means access is not an issue."

I'm with Tal on this --

"So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of prescription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its too long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is no problem is a FALSE one."

Birth control pills -> prescription -> doctor visit -> continuing care and subsequent visits = lots of money out of pocket if no insurance

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf

Nowhere did the link you provided make a correlation between access and financial cost. Yes the products are out there, and available but only to those that can afford the rather costly related expenses incurred in a doctor visit. It was a narrow study of the product, not access to that product.

Talk to females with little or NO access and you wouldn't be so dismissive of millions of women so easily. Economics plays a HUGE role in access. What you thought Planned Parenthood was just about abortions? Of course you did.

I'm with Tal on this --

"So my assertion that contraceptives still requires a doctor visit and a script still holds. However all the pharmacies to my knowledge offer the uninsured a discount program of one kind or another to defray the costs of prescription drugs.

Access to a doctor is crucial to have access to drugs, and care. Take that away, you have nothing. ACA addresses that access for millions, also the costs and procedures. I know its too long to read for some, but you cannot deny that many can't afford the access. Your assertion that there is no problem is a FALSE one."

Birth control pills -> prescription -> doctor visit -> continuing care and subsequent visits = lots of money out of pocket if no insurance

I GET that a PRESCRIPTION is required for PRESCRIPTION medications, I'm not stupid. But geez, even when I was 15 the girls had NO PROBLEM getting prescription contraceptives. That was the 70s.

I'm sure access to contraceptives has expanded exponentially since then, prescription or otherwise. In fact I know so since the study Tal keeps poo-pooing stated 3 years ago that contraceptive use in the US is "virtually universal."


Virtually (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtually): : almost entirely : nearly

Universal (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/universal): 1 : including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>

to a : present or occurring everywhere
b : existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions <universal cultural patterns>

3 a : embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices>
b : comprehensively broad and versatile

So what part of "virtually universal" is too complicated for you?

I GET that a PRESCRIPTION is required for PRESCRIPTION medications, I'm not stupid. But geez, even when I was 15 the girls had NO PROBLEM getting prescription contraceptives. That was the 70s.

How did they pay for them -- and the doctor visits?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_029.pdf

Nowhere did the link you provided make a correlation between access and financial cost. Yes the products are out there, and available but only to those that can afford the rather costly related expenses incurred in a doctor visit. It was a narrow study of the product, not access to that product.

Talk to females with little or NO access and you wouldn't be so dismissive of millions of women so easily. Economics plays a HUGE role in access. What you thought Planned Parenthood was just about abortions? Of course you did.

I'll try and speak s l o w l y.

The study is "Use of Contraception in the United States: 1982–2008." There is no need to "make a correlation between access and financial cost," the Use of Contraception in the United States is "virtually universal."

Short and sweet, the GOAL (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/goal) was VIRTUALLY met 4 years ago so what more needs to be done? NOTHING, the mandate is a cure in search of a disease and you're perfectly willing to persecute the church and decimate the first amendment in the process and that's just sick.

It doesn't matter how many ways you try to frame the debate, access to contraceptives is NOT an issue, it's an EXCUSE to implement a political agenda. Period. End of story.

How did they pay for them -- and the doctor visits?

Are you kidding me? Planned Parenthood was all too eager to get them started, nothing's changed.

What part of "virtually universal" contraceptive use needs a mandate that persecutes the church and decimates the first amendment? I really don't get what you two don't get about "virtually universal" use, especially one that needs a massive government response. It's illogical, it can only mean pushing a political agenda and pandering for votes. There is no other logical reason for it.

No one understands that more than I, but in this case I don't believe the context contradicted the point.


I tend to agree. I don't believe it is a contradiction. It is probably more of a qualification of the point.

On that basis I think it is not up to us to decide what is relevant or irrelevant. After all it is his quote.

The best way to do this is to include the whole quote, rather than the bit we think is relevant. Don't you think?

In answer to your question about the relevance of a limited quote.

I would say that in this case it doesn't fit anywhere into social contract theory. As I said, we need to consider the whole quote.

Tut

"But geez, even when I was 15 the girls had NO PROBLEM getting prescription contraceptives. That was the 70s."

So they all headed for PP and got them there? How did they get there? I don't remember PP as being in any conversation I ever had with my friends.

They ripped of the moms or big sisters, or mama took them to a doctor and got their own. And paid for them.

Or they LIED, but smart guys kept a condom in their wallets, from the gas station bath room down the street.

That was the 70's, well late 60's.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. The facts speak for themselves, access is not an issue. Period.

Oh, lighten up will you. Where did those 15 years olds get their contraceptives from in your day?

You neglected the key part of my comment " they saw the future well and created a blueprint for governance that is ageless. " That doesn't mean that they foresaw the details of what the future would be . But they created a governing model that was founded on principle ;and adaptable to a changing world . The means of amending it are written into the document ;and that is the evidence I need to make that statement .

Hi Tom,

I am not disagreeing with your claims about the amendment process. You missed my point so I sill say it again in a more direct way.

If you are talking about an ageless blueprint for governance into the future then you are putting forward a political ideology. I know you are critical of leftist ideologies and so am I, but an ideology can come form a variety of sources.

Have another look at your quote.

You are advocating some type of universal principle for political prescription. Universal in the sense that it is a statement for how society will be organized into the future given a set of preconditions. These preconditions are no doubt contained in the blueprint.

Do you know any other ideologies that speak of inextricable laws that govern the development of society into the future? I know a few.


Tut

I think their " ideology " was liberty. But the Constitution was a product of compromises ,and a recognition of a future of changes. That doesn't mean their "ideology " wasn't the basis for the founding .

I think their " ideology " was liberty. But the Constitution was a product of compromises ,and a recognition of a future of changes. That doesn't mean their "ideology " wasn't the basis for the founding .


Hi Tom,

In some ways you are correct, but in another way not so correct.

You could certainly argue their ideology is liberty. Provided we are talking about liberty as found in the social contract theory; as found in Enlightenment political philosophies of the time. They all seem to exhibit a common theme in terms of universal principles of justice and how these relate to the human condition.

Basically we could say that authority should be derived from a moral point of view. More particularly a universal moral stance based on the nature of the human condition prior to their being an organized political society. Sometimes called a state of nature.

The important point is that this state of nature is a pre-political condition. Unless we can argue that the recognition for future changes was actually pre-political then we would have problems defending this position.

It seems more probable the recognition for changes is actually a post political phenomena.


That's the way I see it unless you can come up with something different.


P.S. Why would you want to argue for this position anyway? Ideology is not a good thing.

Tut

Oh, lighten up will ya. Where did those 15 years olds get their contraceptives from in your day?

Already answered.

Why would you want to argue for this position anyway? Ideology is not a good thing.
OK if you are uncomforable with ideology use the word philosophy. I did not use the word until you brought it up.

P.S. Why would you want to argue for this position anyway? Ideology is not a good thing.

Tut

Why is ideology not a good thing? Everyone is ideological though some either pretend not to be or just lie about it.

Why is ideology not a good thing? Everyone is ideological though some either pretend not to be or just lie about it.


Hi Steve,

Yes, it is probably true for everyone. It is for this reason I try to avoid this trap whenever possible. Some occasions are more successful than others.

The reason being is because political ideology is very seductive. It gives us the impression that when it comes to politics we can reduce the complex to the simplex. Social relationships are complex arrangements on various levels. Language also adds to this complexity. There is no simple reduction.

When we start to believe we possess,'the truth'. We also begin to believe this pursuit will solve our problems. We tend to ignore the actual realities that surround us. The more we can ignore the realities the tighter we embrace the ideology. "If only society could conform to our ideology everything would dramatically improve for everyone".

History has shown that humans have some type of psychological weakness when it comes to ideologies. We can't seem to help ourselves.


Just my opinion.

I couldn't agree more TUT. Ideology isn't good for compromise, and consensus when all sides become entrenched in it.

Well, I am just a simple guy and I don't have a problem with ideology, I don't see how we can escape it. I just take issue with people who insist they aren't ideological while aggressively trying to implement their "If only society could conform to our ideology everything would dramatically improve for everyone" world view.

That is what this thread is about, a disease in search of a cure. Facts be damned, all those non-ideological liberals are just being pragmatic in forcing the church to either violate her beliefs or give up ministering to people's needs so whoever missed out of the "virtually universal" contraceptive use in this country can have birth control pills provided by others.

At least I'm being honest about my ideology. They're not.

I couldn't agree more TUT. Idealogy isn't good for compromise, and consensus when all sides become entrenched in it.

You've couldn't have illustrated my last point any better.

The churches rights stop where mine begins. That's not ideology, that's the law. And NO church will dictate MY rights. That's the law too. Its no conspiracy for a church to be a church, and not a tax exempt business, we have enough of those already.

38 states agree with me, and so does TEXAS, so don't blame Washington, blame your state legislature, and the Governor for making rules for the church. I know,any thing from us libs is a straw argument. That's cool, but it changes no facts, or the law.

Fact is, contraceptives is an answer to stopping abortions. If that's a conspiracy, or a straw argument, so be it. And the Tea Party should keep its hands off MY rights. Now that is ideology!

The churches rights stop where mine begins

I didn't realize the church was infringing on your rights. How so exactly?


Fact is, contraceptives is an answer to stopping abortions. If that's a conspiracy, or a straw argument, so be it. And the Tea Party should keep its hands off MY rights. Now that is ideology!

The indisputable fact is there is no shortage of access to contraceptives, and your answer is exactly what I just referred to. Your "contraceptives is an answer to stopping abortions" line is but an agenda hiding behind a cliché. FORCING the church to buy contraceptives against her beliefs is as ideological as it gets.

Once again you make my point for me. I'm just waiting for you to be honest with yourself and with us about it.

You seem to be stuck in not understanding the fungibility of MONEY.

Fungibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility)

Only by understanding this concept will you see that the church doesn't hand out, or pay for any goods or services provided the employee. NONE! They pay for a very defined service from a service provider, INSURANCE...

We have gone through this before and a failure to understand terms and concepts leaves you with misconceptions and flawed conclusions. So its not your ideology that makes for a disregard for facts and stated goals, but just a lack of expertise in this area. That's okay,the fine points of business and commerce is not for everyone.

Now these straw man conspiracy theories you have can be offset by my own conspiracy theory... the religious right is trying to impose its will on everyone, and hollering "VICTIM" is the vehicle by which they convey it. A distraction to their own nefarious goal of social dominance and control of the masses through the imposition of their version of moral law.

Put gods name on it and the right swallows this crap hook, line, and sinker, without question.

Well that's my conspiracy theory, not bad for an progressive huh? By law, my theory is as good as yours, until we get to court. Where I win because its settled law in 38 states including TEXAS. That's a fact I have linked to in previous posts.

A) Same BS in a different package. Already answered (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-28.html#post3206826) and putting a new bow on the same refuse doesn't make it more palatable. You are still forcing the church to use their money on contraceptives against their conscience and in violation of the first amendment.

B) Asking you to stop forcing your ideology on me does not infringe on your rights.

I didn't realize the church was infringing on your rights. How so exactly? Hello again, Steve:

Let me see.. I'm NOT tax exempt like a church. I don't get that government handout... I'm not thrilled with that, but as long as a church sticks to churching, I have no problem with it.. But, when a church wants to BE a business and compete with your regular load bearing, tax paying business's, they want the SAME tax break they get for being church's.

So, if a MY business doesn't get the tax breaks you want the church to have, indeed I'm paying MORE than my fair share of taxes.

excon

They don't infringe on my rights, because they can't, I won't let them. I don't infringe on theirs either, they just say I do. You and they think their victims, but they aren't.

Just as I have limits, boundaries and rules for acceptable behavior, DEFINED BY LAW, so do you and the church. Not liking the LAW, doesn't make you, or the church, a victim.

Hello again, Steve:

Lemme see.. I'm NOT tax exempt like a church. I don't get that government handout... I'm not thrilled with that, but as long as a church sticks to churching, I have no problem with it.. But, when a church wants to BE a business and compete with your regular load bearing, tax paying business's, they want the SAME tax break they get for being church's.

So, if a MY business doesn't get the tax breaks you want the church to have, indeed I'm paying MORE than my fair share of taxes.

excon

And the circle begins again. Does your business have a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, medical clinic, orphanage or some such that offers those services free of charge to the indigent? I could be wrong (but I'm not) but the church using its DONATED funds not to profit but to the serve the community is a pretty good reason to get a tax break.

You're still stuck on this silly narrative that church is trying to be a business when it isn't. As has already been shown repeatedly, the government infringed on the church's long established roles in health care, education and benevolence, not the other way around. And the proceeds from such services are returned to provide more services, not to profit monetarily, which is what you're in it for.

You know, when the church helps someone you do benefit, too. That's one less of your tax dollars wasted on inefficient government handouts.

They don't infringe on my rights, because they can't, I wont let them. I don't infringe on theirs either, they just say I do.

You know how ridiculous that is? The church isn't infringing on your rights by your own admission, but your ideological law is forcing the church to violate their first amendment right to freedom of religion or quit being a church. You make no sense whatsoever.

Then the church should take the government to court and quit hollering victim. Oh that's right, they did, and they lost. Case closed.

Then the church should take the government to court and quit hollering victim. Oh thats right, they did, and they lost. Case closed.

You should pay more attention, the church's suit is just beginning (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-24.html#post3202843).

You guys never quit, I like that in you. If you would only use your power for good and not be afraid of the rights of others.

Good Luck.

EDIT-Keep feeding the hungry, and let Sandra have sex, both can be done you know. Guess you don't.

You guys never quit, I like that in you. If you would only use your power for good and not be afraid of the rights of others.

Now if that ain't the most ironic answer I've ever seen. What exactly about the church feeding the hungry, clothing people, furnishing shelter, educating, helping jobless pay bills, sheltering abused women, caring for orphans and healing body and soul is not using 'power' for good?


Good Luck.

EDIT-Keep feeding the hungry, and let Sandra have sex, both can be done you know. Guess you don't.

Did you not read my post again? Because Obama wants the church to to pay for Sandra to have protected sex the church will have to discriminate, violate her beliefs or cease feeding the hungry, clothing people, furnishing shelter, educating, helping jobless pay bills, sheltering abused women, caring for orphans and healing body and soul.

I mean really, Tal, you progressives have been yammering at our side about the need to take care of others, regardless of who they are, and then you tie our hands, tell us to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Like I said, you're going to miss the services the church provides, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. And I promise, we won't go quietly while this injustice is carried out. We haven't begun to fight.

Your choice, empty stomachs or contraceptives for Sandra. It's a damn easy choice for me.

Your choice, empty stomachs or contraceptives for Sandra. It's a damn easy choice for me.
If Sandra (and others) get contraceptives, there won't be so many hungry mouths to feed.

If Sandra (and others) get contraceptives, there won't be so many hungry mouths to feed.

Yes I've heard. And if that doesn't work we can have forced sterilization, and with the dearth of young bodies needed to work to support that retires when they're 50 we can all be Greece. Or, we can just implement mandatory euthanasia when the state deems you've sucked the nation's resources dry long enough.

Giving Sandra a handful of contraceptives does nothing to feed the hungry child who needs to eat today. I mean really, weren't we just discussing the massive poverty problem in America a couple of weeks ago? Your solution is contraceptives. One question, are they nutritious?

All you guys are proving here is there aren't enough birth control pills to go around

all you guys are proving here is there arn't enough birth control pills to go around

There are as I've already shown but you do have a point. I'll pitch in a thousand bucks to buy contraceptives for liberals.

I was thinking you should spread the joy and buy some for the conservatives, they have obviously been breeding in cupboards overnight

I don't get it.You won't feed the hungry, unless Sandra gives up her pills? That's crazy to even hold hostages like that! Maybe take some of that tax free money you use to pay lawyers and buy some more food. Then you could feed even more homeless people.

Just a suggestion.

Are you familiar with Gordon Tullock's 'The Rent-seeking society' ? I've alluded to it in the past and gave the taxi driver example. When the political system changed it to a medallion system ;it closed the door of opportunity for the taxi driver who aspires to own their own business ;and concentrated the power and wealth into the few who could pay the medallion fees .
That is why I keep on saying that it is government policies that create large too big to fail cartels in the market .


Tom, the political system didn't change it to the medallion system. In other words, they didn't build it themselves-they had help-and lots of it!

Rent-seeks is just as much a product of corporatism as politics. They are all in it together. Politicians of all persuasion; along with bankers and their hangers-on, the managerial class and their hangers-on and technological elite. Together they they are all rent-seekers.

It is not only the unemployed and poor who are a financial drain on society. These people are also a financial drain on society, yet they managed to go undetected. We all know who wears the brunt of this type of criticism.

Together these elites don't represented so much a drain in terms of what they do, rather it is a case that this type of elitism perpetuates the belief that the solution to our economic problems is to further increase their numbers. This will result result in producing more managerial solutions to societies problems. If we can cut ourselves off from reality we will better be able to examine problems in terms of idealism rather than how things actually work in experience.

As none of their numbers have actually put forward solutions that actually work they set about ignoring the results of their failures. After all their eyes are set firmly on the blueprint.

As I said before, the less society conforms to our expectations the tighter we hold onto the ideology. They have to hold tight to the ideology -after all they are the managerial elite of society. And society is something that ought to be managed correctly, rather than being left to the whims of the democratic process.


Tut

Rent-seeks is just as much a product of corporatism as politics.They are all in it together. Politicians of all persuasion; along with bankers and their hangers-on, the managerial class and their hangers-on and technological elite. Together they they are all rent-seekers... As none of their numbers have actually put forward solutions that actually work they set about ignoring the results of their failures. After all their eyes are set firmly on the blueprint.
Yes it is a product of corporatism IN politics. The concentration of power benefits both the preferred corporation ,and the political "class". The body politic could easily change it by eliminating both subsidies AND burdensome regulations that starve out the competition.
It has to come from the electorate... hence the birth of the Tea Party movement .

I don't get it.You wont feed the hungry, unless Sandra gives up her pills?? Thats crazy to even hold hostages like that! Maybe take some of that tax free money you use to pay lawyers and buy some more food. Then you could feed even more homeless people.

Just a suggestion.

Let Sandra buy her own pills. Oh I forget, you guys think women are helpless tools.

Yes it is a product of corporatism IN politics. The concentration of power benefits both the preferred corporation ,and the political "class". The body politic could easily change it by eliminating both subsidies AND burdensome regulations that starve out the competition.
It has to come from the electorate... hence the birth of the Tea Party movement .

Corporations must have rules as we have seen only to well that when they don't, or when they write their own and police themselves it's a disaster in both economic and human terms for the environment and people. Be specific when you say burdensome regulations.

I agree changes must come from the electorate, but the electorate has to be informed and aware to be effective, and that's where the Tea Party falls short, as passion and conviction so far has only led to more obstruction, and ineffective governance.

Seems we are reliving the civil war, without the guns and blood.


Quote by Speech,
Let Sandra buy her own pills. Oh I forget, you guys think women are helpless tools.

We are all helpless tools to those that hide the money.

We are all helpless tools to those that hide the money.

So now you're the victim. Please.

Corporations must have rules really ? And did I write they didn't ? No . I wrote about burdensome regulations that starve out the competition. I've gone over this before. If only a handful of companies can afford to comply ,then the market consolidates and that is how you end up with 'too big to fail'.

I said "WE", that means you two. While you blame liberals and Obama for the ills of society, thus promoting that this is all his fault for the last three years, you fail to recognize that the rules, regulations,and boundaries on business, and banks, to prevent this from happening, have systematically been dismantled for the last 30 years. You completely ignore the FACT that factories under republicans got PAID to move to Mexico (50,000), and over seas. You ignore the FACT that the rise in health care costs, and energy have hurt YOU as well as me because Corporations were allowed to profit at a record pace on our dime through higher costs for services. How quickly you forget the BP oil spill. Or the millions who lose insurance coverage through job loss, conditions, or afford ability.

You like to ignore the results, and malfeasance causes and conditions of this current down turn, years in the making, and point blame to the guy trying to fix it while you sit on your butt and throw rocks and preach obstruction, and holler about your rights.

You give away your rights by not reaching a consensus we all benefit from and not just YOU!!

You cannot address problems that you don't recognize, nor find solutions you throw god at. So worship the rich and protect them from being fair, tear down the government, and let the church make the law. No more of this semantic BS please.

You have made it clear that you WANT to be a victim, and that's fine, but don't expect me to join you.


I wrote about burdensome regulations that starve out the competition

You never been specific, or shown the HOW of your position.

I said "WE", that means you two.

I don't claim to be a victim, I take responsibility for myself.


You like to ignore the results

Now isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. This very discussion is about results, "virtually universal" contraceptive use in this country which proves beyond a shadow of a d doubt that the mandate is a cure iin search of a disease. If you were interested in results you would have ceded that your goal was met before Obama destroyed the first amendment and trampled on my right to freedom of religion.


You cannot address problems that you don't recognize, nor find solutions you throw god at.

You can't see that contraceptive access is not a problem, and quite frankly I don't believe there is a better solution to anything than God. But I'm not forcing God on you so your objection is irrelevant.


You have made it clear that you WANT to be a victim, and that's fine, but don't expect me to join you.

You've made it clear that reality is irrelevant to you.


You never been specific, or shown the HOW of your position.

You must have me confused with tom.

The same person who complains about corporation's influence on the government argues we need more of the same.

America's cowboy capitalism was long ago disarmed by a democratic process increasingly dominated by powerful groups with economic interests antithetical to competitors and consumers. And the courts, from which the victims of burdensome regulation sought protection, have been negotiating the terms of surrender since the 1930s.
[Justice Janice Rogers Brown.. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 'Hettinga v. United States ' ].

Hein Hettinga is a Dutch-born immigrant who, by bottling milk from his own cows, was able to work outside the antiquated, industry-backed system of milk regulation. This “loophole” allowed him to charge 20 cents less per gallon than his competition. Unfortunately for him, his competition was “big dairy,” and they didn't appreciate being undercut in price. According to an economist for the Dairy Farmers of America, Hettinga's cheaper milk was “damaging to the marketplace,” even though the existing regulatory system raises costs to American consumers by nearly $1.5 billion per year.

Big dairy eliminated their competitor by lobbying Washington, D.C. lawmakers to close the “loophole” that was being “exploited” by Mr. Hettinga. Senators John Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) compromised on a deal that would exempt milk producers in Nevada from the regulatory framework and make Mr. Hettinga pay dues into the price-controlled pool, effectively subsidizing his competitors.

Mr. Hettinga brought suit to challenge the new law as both an unconstitutional bill of attainder — that is, a piece of legislation that punishes a single person or a small group of people — and as a violation of his economic liberties guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The D.C. Circuit was obliged to apply the law as the Supreme Court has articulated it and thus they dismissed the suit.

In a separate concurrence, however, Judge Brown, joined by Judge Sentelle, wrote to criticize the Supreme Court's long history of providing inadequate protection to economic liberties.
For many businesses, particularly large, established businesses, it is now easier to have Congress regulate a competitor out of business than it is to out-compete them on a level playing field.

RESPONSE TO SPEECH,


The rule of making access to contraceptives a law for corporations, and businesses is to prevent said entities from denying the rights of taxpaying employees to the FULL range of health care,not just the parts they agree with. Even for women whose needs are different for males, and whose coverage is often more expensive.

Despite the right wing making this a religious freedom issue it is about human wellness, but you would love the pope to be the president,and the Vatican to be the congress, and discrimination against females and people with no money or not enough to continue.

RESPONSE TO SPEECH,


The rule of making access to contraceptives a law for corporations, and businesses is to prevent said entities from denying the rights of taxpaying employees to the FULL range of health care,not just the parts they agree with. Even for women whose needs are different for males, and whose coverage is often more expensive.

Despite the right wing making this a religious freedom issue it is about human wellness, but you would love the pope to be the president,and the Vatican to be the congress, and discrimination against females and people with no money or not enough to continue.

Do you not get what a straw man is? There is no problem with access to contraceptives, I've made that very clear. Besides that, contraceptives are not a right, freedom of religion is. Please try and grasp the difference.

Do you not get what a straw man is? There is no problem with access to contraceptives, I've made that very clear. Besides that, contraceptives are not a right, freedom of religion is. Please try and grasp the difference.Hello again, Steve:

Couple things...

Access to contraceptives ISN'T the issue. Oh, it's what you'd LIKE the issue to be about, but it isn't.. It's about women's health care being covered by an employers insurance company JUST like they cover men's health.

And, women DO have the RIGHT to equal treatment...

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Couple things...

Access to contraceptives ISN'T the issue. Oh, it's what you'd LIKE the issue to be about, but it isn't.. It's about women's health care being covered by an employers insurance company JUST like they cover men's health.

And, women DO have the RIGHT to equal treatment...

excon

And here we go again. You wonder why we just talk past each other? You guys just start the circle all over again when you run out of ways to make the same silly argument. Time for this silly argument again I suppose.

You saying its so doesn't make it so especially when you ignore the evidence and facts that it ain't so because some right wing loony says it is so, but it ain't.

Lets drop the straw man language because that's a cop out.

Is there any part of ACA you LIKE? Or should we dump it all and go back to insurance companies raising rates every two years, and canceling you when they have to pay a doctor, and kick you off when you have reached your cap? Which one of those things do you what back?

Or is that a straw argument too??

I think you will look back at those days as the good old days .

You saying its so doesn't make it so especially when you ignore the evidence and facts that it ain't so because some right wing loony says it is so, but it ain't.

Lets drop the straw man language because thats a cop out.

Is there any part of ACA you LIKE? Or should we dump it all and go back to insurance companies raising rates every two years, and canceling you when they have to pay a doctor, and kick you off when you have reached your cap? Which one of those things do you what back?

Or is that a straw argument too????

Dude, how many times have I pointed out the CDC - which is not "some right wing loony" - said contraceptive use is "virtually universal" in the US? And you want to talk about facts?

"vitually universal" - ALMOST accessible to every body. Still a ways to go before its "universal"!


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually

"vitually universal" - ALMOST accessible to every body. Still a ways to go before its "universal"!


virtually - definition of virtually by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/virtually)

Dude, you obviously don't pay attention to my posts. I've already covered this, too (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/birth-control-pills-640913-35.html#post3211229). Did you even stop to think that the small fraction that don't use contraceptives just don't use contraceptives??

标题：Cheap Cartier Sunglasses At www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com
标签：Cartier Sunglasses,Cheap Cartier Sungalsses,Cartier Eyeglasses
内容：
<a href="http:// www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com/ ">Cartier</a> S.A., commonly known as <a href="http:// www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com/ ">Cartier Sunglasses</a> (English: /ˈkɑrti.eɪ/, French: [kaʁtje]), is a French jeweler <a href="http:// www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com/ ">Cheap http://www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com Cartier Sunglasses</a> and watch manufacturer. The corporation carries the name of the <a href="http:// www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com/ ">Cartier Eyeglasses</a> family of jewellers whose control ended in 1964 and who were known for numerous products including the "Bestiary" (best illustrated by the Panthère brooch of the 1940s created for Wallis Simpson), the diamond necklace created for Bhupinder Singh the Maharaja of Patiala and in 1904 the first practical wristwatch, the "Santos." Cartier SA is headquartered in Paris.

The company has a long history of serving royalty, as well as stars and celebrities ; then Prince of Wales Edward VII once called Cartier "Joaillier des Rois, Roi des Joailliers" (Jeweller of the Kings, King of Jewellers), made an order for 27 tiaras for his coronation in 1902, and issued a royal warrant for supplier to Cartier in 1904. Similar warrants soon followed from the courts of Spain, Portugal, Russia, Siam, Greece, Serbia, Belgium, Romania, Egypt and finally Albania, and also from Monaco and the House of Orleans Need More Info vist on www.echeapsunglasses2cartier.com

Oh SPAM! Oh SPAM! Gourmet delight!
My food by day, my dreams by night.
To carve, to slice, to dice you up -
Puréed in a blender and sipped from a cup.

What shining deity from Olympus knelt
Down to the earth and hog butt smelt?
Creating then man's eternal desire
For swine entrails congealed by fire