Ask Me Help Desk - Hope & Change

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Is the word 'truth' foreign and/or irrelevant to you?

It seems to be for you. ;-)

And that's why I ask if you're 12.

Because I echoed exactly what you said? LOL. It's OK for you but not for others? Do as I say not as I do? I think you know what that's called.

At least it isn't called puerile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

All of my comments were directed at this country's liberals, and were spot on.

If you say so I am happy to take your word for it.

It's just that you are wrong in your assessment of fairness and how I can and should be applied.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

so you don't think that the orphan drug and orphan disease is the rare exception to the rule ?

I think they are an exception going on the wikipedia article. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are a rare exception.

Tut

I don't know what Speech said about fairness . What I think whenever I hear it used in a political context is someone picking someone else's pocket (when their pocket is empty ,fairness is achieved ) ;or bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator . When it comes to free speech it means suppressing opposition ability to express their view. When it comes to fairness for immigrants in means favoring the illegal over the ones who played by the rules . When it comes to a fair 'choice' it means a mother has a right to choose to kill her baby ;but not to choose where the kid gets an education .
But you have made an important observation. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder . That gives the Levithian the power to define fairness if you are one who favors such forms of government .

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

I think they are an exception going on the wikipedia article. I wouldn't go as far as to say they are a rare exception.

Tut

But that is the example you presented .

Quote:

Hi Tom,

Do you mean like the availability of certain types of medicines when there is no market for them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

But that is the example you presented .

Sorry a misunderstanding here.

I mean they are an exception. Not doubting that. By rare exception I was referring to other possible exceptions such as the impact market forces might have on the cost of health insurance. Just as an example.

Tut

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't know what Speech said about fairness . What I think whenever I hear it used in a political context is someone picking someone elses pocket (when their pocket is empty ,fairness is acheived ) ;or bringing standards down to the lowest common denominator . When it comes to free speech it means suppressing opposition ability to express their view. When it comes to fairness for immigrants in means favoring the illegal over the ones who played by the rules . When it comes to a fair 'choice' it means a mother has a right to choose to kill her baby ;but not to choose where the kid gets an education .
But you have made an important observation. Fairness is in the eye of the beholder . That gives the Levithian the power to define fairness if you are one who favors such forms of government .

Tom, this is rather a cynical view. Perhaps you should come and visit the Leviathan down under.

Tut

Oh ; you did say medicines . As for heath insurance ;I've already addressed that I think the more an insurance company has to compete for the consumer ,that pricing should reduce. There are many innovations in services that they aren't permitted by law to implement . We are generally restricted to purchasing state approved minimum coverage plans that employers provide. We are not permitted to shop around to get the best deal possible . That to me is a weakness in the system that keeps prices high.

yes Tom vested interests have been very successful in gaming the market, obviously your theory has too few variables and you have imperfect competition or is it monopolistic competition

I've said it before. We have state approved cartels. Part of the unintended consequences of over regulation is that it's designed to stifle competition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

If you say so I am happy to take your word for it.

It's just that you are wrong in your assessment of fairness and how I can and should be applied.

Tut

No, I know what fairness is, "free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness."

There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else. All the things tom mentioned are a part of this country's left wing concept of "fairness" and it's anything but. Fairness to them is just one more deceptive cliché. And I know I'm right, thank you very much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There is nothing "fair" about taking from one person to give to someone else. Fairness to them is just one more deceptive cliche. And I know I'm right, thank you very much.

Hello again, Steve:

No, you're wrong. But, your position IS representative of how far off the cliff the right wing has gone. You used to be a regular conservative. Now, it looks like you drank the koolaid.

There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

No, you're wrong. But, your position IS representative of how far off the cliff the right wing has gone. You used to be a regular conservative. Now, it looks like you drank the koolaid.

There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.

excon

You know, buddy, we could discuss this if you'd base your arguments in reality. I have no need to defend myself against your manufactured nonsense. My definition of fair is correct.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution did not make road building a federal function. I'm all for roads and bridges ;but they should be properly funded by the proper authority .That is why the Erie Canal was built with State and private funds and not Federal funds. There was no doubt that it would benefit the economy and commerce of the nation when it was built. But James Madison properly vetoed Federal funding for the project .
His veto is worth reading in total
James Madison: Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

There was a time when even conservatives thought that building roads and bridges was good for ALL of us... Now you think it's thievery.

Dear excon:

Aren't interstates federally funded? Or should each state be responsible for its section of an interstate? (Heaven help us all!)

Carol

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

You know, buddy, we could discuss this if you'd base your arguments in reality. I have no need to defend myself against your manufactured nonsense. My definition of fair is correct.

Just like the 47% that pay no federal taxes feeling its FAIR they aren't paying them flapping their gums about how the 53% of us thatactually ARE aren't giving THEM enough free stuff or paying enough... from what WE actually earn...

What's fair is everyone paying an equal percentage of their income... whatever that ammounts to. Without deductions.. without breaks... but then THEY would have to pay something themselves so they don't like that idea.

The Interstate system was justified as a national defense expense. It was originally called " .National Defense Highways"Ike wanted a national road system wide enough to transport the military . During the cold war ,that was enough of an argument to grant it on very shaky constitutional rationale .There is also clauses in the Constitution about Congress having the authority to authorize "Post Roads" .
Today Federal Funding for the roads is a massive earmark boondoggle. More money goes into special interest pockets than asphalt.