Being smart and enlightened and learned, surely they believed in adjustments to changing conditions and times? Why don't YOU?
|
Being smart and enlightened and learned, surely they believed in adjustments to changing conditions and times? Why don't YOU?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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 .Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
Refer to tom's answer previous to mine. My additional comment on the on the nature of your response was sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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 and in many cities, given out like candy. No, they probably don't give candy any more, Condoms yes, but not candy.Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
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.
Then you should know where I'm coming from. But contraceptives would not have done a thing to prevent my wife's issues.Quote:
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.
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 and noted the giveaways.
As I alluded to earlier and posted in May, in 2009 the CDC reported 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
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 .Quote:
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.
That is why I keep on saying that it is government policies that create large too big to fail cartels in the market .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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.
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,Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/sa...rol-at-target/
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.Quote:
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"
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.
Wow, now that changes everything. Anyone can get a 3 month supply of that item online for $44. You can get a 90 day supply of generic Depo-Provera at Walmart for $10.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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.Quote:
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.
No one understands that more than I, but in this case I don't believe the context contradicted the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
"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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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."
So what part of "virtually universal" is too complicated for you?Quote:
Virtually: : almost entirely : nearly
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
How did they pay for them -- and the doctor visits?Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'll try and speak s l o w l y.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
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 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.
Are you kidding me? Planned Parenthood was all too eager to get them started, nothing's changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
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?
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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 .
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
Already answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:20 PM. |