[talaniman]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[Wondergirl]

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."

[speechlesstx]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

Horse hockey.

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

Refer to tom's answer previous to mine. 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 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.

[talaniman]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[talaniman]

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

[speechlesstx]

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

[talaniman]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[TUT317]

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

[tomder55]

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 .

[TUT317]

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

[tomder55]

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

[TUT317]

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

[TUT317]

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

[tomder55]

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.