[tomder55]

The constitutionality of funding planned parenthood with Federal Dollars is certainly debatable.

Where Article 1 Sec 8 enumerates a number of clauses related to funding national defense; the wording in the article vaguely refers to the promoting of the General Welfare of the United States (clause 1),and the 'necessary and proper' clause(18) ,which have both been interpreted too broadly in my view by the 20th Century nanny state.

The proper place for funding organizations like PP ,and determining if their activities are even legal has always been at the State level.

[speechlesstx]

But, I'm not. I'm conflicted. I only THINK I'm right.

Ex, I think if we were honest with ourselves we'd all have to admit we're conflicted, about a lot of things. What I'm not conflicted about at the moment is this, however temporary it may be:

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

Nobody is interested in our silly game unless I'm winning.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

Nobody is interested in our silly game unless I'm winning.

excon

It's a long season...

[speechlesstx]

Kos is also a huge proponent of the "new era of civility." Yesterday they had a hate fest toward Paul Ryan for having received survivor benefits at 16 years of age after his father died.

Entitlement-hating Paul Ryan collected Social Security benefits until he was 18

The author called him "an evil hypocrite" for something that, at 16, he probably had no say in. For receiving some of what his father was entitled to after I'm sure many years of paying into the system. Not to mention he lost his father. I won't repeat any of the other hate-filled garbage. Well, maybe one... would have been a great question for O's Facebook meeting today.

Mr. President, is calling someone a "hypocritical douchebag" for receiving survivor benefits when he was 16 what you meant by "a new era of civility?"

[tomder55]

Today during his Facebook thingy the President called Ryan a radical and accused him of trying to break the social compact(the only way this is true is if the President is a Hobbesian ) . The President is in full Alinsky mode now. The radical is using the language of the radical to define the opposition as a radical .

[NeedKarma]

Has anyone played Portal 2 yet? I'm looking forward to getting it.

[cdad]

Has anyone played Portal 2 yet? I'm looking forward to getting it.

Lol. Somehow I wouldn't have pictured you actually saying that :)

[TUT317]

today during his Facebook thingy the President called Ryan a radical and accused him of trying to break the social compact(the only way this is true is if the President is a Hobbesian ) . The President is in full Alinsky mode now. The radical is using the language of the radical to define the opposition as a radical .

Hi Tom,

I think Obama's argument is centred on a obvious political/social talent Ryan had from a early age, i.e. understood how the social welfare system works.

It seems as though he is making sure that individuals who have a similar talent don't get to use this talent in the same way. Ryan is making use of information he has been privy to in the past as 'a weapon' against others who might want to do the same thing.

I think this is what Obama means by Ryan breaking the social compact.

Tut

[excon]

I think this is what Obama means by Ryan breaking the social compact.

Hello TUT:

Nahh.. The social contract is between a country and it's workers... It says, that if you work hard, we're not going to let you starve or go without medical care when you can no longer work.

Ryan now wants to tell people that when they get old and cannot work, they're ON THEY'RE OWN. If they didn't save, too bad for 'em.

excon

[paraclete]

Nahh.. The social contract is between a country and it's workers... It says, that if you work hard, we're not gonna let you starve or go without medical care when you can no longer work.

Ryan now wants to tell people that when they get old and cannot work, they're ON THEY'RE OWN. If they didn't save, too bad for 'em.

excon

Now Ex when did this social compact arise. Sounds positively socialist to me and I know there are those here who would argue such a compact is unconstitutional in the US.

I think the fact there isn't a social compact would allow a person such as Ryan to reverse welfare policy but really it isn't about destroying but moderating and I don't think that message has gotten across. There seems to be an all or nothing approach

[TUT317]

I think the fact there isn't a social compact would allow a person such as Ryan to reverse welfare policy but really it isn't about destroying but moderating and I don't think that message has gotten across. There seems to be an all or nothing approach

Hi Clete,

Yes, I agree with that but I think the problem arises because Ryan is seen as someone who 'used' the system to his advantage (nothing wrong with that). The problem arises when he doesn't want to afford other people the same advantage.

By wanting to exclude others it appears that his motive was personal gain. That seems to be the problem.

Tut

[tomder55]

No I was right . Obama believes in a Hobbesian social compact. Clete is right. This so called social compact was designed by Democrats for their political benefit. Reagan called it right:" It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project — most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it."
1965, President Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs ;Medicare and Medicaid ,that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care. Obama wants to take it to the next step and make us all dependent of the Levithian .

Ryan sees the obvious ;that the entitlements are unsustainable and has offered a plan of modest adjustments that would not affect those in the plan or those near entering the plan. However ,his plan would empower the individual again, as the Locke and the founders envisioned.

[NeedKarma]

.. making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.

Would you rather be dependent on an insurance company for your access to healthcare when their motivation is to profit from your illness and deny you treatment?

[paraclete]

Would you rather be dependant on an insurance company for your access to healthcare when their motivation is to profit from your illness and deny you treatment?

That is as we say a no brainer, but, it seems that is the human condition

[tomder55]

The private insurance system was another artificial construct of the WWII era (businesses attempting to get around wage controls gave it to employees as a benefit).

The answer to the question above is that it is kind of narrow thinking to believe those are the only 2 choices.

If the insurance system wasn't constrained by government imposed competition restraints it would indeed work much better than government managed.

[TUT317]

No I was right . Obama believes in a Hobbesian social compact. Clete is right. This so called social compact was designed by Democrats for their political benefit. Reagan called it right:" It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project — most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it."
1965, President Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs ;Medicare and Medicaid ,that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care. Obama wants to take it to the next step and make us all dependent of the Levithian .

Hi Tom,

As Locke would point out there is a huge difference between the Hobbesian position and his own position. Hobbes' position is characterized by the attempt of a person or a group of people to to seek absolute domination over others. No doubt politicians strive for this position. There is however one obstacle in their way. The rule of law. In most democratic countries the rule of law prevails. On this basis the Leviathan is held in back. Locke recognizes this fact.

The social compact as it applies to your country is a Lockean idea arising out of his criticism of Hobbes. I don't see how this is a Democratic construct.

Ryan's intentions may be good however he is in a position to influence future legislation. What is the point of the social compact if people are prepared to use( or have used) their skills to achieve their ambitions and then attempt to change the law to exclude others of the same opportunity? I am sure Locke would strongly disagree with this position.

Tut

[tomder55]

If you don't think dominion over the people by making them dependent on the government largess is Hobbesian then you are misreading him. Locke would never approve of this usurpation of liberty.

Locke appeared to reject the government option in his 'A Letter Concerning Toleration'.
We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop?

[TUT317]

If you don't think dominion over the people by making them dependent on the government largess is Hobbesian then you are misreading him. Locke would never approve of this usurpation of liberty.

Locke appeared to reject the government option in his 'A Letter Concerning Toleration'.
We have already proved that the care of souls does not belong to the magistrate. Not a magisterial care, I mean (if I may so call it), which consists in prescribing by laws and compelling by punishments. But a charitable care, which consists in teaching, admonishing, and persuading, cannot be denied unto any man. The care, therefore, of every man's soul belongs unto himself and is to be left unto himself. But what if he neglect the care of his soul? I answer: What if he neglect the care of his health or of his estate, which things are nearlier related to the government of the magistrate than the other? Will the magistrate provide by an express law that such a one shall not become poor or sick? Laws provide, as much as is possible, that the goods and health of subjects be not injured by the fraud and violence of others; they do not guard them from the negligence or ill-husbandry of the possessors themselves. No man can be forced to be rich or healthful whether he will or no. Nay, God Himself will not save men against their wills. Let us suppose, however, that some prince were desirous to force his subjects to accumulate riches, or to preserve the health and strength of their bodies. Shall it be provided by law that they must consult none but Roman physicians, and shall everyone be bound to live according to their prescriptions? What, shall no potion, no broth, be taken, but what is prepared either in the Vatican, suppose, or in a Geneva shop?

Hi again Tom,

This letter has nothing to do with the rejection of government. Locke is pointing out the distinction between the role of government when it comes to religion and secular society. The role of government is not to save people from themselves.

Locke was all for government. Society develops the necessary institutions necessary for overcomes the defects that we might be encounter in a disorganized society. I don't recall Locke being the champion of small government.


Likewise Hobbes is not interested in the size of government. So long as the sovereign has enough power to enforce the law. Again I don't recall Hobbes make reference to the size of government. One can assume that the size of government is proportional to the amount of control it needs to exercise.

I don't think I have misread Hobbes or Locke.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

Tom is right, Clete is right, Reagan was right... now back to the subject at hand.

In response to campus Republicans promoting "Conservative Coming Out Week" at the University of Iowa, professor Ellen Lewin responded by sending out an email on her university account that said, "F--- you, Republicans."

The poor thing had an excuse though...

Lewin, 65, later wrote another email to the leaders of the College Republicans explaining that she had just finished reading about "fresh outrages committed by Republicans in government" when she received the pitch.

Her heartfelt apology...

"I admit the language was inappropriate, and apologize for any affront to anyone's delicate sensibilities," Lewin wrote.

Ironically, her "delicate sensibilities" is what set her off.

But she said the group's email contained several statements that were "extremely offensive, nearly rising to the level of obscenity." She said she was upset that Republicans used the "coming out" language to describe the week given what she called their general disdain for gay rights. She said the email also mocked labor protesters in Wisconsin and animal rights.

Forging ahead in the new era of civility...