Over an hour and NOTHING on SCOTSC decision on gay marriage?
DaVoice
the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
"legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage", just
because of the dictionary definition, so I'm not hurt by this, but why did
they have to go and publish the decision TODAY. MY FUCKING BIRTHDAY will
now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after. And I already lost
my Wedding anniversary to my Grandson's birth 3.5 years ago when he was born
on Peg and my 20th Anniversary. I guess I'll pick a day just to be "Rick
Charles Day" and celebrate with a single malt.
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
The Lonely Popinjay
news:ob%Wj.81642$y05....@newsfe22.lga...
> RGP is slipping. There are actual poker posts here and NO ONE posted
> about the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
>
Here's what I am amazed at. FIRST, you have failed to put on "OT" in your
subject line. And SECOND, your post, according to my newsreader, was one
minute too late. Paul Popinjay, The Lonely RGPer, has already posted about
the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people. So much for
democracy, eh?
-The Lonely RGPer
Ron Dworkin
wrote:
> "DaVoice" <davoice...@cox.net> wrote in message
How exactly is this is a blow to democracy?
DaVoice
"The Lonely Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qo%Wj.1948$r82...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
I usually do put OT: on my off topic posts, however with the percentage of
poker vs politics on this NG lately (for those of you on recpoker,
googlegroups, recgroups, etc a "ng" is a news group, run by an nntp
server.) My post is actually more ON TOPIC (I know that's b.s. because of
the rgp charter) than OFF.
You did beat me by one minute, I'll admit defeat, but I waited 68 minutes to
see if anyone would post before I posted. I was only going to wait an hour,
but had to retune my grandsons cable line-up on his tv because he fucked
with the menu button and was only getting channel 2.
Rick "Born on California Gay Marriage Day" (in CA) Charles
The Lonely Popinjay
news:8c390c37-3e62-40c0...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> How exactly is this is a blow to democracy?
Well, first of all, you should know better than to question The Lonely
RGPer. But maybe you are having a bad day, so I will be patient with you.
The PEOPLE in our great state of California have already voted to BAN
marriage between the limp-wristed, ass-fucking, HIV-infested, faggots.
Don't you pay attention to politics? Even though this state is over run by
illegal immigrants and liberal morons, there are STILL a majority of decent
and God-fearing people that have already voted to not let these morally
corrupt freaks trample on the sanctity of God's sacred institution of
marriage. So much for democracy, eh?
-The Lonely RGPer.
The Lonely Popinjay
>
>
> Rick "Born on California Gay Marriage Day" (in CA) Charles
Btw, happy birthday big fella!
-The Lonely RGPer
Patrick Karl
But the way a constitutional democracy works is that the people cannot
simply pass laws via referendum that are in conflict with their
constitution. California's constitution designates the SC as the final
arbiter of such matters.
So how exactly is this a blow to democracy?
BeaForoni
<paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Ron Dworkin" <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Left to the voters, we would re-institute slavery. I wouldn't mind
owning me one.
USofA is not a democracy, never has been and never will. This country
is a represenitive republic, a nation of laws.
The Lonely Popinjay
news:g0i1nh$cf2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> But the way a constitutional democracy works is that the people cannot
> simply pass laws via referendum that are in conflict with their
> constitution. California's constitution designates the SC as the final
> arbiter of such matters.
>
> So how exactly is this a blow to democracy?
Let's put it this way then, fuck face. What if the legislature had already
banned marriage between the limp-wristed, ass-fucking, HIV-infested, flaming
faggots, and the Supreme then upheld the ban, and THEN the people through
referendum voted to throw the ban out and legalize it? THEN what would your
position be? I'm quite sure that you would be singing a different tune.
And don't lie, bitch.
-The Lonely RGPer
Lou Krieger
I guess I'll pick a day just to be "Rick Charles Day" and celebrate with a
single malt.
Rick "DaVoice" Charles <<
Make "Rick Charles Day" sometime during BARGE, and I'll buy you a drink!
________
Lou Krieger
BeaForoni
Wow, I didn't realize. From your reaction about other people's
behavior that does not effect you in the least, I must surmise that
the California supreme court ruling makes gay marriage manditory. So,
you will be forced to marry a man? Will you be the husband or the wife?
DaVoice
"Lou Krieger" <loukr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Uo0Xj.17895$%X1.16549@trnddc08...
Lou, that's a helluvan idea! Thank you, my friend.
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
The Lonely Popinjay
Apparently there is already a Rick Charles Day. And lo and behold, it is
tomorrow! May 16th!
"What started five years ago as a single day to raise money for the NASCAR
Foundation has turned into an all-year event, highlighted the Friday before
the all-star race with NASCAR Day, this year on May 16 celebrating "five
years of caring.""
-The Lonely RGPer
Will in New Haven
It is clearly a blow to democracy, if you will bear with me. That does
not, in my opinion, necessarily make it a bad thing.
When the courts rule that a law made by our elected legislators, or
California's elected legislators, is not constitutional, it is anti-
democratic. Pure democracy would require that the people vote directly
on issues or that their elected representatives vote on issues and no
one gets to contradict them.
This is often bemoaned by those who dislike a court decision. It is
also bemoaned by those who favor democracy as a primary goal. However,
in a constitutional democracy, someone has to decide whether a measure
is constitutional and we have usually left that to the courts.
Lincoln said on occasion that every public official was responsible
for deciding whether his own actions were unconstitutional and
refraining from doing them if they were. He didn't deny the courts
some say in the matter but he put the responsibility on those passing
the laws and signing them into law in the first place as well.
However, he also overturned Habeas Corpus and exiled an Ohio
politician (but not all of them) so what did he know?
Although I often disagree with court decisions, although not this one,
I don't mind the courts being a bar to democracy. Popinjay gets to
vote, so democracy is a bad thing anyway.
--
Will in New Haven
Patti Beadles
DaVoice <davoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
>"legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage"
Yeah, and separate but equal has worked out so well in other
places. Mmm hmm.
>MY FUCKING BIRTHDAY will
>now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after.
I'd be happy about that! You got a birthday present of justice
and equality.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
![Mark B [Diputsur]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjW1ukZesLHTvLryryGaLhoUTsW-4I5_N8bKNVoFKGU5T0OxggP6=s40-c)
Mark B [Diputsur]
> "Lou Krieger" <loukr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:Uo0Xj.17895$%X1.16549@trnddc08...
>>
>>>> "DaVoice" <davoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ob%Wj.81642$y05....@newsfe22.lga...
>>
>> I guess I'll pick a day just to be "Rick Charles Day" and celebrate with
>> a single malt.
>>
>> Rick "DaVoice" Charles <<
>>
>> Make "Rick Charles Day" sometime during BARGE, and I'll buy you a drink!
>>
>
>
>
> Apparently there is already a Rick Charles Day. And lo and behold, it is
> tomorrow! May 16th!
Yeah, umm... No.
Tomorrow's already taken by yours truly.
And you bastards better all find a piece of
cake to eat to honor me properly!
The Lonely Popinjay
news:35612818-034b-49c4...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Wow, I didn't realize. From your reaction about other people's
> behavior that does not effect you in the least, I must surmise that
> the California supreme court ruling makes gay marriage manditory. So,
> you will be forced to marry a man? Will you be the husband or the wife?
But marriage is an institution in the eyes of God, to hold sacred the love
between a man and a woman, and the two becoming as one! People of the same
sex are not supposed to be getting married. They can go ahead and live
together or do whatever they want to, and frankly I don't care as long as
they don't do it on my front lawn, because I would turn the sprinklers on
them. But to give them equal billing in the eyes of the law is to dillute
the sanctity of what God meant for marriage to be.
-The Lonely RGPer
Dutch
Hmmm, thou dost protesteth too much. I detect latent homosexuality.
The Lonely Popinjay
news:482c9767$0$11165$25e...@news.inteliport.com...
No cake, I'm trying to lose 20 pounds. But Happy B-day, youngster.
-The Lonely RGPer
The Lonely Popinjay
news:OM0Xj.139357$rd2.10381@pd7urf3no...
>
> Hmmm, thou dost protesteth too much. I detect latent homosexuality.
>
Look at Mr. Tolerance, what a fucking hypocrite YOU are! And what are you
going to tease me about next, Dutch? I've already told you how I became the
first Black man to cross the racial barriers and gain a position into upper
management in the casino industry in Vegas. Are you going to hurl racial
slurs at me now?
-The Lonely RGPer
DaVoice
"Patti Beadles" <pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:g0i4l8$ld6$1...@blue.rahul.net...
> In article <ob%Wj.81642$y05....@newsfe22.lga>,
> DaVoice <davoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
>>"legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage"
>
> Yeah, and separate but equal has worked out so well in other
> places. Mmm hmm.
>
>
>>MY FUCKING BIRTHDAY will
>>now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after.
>
> I'd be happy about that! You got a birthday present of justice
> and equality.
>
> -Patti
Patti,
You and I have had more than a couple discussions of this very subject, in
person, in private chats and emails, and here on R.G.P. I think labelling
it "separate but equal" and trying to equate it to a very horrific time in
our Nations history is a bit hyberbolic.
As I've told you and have posted here previously, civil unions with the SAME
legal standing isn't any different. The biggest problem I can see arising
from this decision is the FRAUD that will undoubtedly be perpetrated by many
same sex people that aren't truly couples, but in fact, people selling their
"marriage benefits" to the highest bidder. There are many other potential
abuses of the system, although it will allow REAL same sex couples the same
legal entitlements that they were not previously availed of. It is a two
sided coin.
I don't know what this will end up doing in the long run, and I certainly
don't want the Gov't snooping around the lives of couples to see if they are
indeed couples like they do with Immigration marriage, but I think Insurance
companies will go into over-drive doing private investigations.
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
Ron Dworkin
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:41 pm, Ron Dworkin <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 15, 2:35 pm, "The Lonely Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > "DaVoice" <davoice...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> > >news:ob%Wj.81642$y05....@newsfe22.lga...
>
> > > > RGP is slipping. There are actual poker posts here and NO ONE posted
> > > > about the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
>
> > > Here's what I am amazed at. FIRST, you have failed to put on "OT" in your
> > > subject line. And SECOND, your post, according to my newsreader, was one
> > > minute too late. Paul Popinjay, The Lonely RGPer, has already posted about
> > > the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people. So much for
> > > democracy, eh?
>
> > > -The Lonely RGPer
>
> > How exactly is this is a blow to democracy?
>
> It is clearly a blow to democracy, if you will bear with me. That does
> not, in my opinion, necessarily make it a bad thing.
>
> When the courts rule that a law made by our elected legislators, or
> California's elected legislators, is not constitutional, it is anti-
> democratic.
This is not necessarily true. If we make the assumption that a
healthy democracy requires of itself that each of its citizens are
allowed certain rights of liberty and access to institutions, then
such a procedure is not only not anti-democratic, but it would
actually seem to be a necessary institution within a democracy.
Its up for debate wether or not this particular issue should qualify,
but the existence of a bill of rights and the process of judicial
review in general are, IMO, certainly not undemocratic.
Pure democracy would require that the people vote directly
> on issues or that their elected representatives vote on issues and no
> one gets to contradict them.
>
> This is often bemoaned by those who dislike a court decision. It is
> also bemoaned by those who favor democracy as a primary goal. However,
> in a constitutional democracy, someone has to decide whether a measure
> is constitutional and we have usually left that to the courts.
>
> Lincoln said on occasion that every public official was responsible
> for deciding whether his own actions were unconstitutional and
> refraining from doing them if they were. He didn't deny the courts
> some say in the matter but he put the responsibility on those passing
> the laws and signing them into law in the first place as well.
> However, he also overturned Habeas Corpus and exiled an Ohio
> politician (but not all of them) so what did he know?
>
> Although I often disagree with court decisions, although not this one,
> I don't mind the courts being a bar to democracy. Popinjay gets to
> vote, so democracy is a bad thing anyway.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BeaForoni
wrote:
> "BeaForoni" <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote in message
Where does it say what you are saying? In the old testament? There?
In the old testament there are also verses condeming people who eat
shrimp, wear clothes from two different material and even condems to
death women who wear gold to church. Why are you not protesting Red
Lobster's all you can eat shrimp feasts? There are many verses that
talk about people with dark skin being destined to slavery. You up for
it? It is laundry day I could use some help; so get your black ass up
here and help with the ironing.
Reading the new testament I see nothing about Jeebus saying anything
about homos. Are you cherry picking your religious views? How about
judge not yadda yadda yadda.
Will in New Haven
You are making the error of assuming that "democracy" means "the best
possible system." Democracy is an ingredient. A Constitutional system
of restraint on democracy is an ingredient. Democracy isn't an
undiluted good.
Paul Popinjay votes. Quod errat demonstratum
--
Will in New Haven
>
> Its up for debate wether or not this particular issue should qualify,
> but the existence of a bill of rights and the process of judicial
> review in general are, IMO, certainly not undemocratic.
>
> Pure democracy would require that the people vote directly
>
>
>
> > on issues or that their elected representatives vote on issues and no
> > one gets to contradict them.
>
> > This is often bemoaned by those who dislike a court decision. It is
> > also bemoaned by those who favor democracy as a primary goal. However,
> > in a constitutional democracy, someone has to decide whether a measure
> > is constitutional and we have usually left that to the courts.
>
> > Lincoln said on occasion that every public official was responsible
> > for deciding whether his own actions were unconstitutional and
> > refraining from doing them if they were. He didn't deny the courts
> > some say in the matter but he put the responsibility on those passing
> > the laws and signing them into law in the first place as well.
> > However, he also overturned Habeas Corpus and exiled an Ohio
> > politician (but not all of them) so what did he know?
>
> > Although I often disagree with court decisions, although not this one,
> > I don't mind the courts being a bar to democracy. Popinjay gets to
> > vote, so democracy is a bad thing anyway.
>
> > --
> > Will in New Haven- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
The Lonely Popinjay
news:g0i4l8$ld6$1...@blue.rahul.net...
>
> Yeah, and separate but equal has worked out so well in other
> places. Mmm hmm.
>
But why d'y'all wanna invade OUR territory? Nobody is keeping you out of
restaurants, making you sit in the back of the bus, or making you drink out
of different water fountains. This is the same kinda thing you see with
all-male private clubs, and then the women start complaining and want to sue
for admittance. But it is never the other way around. I don't want to join
some exclusive all-woman's organization. Why do women want to invade
men-only clubs? So it is something similar with marriage, which is OUR
institution. Why don't you people get your OWN institution. I promise you
that we won't be suing to get into it. You people do YOUR own thing, and us
straight people will do OUR own thing. In the mean time, why don't you just
quit whining!
-The Lonely RGPer
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "BeaForoni" <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote in message
Institutions in the eyes of god should be taken care of by god, or by
the church. The church or churches handed marriage over to the secular
authorities because the churches no longer had the power to make a
legal contract stick. Now they want the definition of marriage back
because they have their panties twisted because people they disapprove
of can call themselves married.
Too fucking bad. You don't have to call them married, you know.
Ron Dworkin
>
> You are making the error of assuming that "democracy" means "the best
> possible system." Democracy is an ingredient. A Constitutional system
> of restraint on democracy is an ingredient. Democracy isn't an
> undiluted good.
I am not making such a mistake. What I am assuming is that a
democracy requires a certain element of freedom and equality to be
maintained among its citizens in order to continue as a democracy.
Actually, I think you are making the mistake of assuming that a
democracy equates to a system of majority rule among its citizens. It
does not, it is a much more robust concept than that.
OrangeSFO
Don't worry Paulie. As we speak a terrified group of conservative
closet cases are cobbling a bill to ban gay marriage in California
that would supercede any state court decision.
When that measure fails will you remain a defender of the democratic
will of the people..?
The Lonely Popinjay
> There are many verses that
> talk about people with dark skin being destined to slavery. You up for
> it? It is laundry day I could use some help; so get your black ass up
> here and help with the ironing.
I've had about enough of your insulting tone, BeaForoni. I did not work my
way up from a life of poverty in Harlem to become one of the nation's top
CEOs just to listen to your potty mouth. I am outraged! This is
preposterous and outrageous.
-The Lonely RGPer
OrangeSFO
>The biggest problem I can see arising
> from this decision is the FRAUD that will undoubtedly be perpetrated by many
> same sex people that aren't truly couples
Because, as we all know, NO heterosexual couple HAS EVER entered into
a sham marriage for the purpose of committing a fraud.
The Lonely Popinjay
>
> I am not making such a mistake. What I am assuming is that a
> democracy requires a certain element of freedom and equality to be
> maintained among its citizens in order to continue as a democracy.
>
Maybe you're not making a mistake, if we actually did have a democracy like
you seem to believe. Of course, you are making a mistake, because we are
NOT a democracy and you do not know what the fuck you are talking about.
When we say the pledge of allegiance, (all of us except Obama), do you say
"to the flag, and to the DEMOCRACY for witches stands?" NO! You say and to
the REPUBLIC! Please, Ron, if you do not know what you are talking about,
kindly shut the fuck up.
thanks,
-The Lonely RGPer
Ron Dworkin
wrote:
> "Ron Dworkin" <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, I was acutally replying to your insinuation that the process of
reaching this decision was undemocratic. And I am right, it is not.
If you want to make an argument that the USA is not a democracy then
go nuts. I will not be joining you.
>
> thanks,
> -The Lonely RGPer
Joe Long
> How exactly is this is a blow to democracy?
It overturned a citizens' initiative, on flimsy grounds.
Personally, I don't care if same-sex marriage is legal. But then, I'd
like to see any number of people, of any genders, be able to marry each
other -- that is, I have no problem with polygamy, even gay polygamy.
I just don't like to see the courts impose this stuff.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
Patti Beadles
Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>It overturned a citizens' initiative, on flimsy grounds.
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
on what to have for dinner"
The majority won't always vote for fairness for minorities.
Joe Long
> Left to the voters, we would re-institute slavery. I wouldn't mind
> owning me one.
Ridiculous. BTW, if slavery existed today, what makes you think you
wouldn't be a slave instead of an owner?
> USofA is not a democracy, never has been and never will. This country
> is a represenitive republic, a nation of laws.
There is already a ballot initiative ready to go on the November ballot
in California to amend the State Constitution, defining marriage as
between one man and one woman. An unintended consequence of this bit of
judicial activism, perhaps, that what they don't like will now get
enshrined in the Constitution.
Patti Beadles
DaVoice <davoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>As I've told you and have posted here previously, civil unions with the SAME
>legal standing isn't any different.
The problem with that is that we have centuries of legal doctrine
built around the word marriage. You'd have to rework huge steaming
piles of laws to create an institution that was really functionally
identical to marriage. It's much easier to just call it the same
thing and be done with it.
>The biggest problem I can see arising
>from this decision is the FRAUD that will undoubtedly be perpetrated by many
>same sex people that aren't truly couples, but in fact, people selling their
>"marriage benefits" to the highest bidder.
Like, oh, green card marriages now? It happens all the time
with opposite-sex couples.
The Lonely RGPer
>
> If you want to make an argument that the USA is not a democracy then
> go nuts. I will not be joining you.
>
No doubt you will NOT be joining me, because you're one of the biggest
morons that has ever posted to this newsgroup in all of RGP history and
you have no desire to find out the truth whether you are right or wrong.
It would QUITE easy for me to prove that it is not a democracy if I so
felt inclined to spend the time bitch-slapping the fuck out of you. But
I do not feel so inclined. Why should I waste my typing on some asshat
like you? The Founders of our nation were QUITE clear in stating what
they thought about democracy, and they hated it, thought it was a most
horrible form of government, and did NOT make us a democracy. In fact,
the word "democracy" is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the the Constitutions
of the nation or any of the states. NOT ONCE, bitch!
-The Lonely RGPer
Ron Dworkin
As near as I can see there is nobody arguing with you about this.
Enjoy.
>
> -The Lonely RGPer
The Lonely RGPer
>
> Enjoy.
>
No, I'm NOT going to enjoy. You don't tell me when to enjoy. I will
enjoy when I'm good and fucking ready to enjoy. And I'm not ready. I
am The Lonely RGPer. You are disturbing my misery and my solitude. I
insist that you stop with your bizarre behavior at once! This will be
the LAST word I ever say to you. I know it is unfair, but you leave me
no choice. If I am a man, I must take a stand on principle.
-The Lonely RGPer
johnny_t
The difference between a gay marriage and a heterosexual marriage? In a
gay marriage, they still have sex.
In a gay marriage, it is considered normal to watch football and have
sex at the same time.
In a gay marriage do they who eats the last girl scout cookie?
In a gay marriage the socks NEVER come off the floor.
Ron Dworkin
ok.
>
> -The Lonely RGPer
Bob T.
>
> news:g0i4l8$ld6$1...@blue.rahul.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > DaVoice <davoice...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
> >>"legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage"
>
> > places. Mmm hmm.
>
> >>now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after.
>
> > I'd be happy about that! You got a birthday present of justice
> > and equality.
>
> > -Patti
>
> Patti,
> You and I have had more than a couple discussions of this very subject, in
> person, in private chats and emails, and here on R.G.P. I think labelling
> it "separate but equal" and trying to equate it to a very horrific time in
> our Nations history is a bit hyberbolic.
I don't think it's hyperbolic at all. It used to be illegal for black
people to marry white people in many states. Now it's illegal for
people to marry the same gender in many states. It's exactly the same
thing.
>
> As I've told you and have posted here previously, civil unions with the SAME
> legal standing isn't any different. The biggest problem I can see arising
> from this decision is the FRAUD that will undoubtedly be perpetrated by many
> same sex people that aren't truly couples, but in fact, people selling their
> "marriage benefits" to the highest bidder. There are many other potential
> abuses of the system, although it will allow REAL same sex couples the same
> legal entitlements that they were not previously availed of. It is a two sided coin.
That's ridiculous. There is no reason to believe that the FRAUD (nice
all-caps, very persuasive) rate of same-sex couples will be any
different than the fraud rate of opposite sex couples. Selling
marriage benefits to the highest bidder? What the fuck is that? The
only "marriage benefit" I've ever heard of people committing fraud for
is green card benefits. I suppose that gay couples will have a few of
those - straight couples do.
>
> I don't know what this will end up doing in the long run, and I certainly
> don't want the Gov't snooping around the lives of couples to see if they are
> indeed couples like they do with Immigration marriage, but I think Insurance
> companies will go into over-drive doing private investigations.
Which insurance companies? What sort of fraud are you imagining
here? How does one test a "couple" to determine if they are a "real
couple"? Do you count the number of times they have sex in a month?
- Bob T.
>
> Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles- Hide quoted text -
The Lonely RGPer
>
> Which insurance companies? What sort of fraud are you imagining
> here? How does one test a "couple" to determine if they are a "real
> couple"? Do you count the number of times they have sex in a month?
>
> - Bob T.
>
Well looky here, it's Bob T. What a fucking surprise! You can just
predict 100% who is going to line up on which side of ANY issue on RGP
in the OT-threads. They line up, in lock step, like the good little
soldiers that they are. Yet every one of them thinks that they are
"free-thinkers" and objective adults.
I am rolling on the floor laughing my lonely ass off!
-The Lonely RGPer
Bob T.
<"paulpopinjay[nospam]"@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Bob T. wrote:
>
> > Which insurance companies? What sort of fraud are you imagining
> > here? How does one test a "couple" to determine if they are a "real
> > couple"? Do you count the number of times they have sex in a month?
>
> > - Bob T.
>
> Well looky here, it's Bob T. What a fucking surprise! You can just
> predict 100% who is going to line up on which side of ANY issue on RGP
> in the OT-threads. They line up, in lock step, like the good little
> soldiers that they are. Yet every one of them thinks that they are
> "free-thinkers" and objective adults.
Right, big surprise to find that I am in favor of equal rights for
gays and you are not. I'm in favor of votes for women, too. How do
you stand on that issue? That's right, I remember - you're against
it.
>
> I am rolling on the floor laughing my lonely ass off!
You would be less lonely if you opened your eyes to the possibility of
gay marriage. It's legal now - think about it.
- Bob T.
>
> -The Lonely RGPer
BeaForoni
wrote:
> "BeaForoni" <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote in message
My insulting tone comes from the tone of this discussion. I would
NEVER tell some one what to do with their ass, black or otherwise
except for the language used previously. Please allow me to quote what
you said earlier, "The PEOPLE in our great state of California have
already voted to BAN
marriage between the limp-wristed, ass-fucking, HIV-infested,
faggots." Now if this is the language of one of the nation's top CEOs,
then all I can say is thank gawd for affirmitive action.
DaVoice
>>The biggest problem I can see arising
>>from this decision is the FRAUD that will undoubtedly be perpetrated by
>>many
>>same sex people that aren't truly couples, but in fact, people selling
>>their
>>"marriage benefits" to the highest bidder.
>
> Like, oh, green card marriages now? It happens all the time
> with opposite-sex couples.
>
> -Patti
I addressed that in my last post, or at least I thought I had. With
immigration marriages there are hurdles to climb, inspections, questioning,
investigation, etc. I don't think the Gov't. should be investigating U.S.
citizens of the same sex to see if they are *truly* a couple living as
married. Our freedoms are being eroded drastically by the day and this
would just be another way for "Big Brother" to insert themselves into the
lives of same sex couples that are law-abiding tax paying citizens.
I don't care who sleeps with whom, and I do think that if two people are
committed to each other and live as a married couple they should have the
same legal rights as their heterosexual counterparts. This is not the same
as the "Separate but Equal" policies that remain a blot on the record of our
Republic. It's not about the right to vote, be taxed, eat in a certain
restaurant, sleep in a certain hotel, drink for a specific drinking
fountain, etc. That is why I think your comparison was hyperbolic.
Rick
Ron Dworkin
> "Patti Beadles" <pat...@green.rahul.net> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ob%Wj.81642$y05.70...@newsfe22.lga>,
> > DaVoice <davoice...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
> >>"legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage"
>
> > Yeah, and separate but equal has worked out so well in other
> > places. Mmm hmm.
>
> >>MY FUCKING BIRTHDAY will
> >>now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after.
>
> > I'd be happy about that! You got a birthday present of justice
> > and equality.
>
> > -Patti
>
> Patti,
> You and I have had more than a couple discussions of this very subject, in
> person, in private chats and emails, and here on R.G.P. I think labelling
> it "separate but equal" and trying to equate it to a very horrific time in
> our Nations history is a bit hyberbolic.
>
> from this decision is the FRAUD that will undoubtedly be perpetrated by many
> same sex people that aren't truly couples, but in fact, people selling their
> abuses of the system, although it will allow REAL same sex couples the same
> legal entitlements that they were not previously availed of. It is a two
> sided coin.
Do you REALLY think that straight people pretending to be gay and
actually getting married for the legal benefits of the marriage is
going to be a big concern? Really??
>
> I don't know what this will end up doing in the long run, and I certainly
> don't want the Gov't snooping around the lives of couples to see if they are
> indeed couples like they do with Immigration marriage, but I think Insurance
> companies will go into over-drive doing private investigations.
>
johnny_t
/
>
> Well looky here, it's Bob T. What a fucking surprise! You can just
> predict 100% who is going to line up on which side of ANY issue on RGP
Really, would it surprise you I am FOR "no child left behind?" Welfare
Reform? I am against massive public transport, and for cars.
How does this one do your noodle. I am a giant fan of Agricultural
Subsidies!
What 100%???
The Lonely RGPer
> Now if this is the language of one of the nation's top CEOs,
> then all I can say is thank gawd for affirmitive action.
What are you trying to say? That I got my job from Affirmative Action?
Do you think that just because I am Black and was raised on the
streets of Harlem that I cannot become an important executive? Let me
tell you something, Bea. I attained my position as a major CEO based on
merit. I didn't need no damn programs and I am insulted at your
implications. This is outrageous. This is ludicrous and preposterous.
This is libelous. I must insist that you please do not respond to
anymore of my comments.
-The Lonely RGPer
Patti Beadles
DaVoice <davoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>I don't think the Gov't. should be investigating U.S.
>citizens of the same sex to see if they are *truly* a couple living as
>married.
I think they should be doing so to precisely the same amount
that they do with opposite-sex couples, no more no less. How
much that is can certainly be debated, but I don't see any
reason for there to be a difference.
>This is not the same
>as the "Separate but Equal" policies that remain a blot on the record of our
>Republic. It's not about the right to vote, be taxed, eat in a certain
>restaurant, sleep in a certain hotel, drink for a specific drinking
>fountain, etc.
No, it's about inheriting property, visiting your life partner
in the hospital, raising children, receiving tax benefits and
protections, immigration rights, social security and pension
benefits, insurance coverage, and a whole host of other things
that same-sex couples are currently denied and that opposite-sex
couples almost always take for granted.
The Lonely RGPer
>
> Really, would it surprise you I am FOR "no child left behind?" Welfare
> Reform? I am against massive public transport, and for cars.
>
> How does this one do your noodle. I am a giant fan of Agricultural
> Subsidies!
>
> What 100%???
The Giants suck!
BillB
"DaVoice" <davoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:f11Xj.42392$KJ1....@newsfe19.lga...
>The biggest problem I can see arising from this decision is the FRAUD that
>will undoubtedly be perpetrated by many same sex people that aren't truly
>couples, but in fact, people selling their "marriage benefits" to the
>highest bidder.
Why would this be a special problem with same sex marriages? Opposite sex
individuals can have sham marriages for benefits just as easily. You are
grasping at straws.
BillB
> RGP is slipping. There are actual poker posts here and NO ONE posted
> about the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
Another bad day for bigots and rednecks everywhere. We need a lot more days
like these.
Will in New Haven
> seem to be a necessary institution within a democracy.
>
>
>
> > You are making the error of assuming that "democracy" means "the best
> > possible system." Democracy is an ingredient. A Constitutional system
> > of restraint on democracy is an ingredient. Democracy isn't an
> > undiluted good.
>
> I am not making such a mistake. What I am assuming is that a
> democracy requires a certain element of freedom and equality to be
> maintained among its citizens in order to continue as a democracy.
>
> democracy equates to a system of majority rule among its citizens. It
> does not, it is a much more robust concept than that.
I am not thinking of democracy as a system but as a _quality_ of a
system. Call it democracy1 You, on the other hand, are looking at the
whole system. And thinking about it quite reasonably. Call it
democracy2. Constitutional constraints do limit the amount or the
purity of democracy1 in the democracy2 Many people who want their
democracy1 straight decry the courts as anti-democratic. .
--
Will in New Haven
"When they came for the Trekkies, I said `Hey, you guys missed a
couple.
See, there's one right over *there*.' When they came for the OS
flamers,
I said `Guess what they run in Hell, buddy!' When they came for the
spammers, I said `Glad to see my tax money at work!' When they came
for
the MMFers, I said `I thought you got those guys last time you
stopped
by.' When they came for the AOLers, I said `October came late this
year.' When they came for the people who post their messages in HTML,
I
said `So, you guys hiring anytime soon?' When they came for the 3L1T3
Hacker D00dz, I bought them a round of beer." -- Jake Kesinger
Will in New Haven
wrote:
> "BeaForoni" <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a1fd83a1-1b94-4a92...@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> way up from a life of poverty in Harlem
First thing Pual says that's true. He never saw Harlem. He has spent
his entire life in a California septic tank. It actually wasn't a
septic tank until it contained Paul.
to become one of the nation's top
> CEOs
Second thing Paul says that is true. He did not become one of the
nation's top CEOs. He wold have had to leave his septic tank to do
that.
–
Will in New Haven
See the False as False
The True as True
Look into your heart
And follow your nature
Sakyamuni Buddha c 500BCE
DaVoice
"Ron Dworkin" <toddb...@gmail.com> wrote
Do you REALLY think that straight people pretending to be gay and
actually getting married for the legal benefits of the marriage is
going to be a big concern? Really??
It depends on what you mean by "big concern" and who the concerned parties
will possibly be. I think there will be fraud and abuse as there is in
heterosexual marriage, INS Marriage, and all other areas of life.
I think there will be major abuses amongst a very small minority of the
gay/lesbian/transgender community, especially the rabid AIDS/HIV activist
organizations. I can very well see a group forming with unpartnered single
gay men with good jobs, great benefits and health plans that their new
"spouse" will automatically qualify for since they are (normally) covered
without regard to pre-existing conditions. I can see a revolving series of
marriages amongst the healthy activists to get the expensive care for those
who have advanced HIV or full blown AIDS, after the insurance company foots
the entire bill, the person dies, and the activist healthy now widowed can
marry the "next in line" that needs the ridiculously expensive health care
regimen(s) and hospitalizations required.
One of the best friends I ever had in life was gay. He knew it when we were
14, unfortunately this was 1978. When he turned 18 and he and I shared an
apartment on N. Sycamore in W. Hollywood he went berzerk in the party scene.
Remember this was around 1982, before "GRID" was even acknowleged. We lived
in a building that had a total of 3 straight people in it. Barbara
Streisand's sister Karen, her daughter, and Me. The parties were NUTS, it
was the early to mid 80's no one was using protection, the coke was piled on
the table next to the bottles and pill bowls. This was a regular weekend
night for this building. Mike (my roomate and life long friend) started
really getting into the risky behaviors hanging out with the "wild crowds"
at Oddessy and many of the other notorious clubs. Mike died of AIDS in
1990.
If I had been single, had a job with good health coverage, and able to marry
Mike so he would receive my health benefits, I would have been tempted to do
so for a friend that I loved. Not in a sexual way, but a dear close friend
who I had to watch suffer because of FEAR, expenses he couldn't even dream
of affording and the attitude of the "Moral Majority" who said "he had it
coming". I never believed he had it coming, he was in the scene before
anyone knew about "GRID", which became HIV/AIDS.
I condemn the state of health care in our Nation, but can't blame the
pharmaceutical companies or the HMO's and the other BULLSHIT we deal with in
this Country, but I can't see a "single payer" health care system working
here either. There is a reason drugs and other medical treatments are so
fucking expensive here and not in other places. The reason is the
development costs are incurred here. If there is no monetary incentive for
a "for profit business" to develop drugs or devices, they won't. Then we're
all just fucked. I don't know how to deal with our health care crisis, but
because it IS a crisis, I say that will be the biggest amount of fraud on
the insurance system with this new law.
I know I just rambled and ranted and didn't say much, but my point is I
don't know how big a concern fraud will be, but it could be crippling.
Rick "ADB DaVoice" Charles
sorry for the novel
Patti Beadles
DaVoice <davoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>I think there will be major abuses amongst a very small minority of the
>gay/lesbian/transgender community, especially the rabid AIDS/HIV activist
>organizations. I can very well see a group forming with unpartnered single
>gay men with good jobs, great benefits and health plans that their new
>"spouse" will automatically qualify for since they are (normally) covered
>without regard to pre-existing conditions.
Sure, maybe. But there's nothing stopping this from happening
right now... the only difference is that they would have to find
a willing member of the opposite sex.
There are probably some income disparity issues, but they're
not major... plenty of lesbians have good jobs and great benefits.
Heterosexual women do too.
And these are far more likely to fly under the radar than if two
men did the same thing.
Ron Dworkin
<bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 4:38 pm, Ron Dworkin <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > seem to be a necessary institution within a democracy.
>
> > > You are making the error of assuming that "democracy" means "the best
> > > possible system." Democracy is an ingredient. A Constitutional system
> > > of restraint on democracy is an ingredient. Democracy isn't an
> > > undiluted good.
>
> > I am not making such a mistake. What I am assuming is that a
> > democracy requires a certain element of freedom and equality to be
> > maintained among its citizens in order to continue as a democracy.
>
> > Actually, I think you are making the mistake of assuming that a
> > democracy equates to a system of majority rule among its citizens. It
> > does not, it is a much more robust concept than that.
>
> I am not thinking of democracy as a system but as a _quality_ of a
> system. Call it democracy1 You, on the other hand, are looking at the
> whole system. And thinking about it quite reasonably. Call it
> democracy2.
Yes. However, I think it makes much more sense, both conceptualy and
practically, to consider majority rule (aka democracy1) as a quality
of democracy2, and to think of democracy2 as democracy proper. The
reason being that the purpose or goal of democracy is the equality and
liberty of its citizens; and although majority rule is an important
tool in achieving that end, it is not necessarily enough - we need to
use majority rule to work towards that goal in compliment with other
institutions.
Assuming equality and liberty of citizens are important
characteristics of democracy, it is possible to have a society which
runs itself solely on a system of democracy1 which is, in fact,
entirely undemocratic!
Constitutional constraints do limit the amount or the
> purity of democracy1 in the democracy2
Yes.
Many people who want their
> democracy1 straight decry the courts as anti-democratic.
Yes they do - and those ranks include some highly respected and
intelligent commentators. However, I respectfully disagree with this
position.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
> "When they came for the Trekkies, I said `Hey, you guys missed a
> couple.
> See, there's one right over *there*.' When they came for the OS
> flamers,
> I said `Guess what they run in Hell, buddy!' When they came for the
> spammers, I said `Glad to see my tax money at work!' When they came
> for
> the MMFers, I said `I thought you got those guys last time you
> stopped
> by.' When they came for the AOLers, I said `October came late this
> year.' When they came for the people who post their messages in HTML,
> I
> said `So, you guys hiring anytime soon?' When they came for the 3L1T3
> Hacker D00dz, I bought them a round of beer." -- Jake Kesinger- Hide quoted text -
Ron Dworkin
> "Ron Dworkin" <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote
Well, as Patti already said there is nothing stopping it from
happening now - there is nothing stopping gays from entering an
opposite sex marriage or nothing stopping straights from entering a
heterosexual marriage of convenience. Its just not really a big
concern. Gay marriage has been legal here for 5+ years now and you
don't hear of this problem occuring at all - although it was mentioned
by detractors quite often as the issue was going through the courts
and parliament.
If we were to not allow gay marriage on that reason alone - that is to
say assuming we would allow it if this was not an issue - then we are
basically saying we would deny someone their legitimate rights of
equality because some people might find an additional avenue to abuse
the system in a way that it is already possible to abuse the system.
Does that seem right to you?
Bob T.
> "Ron Dworkin" <toddbry...@gmail.com> wrote
I think you raise a good point here, but you miss the mark. If you
prevent gay people from getting married, you are only blocking _some_
of the fraudulent insurance cases. Instead, you should let gay people
get married _as long as they both already have insurance_. That
totally prevents insurance fraud, and still lets the majority of gay
people get married. Especially lesbians, who very rarely have AIDS.
What about straight people committing insurance fraud, though? They
must be costing us a lot of money, too. Hey, I've got it! We just
won't let anybody get married without proof of insurace. That will
keep the government off our backs, and it will be fair to everybody.
People with pre-existing conditions have no business getting married,
anyway.
- Bob T.
BillB
> I can see a revolving series of marriages amongst the healthy activists
> to get the expensive care for those who have advanced HIV or full blown
> AIDS, after the insurance company foots the entire bill, the person dies,
> and the activist healthy now widowed can marry the "next in line" that
> needs the ridiculously expensive health care regimen(s) and
> hospitalizations required.
Pretty sad comment that in one of the world's wealthiest countries an AIDS
patient would have to enter into a criminal conspiracy to get care.
DaVoice
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote
>
> Pretty sad comment that in one of the world's wealthiest countries an AIDS
> patient would have to enter into a criminal conspiracy to get care.
I couldn't agree more, but what is the solution?
Right now I'm uninsured and have been for the past 3 months. We lost our
COBRA coverage when we were too short one month to make the payment on time,
then even by the time the "grace period" was up we had to choose between
food and drugs. We're living off of very little after my drug bills. Of
the 21 medications I take on a daily basis only 13 of them have $4 or $5
generics at WalMart or Costco. My insulin is $164/vial and I use 4
vials/month, my Morphine is $169/mo., my oxycontin is $100/mo., and the list
goes on. Thank God Peg will be eligible for new insurance in two months
time.
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
BillB
> I couldn't agree more, but what is the solution?
Universal health care.
DaVoice
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:%O6Xj.139921$rd2.79041@pd7urf3no...
Great. Who is going to pay for it? How will it be administered? How many
bureaucrats? How many providers willing to be paid SQUAT by a single payer
plan? What happens to malpractice, or victims thereof? Who will pay for R&D
if there is no reward for acheivement? I don't know what the solution is,
but the term "Universal Healthcare" has just become a buzzword or catch
phrase. No one knows what it IS.
Rick "DaVoice" Charles
da pickle
>>> I couldn't agree more, but what is the solution?
>>
>> Universal health care.
>
> Great. Who is going to pay for it? How will it be administered? How many
> bureaucrats? How many providers willing to be paid SQUAT by a single payer
> plan? What happens to malpractice, or victims thereof? Who will pay for
> R&D if there is no reward for acheivement? I don't know what the solution
> is, but the term "Universal Healthcare" has just become a buzzword or
> catch phrase. No one knows what it IS.
Bill knows ... it is free health care for everyone provided by the
government.
OrangeSFO
> I think there will be major abuses amongst a very small minority of the
> gay/lesbian/transgender community, especially the rabid AIDS/HIV activist
> organizations. I can very well see a group forming with unpartnered single
> gay men with good jobs, great benefits and health plans that their new
> "spouse" will automatically qualify for since they are (normally) covered
> without regard to pre-existing conditions. I can see a revolving series of
> marriages amongst the healthy activists to get the expensive care for those
> who have advanced HIV or full blown AIDS, after the insurance company foots
> the entire bill, the person dies, and the activist healthy now widowed can
> marry the "next in line" that needs the ridiculously expensive health care
> regimen(s) and hospitalizations required.
You're one devious motherfucker, daVoice. You ought to apply for a
job at Homosexual Agenda Headquarters devising dastardly schemes.
BillB
> Great. Who is going to pay for it? How will it be administered? How many
> bureaucrats? How many providers willing to be paid SQUAT by a single payer
> plan? What happens to malpractice, or victims thereof? Who will pay for
> R&D if there is no reward for acheivement? I don't know what the solution
> is, but the term "Universal Healthcare" has just become a buzzword or
> catch phrase. No one knows what it IS.
>
Hundreds of millions of people know what it is. Check out the details of
some of the top rated medical systems in the world. They are all a little
different, but they all answer your questions. None of those questions are
really that difficult. I am sure if the U.S. put its mind to it (along with
about 80% of the money it is currently spending on health care) it could
come up with far and away the best system in the world. You certainly have
the resources, if not the political will.
What you have now is an unmitigated disaster, as you seem to have found out
the hard way.
OrangeSFO
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote
>
>
>
> > Pretty sad comment that in one of the world's wealthiest countries an AIDS
> > patient would have to enter into a criminal conspiracy to get care.
>
> I couldn't agree more, but what is the solution?
Hey Jean Valjean, can you say with certainty you'd never commit a
crime to save the life of someone you love?
OrangeSFO
> "BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
>
> news:%O6Xj.139921$rd2.79041@pd7urf3no...
>
>
>
> >news:iu6Xj.117032$Ft5....@newsfe15.lga...
>
> >> I couldn't agree more, but what is the solution?
>
> > Universal health care.
>
> Great. Who is going to pay for it? How will it be administered? How many
> bureaucrats? How many providers willing to be paid SQUAT by a single payer
> plan? What happens to malpractice, or victims thereof?
A Republican't speaks....
Joe Long
> In article <goGdnamPncHjO7HV...@giganews.com>,
> Joe Long <nos...@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> It overturned a citizens' initiative, on flimsy grounds.
>
> "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting
> on what to have for dinner"
>
> The majority won't always vote for fairness for minorities.
>
> -Patti
Oh, I agree. That's why we have Constitutions, and limited government.
One of the issues I have with our friends on the Left is that they are
so willing to grant the government all kinds of power to intrude on our
daily lives as long as they expect that power to be used "for good."
From what I know of this decision, though, they didn't actually have
Constitutional grounds to overturn the law passed by the voters (the
position taken by three of the seven justices). And now there will be
another initiative on the November ballot to write the one man-one woman
definition of marriage into the Constitution, beyond the power of judges
or legislatures to change it.
Further, if it follows the pattern of such initiatives in other States,
it will bring out more Republican voters to the polls and could affect
races for State and national offices -- not something the Democrats will
like.
It's the old "be careful for what you wish for."
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range
leechap
Simple, it means that every citizen is covered by Comprehensive Health
Insurance.
leechap
news:jo2dnab_TJu...@giganews.com...
If it were provided by the government then it wouldn't be free, it would be
paid for by taxpayers, who are after all the ones who get sick. In most
countries that have successful Universal Health Care it is through
private-public partnerships.
charrison100
> RGP is slipping. There are actual poker posts here and NO ONE posted about
> the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
>
> I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
> "legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage", just
> because of the dictionary definition, so I'm not hurt by this, but why did
> they have to go and publish the decision TODAY. MY FUCKING BIRTHDAY will
> now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after. And I already lost
> my Wedding anniversary to my Grandson's birth 3.5 years ago when he was born
> on Peg and my 20th Anniversary. I guess I'll pick a day just to be "Rick
> Charles Day" and celebrate with a single malt.
>
> Rick "DaVoice" Charles
I claimed July 17th as Chris Harrison Day
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
garycarson
> On May 15, 2:35 pm, "The Lonely Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> > "DaVoice" <davoice...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:ob%Wj.81642$y05....@newsfe22.lga...
> >
> > > RGP is slipping. There are actual poker posts here and NO ONE posted
> > > about the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
> >
> > Here's what I am amazed at. FIRST, you have failed to put on "OT" in your
> > subject line. And SECOND, your post, according to my newsreader, was one
> > minute too late. Paul Popinjay, The Lonely RGPer, has already posted about
> > the Supreme Court overturning the will of the people. So much for
> > democracy, eh?
> >
> > -The Lonely RGPer
>
> How exactly is this is a blow to democracy?
In the same way that outlawing slavery was a blow to democracy. True
democracy allows the majority to enslave the minority. No society without
slavery can claim to be truly democratic.
----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
charrison100
> "The Lonely Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:6z0Xj.3208$ah4....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> > "Lou Krieger" <loukr...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> > news:Uo0Xj.17895$%X1.16549@trnddc08...
> >>
> >>>> "DaVoice" <davoi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>>> news:ob%Wj.81642$y05....@newsfe22.lga...
> >>
> >> I guess I'll pick a day just to be "Rick Charles Day" and celebrate with
> >> a single malt.
> >>
> >> Rick "DaVoice" Charles <<
> >>
> >> Make "Rick Charles Day" sometime during BARGE, and I'll buy you a drink!
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > Apparently there is already a Rick Charles Day. And lo and behold, it is
> > tomorrow! May 16th!
>
> Yeah, umm... No.
> Tomorrow's already taken by yours truly.
> And you bastards better all find a piece of
> cake to eat to honor me properly!
Cake party at the dipstakes tables tomorrow?
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
>
> -The Lonely RGPer
I am trying to lose 20lbs also. 3500 calories equals 1 pound. Eat 3500
calories less than you do now a week and you will have your goal in 20
weeks.
Eat regularly. Do not eat big meals. Eat a bunch of small meals. Figure
out your basal rate and eat 500 less than that and you are golden.
When you eat big meals your body thinks that is all it is getting and will
start burning muscle instead of fat. If you eat a bunch of small meals
your body knows the next 'meal' is not far away and will burn the fat
instead of the muscle.
BOOM byae
John
mo_charles
> >"legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage"
>
> places. Mmm hmm.
at the university of chicago, i lived in a dorm that had co-ed bathrooms.
though i quickly sought out the quietest one i could find to avoid having
to crap in the presence of a lady (i use the term loosely, it was the u of
c), i believe the u of c's model was correct - together and equal. men
and women should crap together with great equality. let's do the same for
gym locker rooms. if a gay man can stand before me naked and oggling, i
should be given the right to oggle a naked lady naked too. everything:
TOGETHER, EQUAL.
mo_charles
----
John_Brian_K
> RGP is slipping. There are actual poker posts here and NO ONE posted about
> the gay marriage decision. I'm amazed.
>
> I have stated in the past that I'm all for civil unions that have the same
> "legal" force as marriage, as long as it wasn't called "marriage", just
> because of the dictionary definition, so I'm not hurt by this, but why did
> they have to go and publish the decision TODAY. MY FUCKING BIRTHDAY will
> now be "California Gay Marriage Day" from here on after. And I already lost
> my Wedding anniversary to my Grandson's birth 3.5 years ago when he was born
> on Peg and my 20th Anniversary. I guess I'll pick a day just to be "Rick
> Charles Day" and celebrate with a single malt.
>
> Rick "DaVoice" Charles
lol
That really sucks!
Let me know what day you choose I will celebrate with a single malt with
ya.
BOOM byae
John
_______________________________________________________________________
lvdlrs
> Yeah, umm... No.
> Tomorrow's already taken by yours truly.
> And you bastards better all find a piece of
> cake to eat to honor me properly!
I'm having some friends of mine get it ready right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYDwPitDALM
Gary (...) Philips
charrison100
> "BeaForoni" <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:35612818-034b-49c4...@y18g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > Wow, I didn't realize. From your reaction about other people's
> > behavior that does not effect you in the least, I must surmise that
> > the California supreme court ruling makes gay marriage manditory. So,
> > you will be forced to marry a man? Will you be the husband or the wife?
>
>
> But marriage is an institution in the eyes of God, to hold sacred the love
> between a man and a woman, and the two becoming as one! People of the same
> sex are not supposed to be getting married. They can go ahead and live
> together or do whatever they want to, and frankly I don't care as long as
> they don't do it on my front lawn, because I would turn the sprinklers on
> them. But to give them equal billing in the eyes of the law is to dillute
> the sanctity of what God meant for marriage to be.
>
> -The Lonely RGPer
But they are talking about man's law in referance to the overturning.
Let God make the final decision on if same sex couples are inded able to
join together. Man can be distorting/misunderstanding God's intention.
OrangeSFO
> Oh, I agree. That's why we have Constitutions, and limited government.
> One of the issues I have with our friends on the Left is that they are
> so willing to grant the government all kinds of power to intrude on our
> daily lives as long as they expect that power to be used "for good."
Yeah. Nobody on the Right is willing to grant the government all
kinds of power to intrude on our daily lives .
NOBODY!
(Especially nobody in the White House, Congress, FBI, CIA, or
Pentagon.)
Hey Joe..youre a FUNNY GUY!
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:OM0Xj.139357$rd2.10381@pd7urf3no...
>
>>
>> Hmmm, thou dost protesteth too much. I detect latent homosexuality.
>>
>
> Look at Mr. Tolerance, what a fucking hypocrite YOU are! And what are you
> going to tease me about next, Dutch? I've already told you how I became
> the first Black man to cross the racial barriers and gain a position into
> upper management in the casino industry in Vegas. Are you going to hurl
> racial slurs at me now?
A black person in America should know better than to be such a bigot.
Will in New Haven
Well, we are just arguing semantics here as I am not in disagreement
with your _thinking_ just the way you word it. On the other hand, the
statement that court decisions can thwart the will of the peole and
are therefore antidemocratic depends on using democracy1 as the
definition of democracy. Since that is what started the discussion,
that is why I have been using the term that way.
--
Will in New Haven
>
> Assuming equality and liberty of citizens are important
> characteristics of democr
it is possible to have a society which
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
da pickle
>> Bill knows ... it is free health care for everyone provided by the
>> government.
>
> If it were provided by the government then it wouldn't be free, it would
> be paid for by taxpayers, who are after all the ones who get sick. In most
> countries that have successful Universal Health Care it is through
> private-public partnerships.
Gosh, it's not free? Well, now that you explained that everyone gets
everything they need and the taxpayers pay for it, that should appeal to
that large group that does not currently pay most of the taxes. Of course,
there are tradeoffs ... there are always tradeoffs. Are you aware of any
tradeoffs?
da pickle
> Simple, it means that every citizen is covered by Comprehensive Health
> Insurance.
You do not understand the meaning of the word "insurance." And you need to
explain in some detail what the word "comprehensive" means and also the word
"health" in the context you intend ... and while you are at it, "every
citizen" gets something, but not all at the same time or at the same age or
at the same level.
Bob T.
Of course there are tradeoffs. However, our current system is
terrible. If we had a rational system, Rick would not be forced to
wait for his wife's new job to pass an anniversary date in order to be
able to afford the medicine he needs. I will be happy to contribute a
portion of my tax dollars to help people like Rick get the medicine
they need.
I think the current system is so bad that there will be enormous
political pressure to fix it. Regardless of who becomes president,
both houses of Congress are going to be controlled by the Democrats.
They are going to come up with some sort of universal health care
bill, and even if McCain is president and uses a veto threat to force
compromise, something is going to pass. It will doubtless be a huge
bill with a myriad of special provisions, some of which are heinous.
So it goes.
I haven't studied the presidential candidates' positions on health
care in detail, but I should. This is a very important issue for our
times, and it would be just like our government to fuck it up, even if
they adopt a program that I generally approve of.
- Bob T.
Will in New Haven
> On May 16, 6:11 am, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(nospam)hotmail.com> wrote:
<snipped a lot of stuff about healthcare>
>
This is a very important issue for our
> times, and it would be just like our government to fuck it up, even if
> they adopt a program that I generally approve of.
As a libertarian, I am generally skeptical of state-based solutions.
However, our healthcare system is so fouled up that I'm not _against_
some sort of universal healthcare as a practical matter. However, you
have neatly summed up the major remaining objection I have. Not only
will a government be in charge of it. It will be, shudder, _our_
government.
Ron Dworkin
Yes, I know we agreeing on the system as a whole. And although its
just semantics between you and I, it is more important than that,
because it leads people to make large conceptual mistakes like
believing such as
> court decisions can thwart the will of the peole and
> are therefore antidemocratic
which in turn leads people to believe the mistaken idea that a
democratic society is better off without things like a bill of rights
or judicial review (again, I realize you do not fall into this
category and we are largely in agreement despite this discussion), or
at least that the powers of such institutions should be minimized
whenever possible.
Patrick Karl
> "Patrick Karl" <jpk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:g0i1nh$cf2$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>> But the way a constitutional democracy works is that the people cannot
>> simply pass laws via referendum that are in conflict with their
>> constitution. California's constitution designates the SC as the final
>> arbiter of such matters.
>>
>> So how exactly is this a blow to democracy?
>
>
> Let's put it this way then, fuck face. What if the legislature had already
> banned marriage between the limp-wristed, ass-fucking, HIV-infested, flaming
> faggots, and the Supreme then upheld the ban, and THEN the people through
> referendum voted to throw the ban out and legalize it? THEN what would your
> position be? I'm quite sure that you would be singing a different tune.
> And don't lie, bitch.
Why would I want to waste any of my time on your idiotic hypotheticals,
poopinpants?
Patrick Karl
> BeaForoni wrote:
>
>> Now if this is the language of one of the nation's top CEOs,
>> then all I can say is thank gawd for affirmitive action.
>
>
> What are you trying to say? That I got my job from Affirmative Action?
> Do you think that just because I am Black and was raised on the
> streets of Harlem that I cannot become an important executive? Let me
> tell you something, Bea. I attained my position as a major CEO based on
> merit. I didn't need no damn programs and I am insulted at your
> implications. This is outrageous. This is ludicrous and preposterous.
> This is libelous. I must insist that you please do not respond to
> anymore of my comments.
Why don't you just take her confirmation number away?
Patti Beadles
DaVoice <davoi...@cox.net> wrote:
>Thank God Peg will be eligible for new insurance in two months time.
While you're at it, thank the same deity that you're heterosexual.
If you were gay, your life partner probably wouldn't be able to
cover you on their health insurance.
And now, I'm going go to buy a new irony meter. Mine just blew up.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles, Oakland, CA |
pattib~pattib.org | All religions are equally
http://www.pattib.org/ | ludicrous, and should be ridiculed
http://stopshootingauto.com | as often as possible. C. Bond
Susan
da pickle
> Gosh, it's not free? Well, now that you explained that everyone gets
> everything they need and the taxpayers pay for it, that should appeal to
> that large group that does not currently pay most of the taxes. Of course,
> there are tradeoffs ... there are always tradeoffs. Are you aware of any
> tradeoffs?
Of course there are tradeoffs. However, our current system is
terrible. If we had a rational system, Rick would not be forced to
wait for his wife's new job to pass an anniversary date in order to be
able to afford the medicine he needs. I will be happy to contribute a
portion of my tax dollars to help people like Rick get the medicine
they need.
===============================
Well, why don't you just send the money to Rick?
The devil is in the details. Some folks see a problem and conclude that the
problem is "terrible" ... and they immediately decide that if some smart
people would just sit down and discuss it, they could make it all right.
There would be unintended consequences, of course, but those would be OK
because the smart people really thought about it for a long time.
I heard someone say on the TV the other day that people should not be
allowed to make risky investments with their money. It will not be long
until someone will suggest that some group of experts should be able to tell
you what job you should be doing and where you should live ... because they
would be much better at deciding what would be best of everyone.
You can say the slipry slope argument is over used, but when you look at
what the experts have done to the public school system (one of the most
important and expensive allocation of resources in this country) ... you
have a perfect example of what another bureauracracy can do if they take on
health care.
The best thing to do would be for the government to take over not only
health care services, but they might as well take over those nasty
pharmicutical companies ... surely the experts could do a better job if they
did it without competition. Isn't competition the problem? So much waste?
If schools competed with each other, why people would lose their jobs ...
can't have that.
That group of experts can tell the medical schools what to teach and they
can decide that all that elective surgery is way too wasteful. We need
those doctors to be OBGYN doctors, because we do not have enough of those.
And they will work hard for whatever wage we decide to pay them ... after
all, it would be better for them to make less and perform their services for
those that don't have them now.
And the experts will decide who gets those expensive operations when they
get old ... actually, no one will get those because that is one of the
biggest problems we have now ... old folks spending too much money on
operations at the end of their lives.
I think the current system is so bad that there will be enormous
political pressure to fix it. Regardless of who becomes president,
both houses of Congress are going to be controlled by the Democrats.
They are going to come up with some sort of universal health care
bill, and even if McCain is president and uses a veto threat to force
compromise, something is going to pass. It will doubtless be a huge
bill with a myriad of special provisions, some of which are heinous.
So it goes.
=========================================
Well, I can agree with that. There is enormous pressure to "fix it."
Unfortunately, the folks screaming about needing a fix have no idea of what
they are talking about. They cannot conceive that it could get worse than
it is. And they have no idea of making small changes ... we must throw out
the old and bring in the new. We have entered a new era of promises being
sufficient in and of themselves.
And while we are "fixing" the health care system, we will also save the
planet from imminent destruction and we will make sure that New Orleans does
not get flooded when the next big one comes alone ... and tornados will be
banned from Kansas ... and no child will be left behind ... and if there is
another terrorist attack, we will make whoever is related to anyone injured
or killed wealthy ... and we will give purple hearts to everyone who feels
bad after they get back from Iraq ... Patton is turning in his grave.
I haven't studied the presidential candidates' positions on health
care in detail, but I should. This is a very important issue for our
times, and it would be just like our government to fuck it up, even if
they adopt a program that I generally approve of.
=====================================
Well, they are all for it. It is like any government to fuck up anything
much that they do. It is only a matter of how many things we allow them to
fuck up. At some point in time, someone will decide that government is
better than the market for allocating resources.
Bob, can you name a big problem that the government decided to fix ... but
found, after they took over, that government was not well suited to fix it
... so they decided to stop trying to fix it?
Bob T.
> "Bob T."
>
> > Gosh, it's not free? Well, now that you explained that everyone gets
> > everything they need and the taxpayers pay for it, that should appeal to
> > that large group that does not currently pay most of the taxes. Of course,
> > there are tradeoffs ... there are always tradeoffs. Are you aware of any
> > tradeoffs?
>
> Of course there are tradeoffs. However, our current system is
> terrible. If we had a rational system, Rick would not be forced to
> wait for his wife's new job to pass an anniversary date in order to be
> able to afford the medicine he needs. I will be happy to contribute a
> portion of my tax dollars to help people like Rick get the medicine
> they need.
> ===============================
>
> Well, why don't you just send the money to Rick?
I already spend money on health insurance, thanks. Under a rational
system of universal health care, I would pay about the same amount on
health care one way or another, _and_ Rick would be covered.
>
> The devil is in the details. Some folks see a problem and conclude that the
> problem is "terrible" ... and they immediately decide that if some smart
> people would just sit down and discuss it, they could make it all right.
> There would be unintended consequences, of course, but those would be OK
> because the smart people really thought about it for a long time.
Other people see a problem and know it's really bad, but they are
afraid that trying to solve it might make it worse, so they do nothing
at all.
>
> I heard someone say on the TV the other day that people should not be
> allowed to make risky investments with their money. It will not be long
> until someone will suggest that some group of experts should be able to tell
> you what job you should be doing and where you should live ... because they
> would be much better at deciding what would be best of everyone.
>
> You can say the slipry slope argument is over used,
One should certainly say that it was overused in the preceding
paragraph!
> but when you look at what the experts have done to the public school system (one of the
> most important and expensive allocation of resources in this country) ... you
> have a perfect example of what another bureauracracy can do if they take on
> health care.
Or you could look at what the experts have done to Medicare, which I
hear is a relatively well-run and efficient system.
>
> The best thing to do would be for the government to take over not only
> health care services, but they might as well take over those nasty
> pharmicutical companies ... surely the experts could do a better job if they
> did it without competition. Isn't competition the problem? So much waste?
> If schools competed with each other, why people would lose their jobs ...
> can't have that.
I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
tangent arguments by exaggeration.
>
> That group of experts can tell the medical schools what to teach and they
> can decide that all that elective surgery is way too wasteful. We need
> those doctors to be OBGYN doctors, because we do not have enough of those.
> And they will work hard for whatever wage we decide to pay them ... after
> all, it would be better for them to make less and perform their services for
> those that don't have them now.
I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
tangent arguments by exaggeration.
>
> And the experts will decide who gets those expensive operations when they
> get old ... actually, no one will get those because that is one of the
> biggest problems we have now ... old folks spending too much money on
> operations at the end of their lives.
These will be important issues whether we have universal health care
or not.
>
> I think the current system is so bad that there will be enormous
> political pressure to fix it. Regardless of who becomes president,
> both houses of Congress are going to be controlled by the Democrats.
> They are going to come up with some sort of universal health care
> bill, and even if McCain is president and uses a veto threat to force
> compromise, something is going to pass. It will doubtless be a huge
> bill with a myriad of special provisions, some of which are heinous.
> So it goes.
> =========================================
>
> Well, I can agree with that. There is enormous pressure to "fix it."
> Unfortunately, the folks screaming about needing a fix have no idea of what
> they are talking about.
Of course. If they knew what they were talking about they would
obviously agree with your opinion, wouldn't they?
> They cannot conceive that it could get worse than
> it is. And they have no idea of making small changes ... we must throw out
> the old and bring in the new. We have entered a new era of promises being
> sufficient in and of themselves.
Sometimes small changes are insufficient to accomplish anything. To
take an issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum, there
is no way to replace the income tax system with a flat tax by making
"small changes" to the tax code.
>
> And while we are "fixing" the health care system, we will also save the
> planet from imminent destruction and we will make sure that New Orleans does
> not get flooded when the next big one comes alone ... and tornados will be
> banned from Kansas ... and no child will be left behind ... and if there is
> another terrorist attack, we will make whoever is related to anyone injured
> or killed wealthy ... and we will give purple hearts to everyone who feels
> bad after they get back from Iraq ... Patton is turning in his grave.
I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
tangent arguments by exaggeration.
>
> I haven't studied the presidential candidates' positions on health
> care in detail, but I should. This is a very important issue for our
> times, and it would be just like our government to fuck it up, even if
> they adopt a program that I generally approve of.
> =====================================
>
> Well, they are all for it. It is like any government to fuck up anything
> much that they do. It is only a matter of how many things we allow them to
> fuck up. At some point in time, someone will decide that government is
> better than the market for allocating resources.
Sometimes the government is better than the market for allocating
resources, sometimes the market is better, and sometimes a mixed
solution is the best.
>
> Bob, can you name a big problem that the government decided to fix ... but
> found, after they took over, that government was not well suited to fix it
> ... so they decided to stop trying to fix it?
I can name a big problem that several other modern Western nations
have fixed better than we have: health care.
- Bob T.
da pickle
> The devil is in the details. Some folks see a problem and conclude that
> the
> problem is "terrible" ... and they immediately decide that if some smart
> people would just sit down and discuss it, they could make it all right.
> There would be unintended consequences, of course, but those would be OK
> because the smart people really thought about it for a long time.
Other people see a problem and know it's really bad, but they are
afraid that trying to solve it might make it worse, so they do nothing
at all.
=====================================
I really hate that you cannot afford a newsreader. Perhaps, the government
can standardize the internet so folks like you can have something that is
worth having.
I am going to have to go with Paul on this one, Bob ... you are disengenuous
in your arguments. It is likely unintentional, at least I hope so. The
health care system needs a lot of work. Most of the problems are caused by
government meddling, but a rational and controlled free market system with
competition is a better road down which to travel. That is NOT doing
nothing at all. The proposal for the government taking over health care so
it can be "universal" is the wrong direction to go. There is a reason that
those who have already traveled that path are unable to get off it.
> I heard someone say on the TV the other day that people should not be
> allowed to make risky investments with their money. It will not be long
> until someone will suggest that some group of experts should be able to
> tell
> you what job you should be doing and where you should live ... because
> they
> would be much better at deciding what would be best of everyone.
>
> You can say the slipry slope argument is over used,
One should certainly say that it was overused in the preceding
paragraph!
=============================================
Well, Bob ... there you go again ... no comment. The only options are
universal health care run by the government or "nothing at all."
> but when you look at what the experts have done to the public school
> system (one of the
> most important and expensive allocation of resources in this country) ...
> you
> have a perfect example of what another bureauracracy can do if they take
> on
> health care.
Or you could look at what the experts have done to Medicare, which I
hear is a relatively well-run and efficient system.
===================================
Or, you could be wrong about Medicare. It is not well-run nor is it
efficient. It is supported by the private health care system ... which is a
large part of the problem with the current system.
> The best thing to do would be for the government to take over not only
> health care services, but they might as well take over those nasty
> pharmicutical companies ... surely the experts could do a better job if
> they
> did it without competition. Isn't competition the problem? So much waste?
> If schools competed with each other, why people would lose their jobs ...
> can't have that.
I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
tangent arguments by exaggeration.
=======================================
If the government is the "answer" for health care, why not pharmacuticals?
Why do you simply bob and dodge?
> That group of experts can tell the medical schools what to teach and they
> can decide that all that elective surgery is way too wasteful. We need
> those doctors to be OBGYN doctors, because we do not have enough of those.
> And they will work hard for whatever wage we decide to pay them ... after
> all, it would be better for them to make less and perform their services
> for
> those that don't have them now.
I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
tangent arguments by exaggeration.
=======================================
So, with universal health care, the doctors and the hospitals will continue
to charge the same amount and it will cost less when it is provided to
everyone that cannot afford it?
> And the experts will decide who gets those expensive operations when they
> get old ... actually, no one will get those because that is one of the
> biggest problems we have now ... old folks spending too much money on
> operations at the end of their lives.
These will be important issues whether we have universal health care
or not.
======================================
Bob, you simply like the idea of someone else deciding for you how to spend
your money. I would not mind that at all if you also did not like the idea
of someone else deciding how to spend my money. And what you like is the
least effective and efficient way of accomplishing your idea.
> I think the current system is so bad that there will be enormous
> political pressure to fix it. Regardless of who becomes president,
> both houses of Congress are going to be controlled by the Democrats.
> They are going to come up with some sort of universal health care
> bill, and even if McCain is president and uses a veto threat to force
> compromise, something is going to pass. It will doubtless be a huge
> bill with a myriad of special provisions, some of which are heinous.
> So it goes.
> =========================================
>
> Well, I can agree with that. There is enormous pressure to "fix it."
> Unfortunately, the folks screaming about needing a fix have no idea of
> what
> they are talking about.
Of course. If they knew what they were talking about they would
obviously agree with your opinion, wouldn't they?
=========================================
No, they agree with you assumption.
> They cannot conceive that it could get worse than
> it is. And they have no idea of making small changes ... we must throw out
> the old and bring in the new. We have entered a new era of promises being
> sufficient in and of themselves.
Sometimes small changes are insufficient to accomplish anything. To
take an issue from the opposite end of the political spectrum, there
is no way to replace the income tax system with a flat tax by making
"small changes" to the tax code.
=============================================
I thought you thought that doing nothing was the only alternative?
> And while we are "fixing" the health care system, we will also save the
> planet from imminent destruction and we will make sure that New Orleans
> does
> not get flooded when the next big one comes alone ... and tornados will be
> banned from Kansas ... and no child will be left behind ... and if there
> is
> another terrorist attack, we will make whoever is related to anyone
> injured
> or killed wealthy ... and we will give purple hearts to everyone who feels
> bad after they get back from Iraq ... Patton is turning in his grave.
I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
tangent arguments by exaggeration.
========================================
There you go again. Ignore all implications. The road to hell is paved
with good intentions. The belief that the is the best (or in your case, the
only) solution to the problems of society is TEOTWAWKI. No exaggeration,
just fact.
> I haven't studied the presidential candidates' positions on health
> care in detail, but I should. This is a very important issue for our
> times, and it would be just like our government to fuck it up, even if
> they adopt a program that I generally approve of.
> =====================================
>
> Well, they are all for it. It is like any government to fuck up anything
> much that they do. It is only a matter of how many things we allow them to
> fuck up. At some point in time, someone will decide that government is
> better than the market for allocating resources.
Sometimes the government is better than the market for allocating
resources, sometimes the market is better, and sometimes a mixed
solution is the best.
=====================================
It is indeed a matter of degree. And health care is such a small area, no
need to worry.
> Bob, can you name a big problem that the government decided to fix ... but
> found, after they took over, that government was not well suited to fix it
> ... so they decided to stop trying to fix it?
I can name a big problem that several other modern Western nations
have fixed better than we have: health care.
========================================
I did not think you could!
Bob T.
wrote:
> "Bob T."
>
> > The devil is in the details. Some folks see a problem and conclude that the
> > problem is "terrible" ... and they immediately decide that if some smart
> > people would just sit down and discuss it, they could make it all right.
> > There would be unintended consequences, of course, but those would be OK
> > because the smart people really thought about it for a long time.
>
> Other people see a problem and know it's really bad, but they are
> afraid that trying to solve it might make it worse, so they do nothing
> at all.
> =====================================
> I really hate that you cannot afford a newsreader. Perhaps, the government
> can standardize the internet so folks like you can have something that is
> worth having.
Perhaps you should purchase a better newsreader, one that correctly
formats replies to Google Groups posts.
>
> I am going to have to go with Paul on this one, Bob ... you are disengenuous
> in your arguments. It is likely unintentional, at least I hope so.
In that particular paragraph, my argument was deliberately
disingenuous. It was written as a parody of your paragraph which was
(apparently unintentionally) disingenuous. Your paragraph consisted
of meaningless blather about "some people", so I wrote a parody about
"other people". You should now go back and re-read your paragraph and
observe that the same features that irritated you about mine were
present in yours.
> The health care system needs a lot of work. Most of the problems are caused by
> government meddling, but a rational and controlled free market system with
> competition is a better road down which to travel. That is NOT doing
> nothing at all. The proposal for the government taking over health care so
> it can be "universal" is the wrong direction to go. There is a reason that
> those who have already traveled that path are unable to get off it.
Poor France. Poor Canada. Stuck with their superior systems.
>
> > I heard someone say on the TV the other day that people should not be
> > allowed to make risky investments with their money. It will not be long
> > until someone will suggest that some group of experts should be able to
> > tell
> > you what job you should be doing and where you should live ... because
> > they
> > would be much better at deciding what would be best of everyone.
>
> > You can say the slipry slope argument is over used,
>
> One should certainly say that it was overused in the preceding
> paragraph!
> =============================================
> Well, Bob ... there you go again ... no comment. The only options are
> universal health care run by the government or "nothing at all."
Um... what? I was making fun of your stream of slippery slope
arguments. Please quote me where I said anything about
"only options".
>
> > but when you look at what the experts have done to the public school
> > system (one of the
> > most important and expensive allocation of resources in this country) ...
> > you
> > have a perfect example of what another bureauracracy can do if they take
> > on
> > health care.
>
> Or you could look at what the experts have done to Medicare, which I
> hear is a relatively well-run and efficient system.
> ===================================
> Or, you could be wrong about Medicare. It is not well-run nor is it
> efficient. It is supported by the private health care system ... which is a
> large part of the problem with the current system.
I suppose I could be wrong about Medicare. I also suppose that you
could be wrong about Medicare.
>
> > The best thing to do would be for the government to take over not only
> > health care services, but they might as well take over those nasty
> > pharmicutical companies ... surely the experts could do a better job if
> > they
> > did it without competition. Isn't competition the problem? So much waste?
> > If schools competed with each other, why people would lose their jobs ...
> > can't have that.
>
> I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
> tangent arguments by exaggeration.
> =======================================
> If the government is the "answer" for health care, why not pharmacuticals?
> Why do you simply bob and dodge?
It is not a "bob and dodge" to point out that you are arguing by
exagerration. I think it should be possible for every American to be
covered by health insurance without the government purchasing any
insurance companies, let alone pharmaceutical companies.
>
> > That group of experts can tell the medical schools what to teach and they
> > can decide that all that elective surgery is way too wasteful. We need
> > those doctors to be OBGYN doctors, because we do not have enough of those.
> > And they will work hard for whatever wage we decide to pay them ... after
> > all, it would be better for them to make less and perform their services
> > for
> > those that don't have them now.
>
> I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
> tangent arguments by exaggeration.
> =======================================
> So, with universal health care, the doctors and the hospitals will continue
> to charge the same amount and it will cost less when it is provided to
> everyone that cannot afford it?
This is an interesting form of conversation. You write a paragraph
describing some oddball notion of yours (the government telling the
medical schools what to teach? What the fuck?) and then when I refuse
to discuss it because it's a tangent, you put words in my mouth.
>
> > And the experts will decide who gets those expensive operations when they
> > get old ... actually, no one will get those because that is one of the
> > biggest problems we have now ... old folks spending too much money on
> > operations at the end of their lives.
>
> These will be important issues whether we have universal health care
> or not.
> ======================================
> Bob, you simply like the idea of someone else deciding for you how to spend
> your money. I would not mind that at all if you also did not like the idea
> of someone else deciding how to spend my money. And what you like is the
> least effective and efficient way of accomplishing your idea.
Pickle, are you capable of discussing any topic at all without putting
words in peoples' mouths? Tell you what - you describe what you
think, and leave describing what I think up to me. OK?
No, I said "other people think that doing nothing is the right
solution". It was just as meaningless as your "some people think"
statement. I would appreciate your posts more if you stuck to telling
us what you think, not what you think other people think.
>
> > And while we are "fixing" the health care system, we will also save the
> > planet from imminent destruction and we will make sure that New Orleans
> > does not get flooded when the next big one comes alone ... and tornados will be
> > banned from Kansas ... and no child will be left behind ... and if there
> > is another terrorist attack, we will make whoever is related to anyone
> > injured or killed wealthy ... and we will give purple hearts to everyone who feels
> > bad after they get back from Iraq ... Patton is turning in his grave.
>
> I would enjoy these conversations more if you weren't so prone to off-
> tangent arguments by exaggeration.
> ========================================
> There you go again. Ignore all implications. The road to hell is paved
> with good intentions. The belief that the is the best (or in your case, the
> only) solution to the problems of society is TEOTWAWKI. No exaggeration,
> just fact.
Right, that was a "factual" observation about Patton turning over in
his grave about all the purple hearts. What the fuck does that have
to do with health care?
>
> > I haven't studied the presidential candidates' positions on health
> > care in detail, but I should. This is a very important issue for our
> > times, and it would be just like our government to fuck it up, even if
> > they adopt a program that I generally approve of.
> > =====================================
>
> > Well, they are all for it. It is like any government to fuck up anything
> > much that they do. It is only a matter of how many things we allow them to
> > fuck up. At some point in time, someone will decide that government is
> > better than the market for allocating resources.
>
> Sometimes the government is better than the market for allocating
> resources, sometimes the market is better, and sometimes a mixed
> solution is the best.
> =====================================
> It is indeed a matter of degree. And health care is such a small area, no
> need to worry.
Health care is a big area, and we do need to worry. If you go back to
my very first post on the subject, you will see that I specifically
said that I was concerned that the government would fuck it up even if
they implemented a plan that I generally approved of.
Our big political difference on issues like this, Pickle, is that I
believe that big governernment can sometimes do some things right, and
you believe that it never ever can. Fine. I understand that you
believe that - you don't have to warn me that Patton is rolling over
in his grave to convince me that you are really and truly against big
government.
Here's what I actually wanted to discuss: given that our government is
likely to undertake a major effort to reform the health care system
next year, what should be the nature of that reform? How do we change
the system so that people like Rick aren't stuck without medicine
while they wait for their wives' insurance to vest? I think we should
be able to find a way to do that without nationalizing the
pharmaceutial companies, don't you?
Maybe some of our northern neighbors can tell us - did the Canadians
socialize all the pharmaceutical companies up there in the socialist
north, or are they still allowed the semblance of independent
existence?
>
> > Bob, can you name a big problem that the government decided to fix ... but
> > found, after they took over, that government was not well suited to fix it
> > ... so they decided to stop trying to fix it?
>
> I can name a big problem that several other modern Western nations
> have fixed better than we have: health care.
> ========================================
> I did not think you could!
I have to admit I didn't really understand your question, so I asked
myself a question I could answer and then answered it.
- Bob T.
Kyle T. Jones
> I have to admit I didn't really understand your question, so I asked
> myself a question I could answer and then answered it.
>
> - Bob T.
>
<snort>. Now you just freakin' *know* the pickle ain't gonna let that
go without comment.
Bob T.
wrote:
Here's the question:
> > Bob, can you name a big problem that the government decided to fix ... but
> > found, after they took over, that government was not well suited to fix it
> > ... so they decided to stop trying to fix it?
After several readings, I think I finally understand the question - I
got confused by all those "fixes". I have four examples off the top
of my head:
1) Vietnam. In 1973, the US government decided to stop trying to fix
Vietnam
2) Energy regulations. Several years ago, the State of California
decided that there were too many regulations controlling the supply of
energy, so they "de-regulated" it. As we all know now, they chose a
particularly stupid method of "de-regulating" it and caused a
disaster.
3) The Civilian Conservation Corps. Established in 1933, the CCC had
half a million enrollees at its peak, then was allowed to disappear
without funding at the end of World War 2. (Perhaps this is a bad
example because it was a _successful_ government program that was
allowed to disappear after it had accomplished its goals.)
4) Gay marriage. The State of California has just decided to stop
"fixing" the gay marriage "problem". (I know this is a stretch, but
look which thread we're in!)
- Bob T.
da pickle
Our big political difference on issues like this, Pickle, is that I
believe that big governernment can sometimes do some things right, and
you believe that it never ever can. Fine.
=====================================
You even get that wrong. Our big political/social/economic difference on
issues like this, Bob, is that I know that big government "must" be allowed
to do some things but they will never be able to do those things efficiently
... but they just have to be allowed to do them ... I do not use the term
"right" at all because it is like "fair."
Freedom and equality are balanced because every time you seek more equality,
you must take away a little freedom.
Everybody cannot receive the same health care unless you lower the health
care that "some" of the bodies get today. Everybody cannot get everything.
In my poor state, no body is refused health care at the charity hospital,
unless (of course) they have insurance and do not need the charity hospital.
I do not think that health care is an area of government necessity.
Joe Long
Hmph.
I recognize that the further you go out on the extremes of the Left AND
the Right, the more you find control freaks who want to use the power of
government to force others to comply. The problem is so many on the
Left have blinders on where there own anal-retentive contol-freakishness
is concerned.
Oh, they're "tolerant" and "open-minded" -- and they'll smack down
anyone who questions their tolerance and open-mindedness.
--
Joe Long aka ChipRider
Somewhere on the Range