Going Rogue

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

If in doubt, check user profile, if still in doubt obfuscate .... if still in doubt .... :duck:

I don't understand using aliases in any case.....never have, never will.

[kindlekitten]

listening to Palin's acceptance speech for the VP nomination was the most politically thrilling thing I have heard since; "Mr. President tear this wall DOWN!". after that, pundits, journalists and comedians starting running the show and the election process became one of the most ridiculous 3 ring circuses in memory

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I just don't get it on a human level, how anybody could be refused treatment because of money. It's sickening, degrading, and yes... it's evil. When money comes before human beings then everything is wrong.

medical treatment CANNOT be refused to anyone regardless of race, religion, nationality, income, insurance or lack thereof. you can go bankrupt as a result of receiving medical treatment, and indeed, prior to this financial disaster, the majority of banruptcies were due to medical expenses.

Originally Posted by Ea

There is this thing - very strange - that I seem to be reading between the lines of the more republican/conservative/libertarian USA posters, and that is that you seem to perceive a government as primarily an oppressor - something to be avoided.

You seem to abhor governmental influence and do not trust a government. I don't understand at all.... Do you not vote for a government to act as a government - to rule the affairs of your country? It all sounds quite anarchist to me. You seem to equate government with oppression.

*ship*

To me it's such a me - me - me - individualism that does not take society, the nation, the people into account. I can not percieve it. I don't think I can discuss it, because I can't understand it at all, which I have tried a number of times - I'm sorry.

you are very perceptive. this government was formed on the grounds of fearing and not trusting government. we felt it was our duty to create a government that had very little centralized power, and that we should as a people be allowed to self govern at the local level.

Originally Posted by Crowl

Grizzled old man you might be, but you also seem to be forgetful if you don't remember the ridicule of Bush, Quayle and post-lewinsky Clinton, while you may want to try and portray this as some kind of agenda, the simple fact is that she is being deservedly ridiculed for doing or saying stupid things and as for being a lightweight, feeling like she was trapped by such a substantial question as what papers do you read does seem fairly lightweight.

People aren't threatened by a capable female in this case since she isn't one, she is simply a very lucky person in that her 15 mins of fame have resulted in more money than the reality tv stars that have a similar level (or lack) of merit.

this is yet another case of ridiculing someone or something that you fear. as has been shown (the seeing Russia quote, case in point) the interpreting of quotes by comedians became fact. the woman was not allowed to speak for herself once Tina Fey got hold of her. unfortunately the population allows themselves to let their eyes glaze over when listening to politics, but not when they listen to comedians. this wasn't a political race, this was a ratings race between Saturday Night Live, David Letterman and all the other late night talk shows.

Originally Posted by Harmon

From everything I have read - except for the kind of generalities you just wrote, of course - it appears that Palin was a perfecty capable governor of Alaska. I must have missed the demonstration, perhaps because there hasn't actually been one...


There's not much I can say about a man unable to handle an armed toddler.

here we have one of the few people who actually DOES pay attention to a political speech. and I have to agree.... if you have this kind of a problem with an armed toddler, please make sure you never find yourself alone with an angry cat

Originally Posted by Ea

Everyone pays taxes - not only the rich, the poor does as well. Everyone who has an income pays tax.
.

everyone pays taxes here as well. in fact, at the poorer level, not only are taxes not paid out at tax time, but more often than not there are substantial tax returns issued. as for the wealthiest bracket that quite often don't have an income per-se and for whatever reason are not paying out an actual INCOME tax, they are certainly paying sales tax at levels that the less wealthy are NOT paying. these are people that are buying goods and services and subsequently paying out a great deal of money in a variety of sales and property taxes

Originally Posted by 93terp

Ea,

You are incredibly observant & correct in your observations! You have touched on 2 all-important tenants of conservatives in the US. The first is a famous quote by their St. Ronnie Reagan, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'". Another famous Reaganism was "the government isn't the solution, it's the problem". The 2nd important tenant you highlight is the conservative belief in "I've got mine, screw you".

I personally find these beliefs repulsive, ignorant, and shallow.

what Reagan was referring to here is the goal/belief of the republican party that a strong central government is to be avoided and it is this type of government that starts creating problems. this is a very "Jeffersonian" viewpoint and is the goal of a focused and unsullied republican party

Originally Posted by kennyc

Less government. Libertarian is the closest thing we have to a third party...

"Less government" once again, very Jeffersonian. I used to think of myself as republican but do believe that they have lost sight of the forest for the trees. anymore I do not quite know what I am. certainly not a democrat, libertarian? ummmmm I dunno dissaffected republican? probably. I certainly do not vote "the party line"

Originally Posted by 93terp

There are hundreds of pseudos on MR that aren't gender specific. I just think it's insulting to automatically assume that someone is a he if their pseudo is not gender specific. I'm very much a unapologetic proud liberal, but I wasn't insulted due to any feminist positions on female/male equality. Unless you personally know someone on boards/forums like this, the use of "he/she" just seems more appropriate to me. Perhaps desertgrandma just forgot to put the (s) in front of he!

getting yourself all wrapped around the axel on this stumbling block is an interesting windmill to tilt at in this particular conversation

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't understand using aliases in any case.....never have, never will.

I use an alias. (Although I can be tracked down with enough work...) I have a very unique sirname, probably no more than a thousand in the world. To have any privacy in the world at all, I use an alias. If my name was Smith or Johnson or Hernadez, it would be different..

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

...

"Less government" once again, very Jeffersonian. I used to think of myself as republican but do believe that they have lost sight of the forest for the trees. anymore I do not quite know what I am. certainly not a democrat, libertarian? ummmmm I dunno dissaffected republican? probably. I certainly do not vote "the party line"

....

Yep. As I said about myself I have Libertarian leanings, but certainly not a full buy-in to any group at this point. There are parts of all the party platforms that I agree with and parts that I despise.

The thing I'm most happy with is that the weather and earthquake didn't wipe you out KK!

[Ea]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

you are very perceptive. this government was formed on the grounds of fearing and not trusting government. we felt it was our duty to create a government that had very little centralized power, and that we should as a people be allowed to self govern at the local level.

Yees.... but that was King George's government of over 200 years ago. I wouldn't want myself to live under a government as it was in Denmark at that time. But things have evolved quite a bit since then - to put it mildly. In my 'world', I see my government serving me, or us - it's not them against me or us. That's why I don't understand the fear, it seems groundless.

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Superlucky

I haven't seen a pirated copy yet.

And yes, you are all busted. Some of us actually wanted to read about the book.

Sorry, I'm a little cranky because it has become abundantly clear that I am going to have to martyr myself and read this book on behalf of the MR community. Maybe I'll start a new thread at that time so that Madam Broshkina and I can discuss it. The good news is that it appears to be bereft of philosophy or policy so the actual book conversation can't devolve into politics. Who am I kidding - anything can devolve into politics.

Well, we'll all send Karma points to you in the hospital.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

listening to Palin's acceptance speech for the VP nomination was the most politically thrilling thing I have heard since; "Mr. President tear this wall DOWN!". after that, pundits, journalists and comedians starting running the show and the election process became one of the most ridiculous 3 ring circuses in memory

this is yet another case of ridiculing someone or something that you fear. as has been shown (the seeing Russia quote, case in point) the interpreting of quotes by comedians became fact. the woman was not allowed to speak for herself once Tina Fey got hold of her. unfortunately the population allows themselves to let their eyes glaze over when listening to politics, but not when they listen to comedians. this wasn't a political race, this was a ratings race between Saturday Night Live, David Letterman and all the other late night talk shows.

She had every opportunity to speak for herself, and when she did, she made it blindingly obvious that she didn’t have a clue regarding foreign policy, among a long list of other topics. She and she alone is responsible for the ignorant, nonsensical garbage that spewed and continues to spew forth every time she opens her mouth. The media and/or SNL is not responsible for her downfall – she is – her excuses as to why she came across as an ignorant know nothing are her own, she owns them.

For the record - direct quotes:

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

"They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." Sarah Palin On her foreign policy insights into Russia, ABC News interview, September 11, 2008.

I can see the Atlantic Ocean from my back deck, but believe it or not, that doesn't make me a marine biologist.

Further, the mess we now find ourselves in is largely a result of 8 years of mismanagement by the Bush Administration – fact. I find it amusing that the same folks who voted for Bush twice, are the same folks blaming Obama for the state of this country, when, in fact, they are responsible for enabling one of if not the worst presidents in this country’s history – fact. If you voted for him once, if not twice, the next time you find yourself in front of a mirror, take a moment to congratulate yourself on what you’ve helped to accomplish, financial ruin, two unwinnable wars, the institution of torture, the pillaging of the constitution, etc.

As for Harmon, the self described “authority”, well, he’s as blind to reality as you are, apparently. To quote Orwell - To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle." For Palin supporters and apologizers, that struggle is being lost on a daily, moment by moment basis.

I begrudgingly voted for Obama, but I’m not a democrat. I have respect for the traditional, Barry Goldwater brand of conservatism – however, the movement has been hijacked by christianists such as Palin and her ilk, and as a result, is no longer recognizable.

The following essay by Matt Taibbi does a great job of summing up Palin and her supporters, with the gloves off.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics.../mad_dog_palin

An excerpt:

And none of it matters, so long as you remember a few months before Election Day to offer them a two-bit caricature culled from some cutting-room-floor episode of Roseanne as part of your presidential ticket. And if she's a good enough likeness of a loudmouthed Middle American archetype, as Sarah Palin is, John Q. Public will drop his giant-size bag of Doritos in gratitude, wipe the Sizzlin' Picante dust from his lips and rush to the booth to vote for her. Not because it makes sense, or because it has a chance of improving his life or anyone else's, but simply because it appeals to the low-humming narcissism that substitutes for his personality, because the image on TV reminds him of the mean, brainless slob he sees in the mirror every morning.

Sarah Palin is a symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern United States. As a representative of our political system, she's a new low in reptilian villainy, the ultimate cynical masterwork of puppeteers like Karl Rove. But more than that, she is a horrifying symbol of how little we ask for in return for the total surrender of our political power. Not only is Sarah Palin a fraud, she's the tawdriest, most half-assed fraud imaginable, 20 floors below the lowest common denominator, a character too dumb even for daytime TV — and this country is going to eat her up, cheering her every step of the way. All because most Americans no longer have the energy to do anything but lie back and allow ourselves to be jacked off by the calculating thieves who run this grasping consumer paradise we call a nation.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ea

Yees.... but that was King George's government of over 200 years ago. I wouldn't want myself to live under a government as it was in Denmark at that time. But things have evolved quite a bit since then - to put it mildly. In my 'world', I see my government serving me, or us - it's not them against me or us. That's why I don't understand the fear, it seems groundless.

And that is the "proper" view EA. Unfortunately in the U.S.A. the people seem to have forgotten that government exists only at the behest of the people and should be subservient to that ideal. They've also seemed to have forgotten that they must participate in the process. In the mean time government has become the driver of the poor huddled unaware masses who simply follow the lead of politicians who are directed mostly by corporations lobbying and political action committees and the media and advertising that is directed by those same corporations. I'm coming to believe that the legalization of the corporation as an "individual" entity is the worst thing that ever happened in the U.S. Legal system

It truly is a bad situation despite the good that exists in the country and services provided by the government. As with most things it is good and bad at the same time.

[BenG]

Slate has an unauthorized index to the book.
http://www.slate.com/id/2235917

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Ea

Yees.... but that was King George's government of over 200 years ago. I wouldn't want myself to live under a government as it was in Denmark at that time. But things have evolved quite a bit since then - to put it mildly. In my 'world', I see my government serving me, or us - it's not them against me or us. That's why I don't understand the fear, it seems groundless.

Let me put it in a different scale.

Denmark is approximately 160 x 160 KM (100 x 100 miles for the English system people) in area. it's population is around 5.5 million. That makes it very homogeneous. You know your government, you know your bureaucrats. Everybody faces the same weather, the same roads, the same questions. It's easy to run any system like that efficiently. There aren't many widely different needs.

Now let's take that place that everybody love to hate - Texas. I live in the second biggest metroplex in Texas. It's 150 x 100 KM (90 x 60 miles EMS), with a population of around the same (or more). the total population of Texas is around 25 Million. (Dallas/Fort Worth metroplex + Houston + San Antonio + Austin account for 15 million of that, in around 2 percent of the land.) Yet I can show you 500 x 500 KM blocks of Texas with a total population of under 250,000 with half of that in a small city. So....

How do you balance say, the transportation needs of widely scattered rural people with those of highly densely urbanized people? The needs of people who actually need to protect themselves from wild animals versus those who would feel safer with no weapons at all? And everybody certain that their way of life is the only one that matters, and willing to cause as much collateral damage in other peoples lives (that they don't even acknowledge exist (or matter)) as it takes to implement their vision of how people's lives should be run?

And then multiply by 50..... Welcome to the American political scene....

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by kennyc

No. The costs are out of control BECAUSE of Corporations and Private business that have been allowed to do whatever they want. Just like the Credit Card companies they have all written their own rules and coerced congress into passing them. It's out of control and so is big government, we've got to start somewhere and health care is as good a place as anywhere -- except maybe the credit card companies.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Stop generalizing. Government is too big, many things need to change, it must be done correctly. Government is ALREADY in charge of everything anyway. The point is to begin changing it -- decisions must be made as far as how to do it. The Public health care OPTION DOES NOT PUT GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF HEALTH CARE any more than it already is, but it does provide a better means to control the out of control costs that have destroyed the system.

Now I'm not going to post wrt this any more. I've said what I think. You guy carry on.
I'm going to go check Sarah in her running outfit.

The idea of the original system of government that was established by the founding fathers, where there were strong state governments and an overseeing federal government that kept the states together (providing services like the military, etc.) was to keep from having a huge and cumbersome bureaucracy that no longer focused on the people. Unfortunately, that is no longer the case. The politicians and special interests have stomped all over the Constitution. Our Federal government has gotten too big. The Republicans were supposed to downsize, they didn't. The Democrats are all for bigger government. Neither party has the people's best interests at heart. It's all about power.

Giving our government control over my health care scares the heck out of me because I see how many problems they have in the areas in which they already have control. One of the concerns I have when comparing our health system (which is a mess and does need overhauling) to other countries is the size of the USA compared to places like the UK. England is basically the size of Minnesota. I would think handling healthcare in a country that size would be much easier. Maybe healthcare should be handled at the state level so that the bureaucracy isn't so large.

As far as Sarah Palin is concerned: I don't understand all the bashing. Calling her uneducated is unfair and malicious. She has a college degree, in Journalism. Does that make all journalists unintelligent? She speaks with an Alaskan accent. I speak with a Chicagoan accent (I tend to use "~in'" instead of "~ing"). Which of us is unintelligent because of the way we speak? If the criticism was focused on her record as a government official, I would listen. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Criticising her because her interview with Katie Couric went badly is too easy. The media has gotten too lazy. I think an awful lot of the criticism is because she is a woman in power. The same thing happened, although to a lesser degree, to Hillary Clinton.

Originally Posted by 93terp

Don't misunderstand - I never believed that DGM intended to be insulting. I just took the assumption of gender as an insult.

You shouldn't have. As a teacher who teaches Language Arts and Writing, I tell my students that they should use He when referring to unknown gender of when not being gender specific. That is traditionally how it has been done.

Originally Posted by kennyc

And that is the "proper" view EA. Unfortunately in the U.S.A. the people seem to have forgotten that government exists only at the behest of the people and should be subservient to that ideal. They've also seemed to have forgotten that they must participate in the process. In the mean time government has become the driver of the poor huddled unaware masses who simply follow the lead of politicians who are directed mostly by corporations lobbying and political action committees and the media and advertising that is directed by those same corporations. I'm coming to believe that the legalization of the corporation as an "individual" entity is the worst thing that ever happened in the U.S. Legal system

It truly is a bad situation despite the good that exists in the country and services provided by the government. As with most things it is good and bad at the same time.

People haven't forgotten. Our politicians have forgotten.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Actually, the word "perfect" in the Constitution means "complete." It's an archaic usage. ...

The definition of the word "perfect" has not changed significantly for at least five centuries. One of its definitions was, and still is, "complete."

By way of proof, here are three of the most familiar Bible verses using the word "complete" as they appear in three modern versions, one version from the early 17th century, and one from the late 16th century:

Matthew 5:48

* Geneva Bible (1599): Ye shall therefore be perfit, as your Father which is in heauen, is perfite.

* King James Version (1611): Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

* New American Standard of 1995: Matthew 5:48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

* New Jerusalem Bible (1985): Matthew 5:48 Do not even the gentiles do as much? You must therefore be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.'

* New Revised Standard (1989): Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Matthew 19:21

* Geneva Bible (1599): Iesus sayd vnto him, If thou wilt be perfite, go, sell that thou hast, and giue it to the poore, and thou shalt haue treasure in heauen, and come, and follow me.

* King James Version (1611): Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

* New American Standard of 1995: Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

* New Jerusalem Bible (1985): 'If you wish to be perfect, go and sell your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.'

* New Revised Standard (1989): Jesus said to him, "If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me."

1 Corinthians 13:10

* Geneva Bible (1599): But when that which is perfect, is come, then that which is in part, shalbe abolished.

* King James Version (1611): But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

* New American Standard of 1995: but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

* New Jerusalem Bible (1985): but once perfection comes, all imperfect things will be done away with.

* New Revised Standard (1989): but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end.

(By the way, I’m not trying to introduce religion into this thread; I only use these verses to illustrate my point about language using material familiar to the widest possible audience.)

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The problem is that government run health care will, in my view, DEmote the general welfare, in a manner of speaking. When the government pays for your medical care, you will only get the medical care the government thinks you should have.

This is the argument that was raised when Roosevelt introduced Social Security and Kennedy and Johnson introduced Medicare. Yet today there are very few conservatives who are willing to do away with either program or willing to forego the benefits of either program when they become eligible for them.

In fact, as I recall, there was very little conservative opposition to the prescription "enhancements" made to Medicare during the Bush regime and the rallying cry today of the conservatives seems to be "we have to save Medicare."

I also find the conservative arguments about government intrusion into medical decisions that properly belong to the patient or to the patient and the patient's doctor signifcantly weakened, if not spike-driven through the heart until dead, with their support of antiabortion measures. (I am not saying that I either approve or disapprove of abortion; that is not the issue.) Seems as if the conservatives approach health care with the attitude that government doesn't know what is good for the people except when I say it knows what is good for the people.

Either government instrusion into our medical lives is an evil to be avoided or it is not; it can't be an evil decision maker when it wants to give health care to people but a wise decision maker when it wants to take away health care from the people.

Conservatives seem to speak with forked tongue when it comes to government instrusion into our lives.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by rhadin

This is the argument that was raised when Roosevelt introduced Social Security and Kennedy and Johnson introduced Medicare. Yet today there are very few conservatives who are willing to do away with either program or willing to forego the benefits of either program when they become eligible for them.

In fact, as I recall, there was very little conservative opposition to the prescription "enhancements" made to Medicare during the Bush regime and the rallying cry today of the conservatives seems to be "we have to save Medicare."

I also find the conservative arguments about government intrusion into medical decisions that properly belong to the patient or to the patient and the patient's doctor signifcantly weakened, if not spike-driven through the heart until dead, with their support of antiabortion measures. (I am not saying that I either approve or disapprove of abortion; that is not the issue.) Seems as if the conservatives approach health care with the attitude that government doesn't know what is good for the people except when I say it knows what is good for the people.

Either government instrusion into our medical lives is an evil to be avoided or it is not; it can't be an evil decision maker when it wants to give health care to people but a wise decision maker when it wants to take away health care from the people.

Conservatives seem to speak with forked tongue when it comes to government instrusion into our lives.

Both Social Security and Medicare are a mess. Both sides of the aisle are responsible.

I wouldn't blame only the conservatives. The liberals are just as much to blame and speak with just as "forked a tongue".

I think both parties have major flaws. Instead of following the party line, it is better to look at each issue and make a decision based on your own beliefs. I do think a woman has the right to choose, but I think abortion is morally wrong so I don't want my tax dollars to pay for it. If a woman wants to get an abortion, she should. She should just have to pay for it herself. That's neither a democratic or republican viewpoint. It's mine.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by rhadin

This is the argument that was raised when Roosevelt introduced Social Security and Kennedy and Johnson introduced Medicare. Yet today there are very few conservatives who are willing to do away with either program or willing to forego the benefits of either program when they become eligible for them.

In fact, as I recall, there was very little conservative opposition to the prescription "enhancements" made to Medicare during the Bush regime and the rallying cry today of the conservatives seems to be "we have to save Medicare."

I also find the conservative arguments about government intrusion into medical decisions that properly belong to the patient or to the patient and the patient's doctor signifcantly weakened, if not spike-driven through the heart until dead, with their support of antiabortion measures. (I am not saying that I either approve or disapprove of abortion; that is not the issue.) Seems as if the conservatives approach health care with the attitude that government doesn't know what is good for the people except when I say it knows what is good for the people.

Either government instrusion into our medical lives is an evil to be avoided or it is not; it can't be an evil decision maker when it wants to give health care to people but a wise decision maker when it wants to take away health care from the people.

Conservatives seem to speak with forked tongue when it comes to government instrusion into our lives.

That's palming the card, Rhaudin. You can't say that the anti-abortion measure is a intrusion unless you can define all the parties to the procedure...