http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* There is no "right" to health care - 25 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:29 am
From: Cyrus Purvis
On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > K wrote
> >> RickMerrill wrote
> >>> K wrote
> >>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
> >>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
> >>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
> >>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
> >>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
> >>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
> >>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
> >>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone
> >>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
> >>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
> >>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
> >>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never been
> >>> sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you unhappy.
> >>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
> >> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
> >> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
> > Everything you buy is a contract....
>
> Wrong, as always.
I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
== 2 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:43 am
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Nickname unavailable wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:35 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>> False. I created the value that I traded to obtain the things I own.
>>>> In some few cases - not many - I created the things I own myself. I
>>>> have a right to them; no one else has any right to them.
>>>> No one has a right to my effort.
>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
>>> mine mine mine.
>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
>> that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> liar. taxes are enshrined in the constitution.
Taxes on trade, not on the individual's labor.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
The gov't has already been overthrown, we're just gonna take it back.
== 3 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:47 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Cyrus Purvis wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> K wrote
>>>> RickMerrill wrote
>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
>>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone
>>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've
>>>>> never been sick, then you might not understand that sickness
>>>>> makes you unhappy. You have a constitutional right to purchase
>>>>> health care.
>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to
>>>> contract, and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
He's too stupid to know what it means.
== 4 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:50 am
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Oct 9, 5:42 pm, Geopinion <walk...@easystreet.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 9:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>>> to stop providing them.
>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>> There is a right to health care if we, the people, decide there is.
>> We aren't limited to rights specifically outlined in the Constitution,
>> but are assumed to possess a whole host of unenumerated rights. It is
>> also within our power to decide that there are rights and policies
>> that serve the greater good, and there is nothing in the constitution
>> that prohibits that.
>>
Where is your "right" to force me to into your health care?
Try amendment 9, your rights don't supersede my rights.
--
*BE VERY CONCERNED*
Nothing scares a Socialist more than free people exercising their freedoms.
-Beam Me Up Scotty- 2009
== 5 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:57 am
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Cyrus Purvis wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> K wrote
>>>> RickMerrill wrote
>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
>>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone
>>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never been
>>>>> sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you unhappy.
>>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
>>>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>> Wrong, as always.
>
> I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
>
>
The law recognizes a verbal contract.
== 6 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:17 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> K wrote
>>>>> RickMerrill wrote
>>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
>>>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods
>>>>>>> and services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade
>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion
>>>>>>> are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've
>>>>>> never been sick, then you might not understand that sickness
>>>>>> makes you unhappy. You have a constitutional right to purchase
>>>>>> health care.
>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to
>>>>> contract, and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
>>
>>
> The law recognizes a verbal contract.
There is no verbal contract quite a bit of the time.
== 7 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:19 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
>>> mine mine mine.
>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
>> that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> Again.... I say to you
>
> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I have
*does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide how it's
used, or if it's used at all.
== 8 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:19 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> K wrote:
>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
>>>>>>>>> you must
>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> liar.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>
>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>
> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
the law.
> If
> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
> acceptable?
It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
the law.
> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
Right do not exist in "nature". Tell a bear about your "rights".
"Rights" are a totally human fabrication. Without sentience and society
there is no use for "rights".
> Rights specify
> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
Nope. That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with
majority rule. If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
of the whole of the society then that overwhelming majority will override
the individual "opinion" of what is "right".
> Seizing value
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation because
outside a society the concept of "rights" has no meaning. Again: Tell
the bear you have a "right" to that fish he has in his mouth, or that the
candy bars in your back pack are YOURS.
> We don't
> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
> help those less fortunate; they always have.
In the 19th century those that did not like the social order moved west.
They could and did "live off the land" as there were "more trees than we
could ever use". What need had they of "rights"?
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 9 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:18 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:56:24 -0700, Wayne wrote:
> "Josh Rosenbluth" <jrosenbluth@gotcha.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hapg7f$s3p$1@josh.motzarella.org...
>>K wrote:
>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
>>>>>>>>> you must
>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> liar.
>>>
>>>
>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>
>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>>
>> Josh Rosenbluth
> -
> The law does not in the strict sense define that there is a "right".
> The problem is that people who want some special accomodation make up a
> non-existent "right" and use that claim to pass legislation. That
> doesn't mean that the "right" really exists.
Rights do not exist in "nature". Tell a bear about your "rights".
"Rights" are a totally human fabrication. Without sentience and society
there is no use for "rights".
If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are to be stripped of
some internally justified capacity to thwart the good of the whole of the
society then that overwhelming majority will override the individual
"opinion" of what is "right". And therefore establish what is "right"
and the concept of "rights".
Wilson Woods wrote:
> Seizing value
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation because
outside a society the concept of "rights" has no meaning. Again: Tell
the bear you have a "right" to that fish he has in his mouth, or that the
candy bars in your back pack are YOURS.
In the 19th century those that did not like the social order moved west.
They could and did "live off the land" as there were "more trees than we
could ever use". What need had they of "rights"? They simply left the
society. "rights" (that are of any benefit whatsoever) are what the vast
universal majority say they are.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 10 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:20 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:50:01 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 5:42 pm, Geopinion <walk...@easystreet.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 9:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
>>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
>>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
>>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>> poorly. That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>> There is a right to health care if we, the people, decide there is. We
>>> aren't limited to rights specifically outlined in the Constitution,
>>> but are assumed to possess a whole host of unenumerated rights. It is
>>> also within our power to decide that there are rights and policies
>>> that serve the greater good, and there is nothing in the constitution
>>> that prohibits that.
>>>
>>>
> Where is your "right" to force me to into your health care?
>
> Try amendment 9, your rights don't supersede my rights.
We have the right to protect ourselves from your ingrained stupidity and
the damage it causes us.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 11 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:22 pm
From: Michael Coburn
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:59:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> K wrote:
>> RickMerrill wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
>>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
>>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>
>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
>>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>> poorly.
>>>>
>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>
>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never
>>> been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you
>>> unhappy.
>>>
>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>
>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>
> Everything you buy is a contract....
Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not contract.
Ans when morons refuse to insure their bodies, we end up paying for that
negligence.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
== 12 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:23 pm
From: never@millions.com
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 14:57:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Then-Destroy-Everything@talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Cyrus Purvis wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> K wrote
>>>>> RickMerrill wrote
>>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
>>>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone
>>>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
>>>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never been
>>>>>> sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you unhappy.
>>>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
>>>>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>
>> I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
>>
>>
>The law recognizes a verbal contract.
And the recognition of the binding aspects of a verbal contract is
made stronger by corresponding evidense that such a verbal contract
was made.
DCI
== 13 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:25 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>> K wrote:
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>>> screen
>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
>>>>>>>>>> you must
>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>
>>>>> liar.
>>>>
>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>> representative, constitutional democracy.
>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>
> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
> the law.
Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>> If
>> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
>> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
>> acceptable?
>
> It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
It does matter.
>
>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>
> Right do not exist in "nature".
Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>> Rights specify
>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
>> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>
> Nope.
Yep.
> That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with
> majority rule.
It's not.
> If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
> to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
> of the whole of the society
No such good.
>> Seizing value
>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
>> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>
> Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
> monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation
Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
>> We don't
>> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
>> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
>> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
>> help those less fortunate; they always have.
== 14 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:40 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Michael Coburn wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:59:07 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>
>> K wrote:
>>> RickMerrill wrote:
>>>> K wrote:
>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats,
>>>>> but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may
>>>>> subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>
>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you
>>>>> must pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never
>>>> been sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you
>>>> unhappy.
>>>>
>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
>>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>
> Unfortunately, we currently "buy" stuff for which we did not contract.
> Ans when morons refuse to insure their bodies, we end up paying for that
> negligence.
>
That was a theft, I never agreed to what they forced on me. I can't be
prosecuted for the civilians that Obama has killed in Afghanistan with
money he stole from my paycheck before I ever got the money.
== 15 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:44 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Wilson Woods wrote:
> me@privacy.net wrote:
>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
>>>> mine mine mine.
>>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
>>> that no one has a right to my effort.
>>
>> Again.... I say to you
>>
>> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
>
> And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I have
> *does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide how it's
> used, or if it's used at all.
That was the PRE-Obama America, *WE ARE ALL SOCIALIST NOW*
== 16 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:47 pm
From: Beam Me Up Scotty
Rod Speed wrote:
> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>> RickMerrill wrote
>>>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
>>>>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods
>>>>>>>> and services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade
>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion
>>>>>>>> are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've
>>>>>>> never been sick, then you might not understand that sickness
>>>>>>> makes you unhappy. You have a constitutional right to purchase
>>>>>>> health care.
>>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to
>>>>>> contract, and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
>>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>> I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
>>>
>>>
>> The law recognizes a verbal contract.
>
> There is no verbal contract quite a bit of the time.
>
>
SO you think it impossible for a mute to enter into a verbal contract?
And burning a flag isn't free speech?
== 17 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:50 pm
From: Cyrus Purvis
On Oct 10, 3:44 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
> > m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you, mine
> >>>> mine mine mine.
> >>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the *fact*
> >>> that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> >> Again.... I say to you
>
> >> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
>
> > And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I have
> > *does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide how it's
> > used, or if it's used at all.
>
> That was the PRE-Obama America, *WE ARE ALL SOCIALIST NOW*-
And you have a black leader! Sure! Canada and the UK had women; but
never a black person!
How multicultural!
== 18 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:52 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:
>>> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>>> RickMerrill wrote
>>>>>>>> K wrote
>>>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
>>>>>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
>>>>>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
>>>>>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
>>>>>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods
>>>>>>>>> and services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade
>>>>>>>>> someone
>>>>>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion
>>>>>>>>> are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've
>>>>>>>> never been sick, then you might not understand that sickness
>>>>>>>> makes you unhappy. You have a constitutional right to purchase
>>>>>>>> health care.
>>>>>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to
>>>>>>> contract, and one thing you might contract to buy is health
>>>>>>> care.
>>>>>> Everything you buy is a contract....
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>> I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
>>> The law recognizes a verbal contract.
>> There is no verbal contract quite a bit of the time.
> SO you think it impossible for a mute to enter into a verbal contract?
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
> And burning a flag isn't free speech?
Or that in spades.
== 19 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:54 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Cyrus Purvis wrote:
> On Oct 10, 3:44 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> dog.com> wrote:
>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>> m...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you,
>>>>>> mine mine mine mine.
>>>>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the
>>>>> *fact* that no one has a right to my effort.
>>
>>>> Again.... I say to you
>>
>>>> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
>>
>>> And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I
>>> have *does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide
>>> how it's used, or if it's used at all.
>>
>> That was the PRE-Obama America, *WE ARE ALL SOCIALIST NOW*-
>
>
> And you have a black leader!
Nope, a half black one.
> Sure! Canada and the UK had women;
Britain never did.
> but never a black person!
America doesnt either!!
> How multicultural!
== 20 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 12:59 pm
From: Josh Rosenbluth
On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > K wrote:
> >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>> missussex wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
> >>>>>>>> screen
> >>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
> >>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
> >>>>>>>> you must
> >>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
> >>>>>>>> poorly.
> >>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> >>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law enforcement,
> >>>>> and firefighting services either.
>
> >>>> That's right.
>
> >>> liar.
>
> >> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>
> > True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
> > services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a representative,
> > constitutional democracy.
>
> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable? If
> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
> acceptable?
>
> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights specify
> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on top of
majority rule.
> Seizing value
> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
> need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
> order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
> the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
> help those less fortunate; they always have.
And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
right to be free from taxation) and the policy (people do not
voluntarily provide health care, that's obvious from the empirical
evidence).
Josh Rosenbluth
== 21 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:01 pm
From: Cyrus Purvis
On Oct 10, 3:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Michael Coburn wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 09:25:39 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
> >> Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> >>> K wrote:
> >>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> missussex wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
> >>>>>>>>>> screen
> >>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
> >>>>>>>>>> have a
> >>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
> >>>>>>>>>> you must
> >>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
> >>>>>>>>>> poorly.
> >>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
> >>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
> >>>>>>> enforcement, and firefighting services either.
> >>>>>> That's right.
>
> >>>>> liar.
>
> >>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
> >>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
> >>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
> >>> representative, constitutional democracy.
> >> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
> >> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>
> > It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable". Until it is struck down it is
> > the law.
>
> Revolutions occur over such things. No law trumps moral rights.
>
> >> If
> >> everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
> >> day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
> >> acceptable?
>
> > It doesn't matter if it is "acceptable".
>
> It does matter.
>
>
>
> >> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>
> > Right do not exist in "nature".
>
> Human rights exist in the mind of man.
>
> >> Rights specify
> >> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
> >> do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>
> > Nope.
>
> Yep.
>
> > That is a rightarded appeal to majority rule to do away with
> > majority rule.
>
> It's not.
>
> > If an overwhelming majority decide that individuals are
>
> > to be stripped of some internally justified capacity to thwart the good
> > of the whole of the society
>
> No such good.
>
> >> Seizing value
> >> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> >> seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights.
>
> > Though most of what happens regarding this particular subject is screech
> > monkey dung, the definition of "rights" is a societal operation
>
> Irrelevant. "The law" also is a societal construct. One societal
> construct must yield to another, and the law must yield to rights.
And where do those rights come from?
The right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has more to
do with the well being of the people, and being healthy by having a
longer life span, lower infant mortality and affordable health care
should not be reserved for those who can afford it, and no one else.
When can US insurance companies provide that?
Let me know. I'll crack a bottle of bubbly.
== 22 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:05 pm
From: Cyrus Purvis
On Oct 10, 3:59 pm, Josh Rosenbluth <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
> > > K wrote:
> > >> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > >>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> > >>>> missussex wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
> > >>>>>>>> screen
> > >>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't
> > >>>>>>>> have a
> > >>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services,
> > >>>>>>>> you must
> > >>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> > >>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare
> > >>>>>>>> poorly.
> > >>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>
> > >>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law enforcement,
> > >>>>> and firefighting services either.
>
> > >>>> That's right.
>
> > >>> liar.
>
> > >> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>
> > > True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
> > > services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a representative,
> > > constitutional democracy.
>
> > So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
> > families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable? If
> > everyone in your community except you votes to make next Thursday "your
> > day" to be chased through the streets and beaten with iron bars, is that
> > acceptable?
>
> > You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights specify
> > things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not lawfully
> > do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>
> So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on top of
> majority rule.
>
> > Seizing value
> > you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought* to be
> > seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human rights. We don't
> > need a welfare system or food stamps or nationalized health care in
> > order for unfortunate people to be cared for. None of that existed in
> > the 19th century, and no one starved to death. People voluntarily will
> > help those less fortunate; they always have.
>
> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
> right to be free from taxation) and the policy (people do not
> voluntarily provide health care, that's obvious from the empirical
> evidence).
>
A lot of wackjobs want to see the FDA demolished, because they're
Libertarian ideologues who think that the magic of the market should
decide what works and what is snake oil.
I say that we test foods and drugs on them, so it's cheaper for the
corporations. That way we could save a fortune on taxes that are
spent on the FDA.
I just don't think that there are many candidates.
== 23 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:07 pm
From: Cyrus Purvis
On Oct 10, 3:54 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 3:44 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@Talk-n-
> > dog.com> wrote:
> >> Wilson Woods wrote:
> >>> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> >>>> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Translation: Mine mine mine mine mine mine mine mine. Screw you,
> >>>>>> mine mine mine mine.
> >>>>> Right. Piss and moan all you like, but it doesn't change the
> >>>>> *fact* that no one has a right to my effort.
>
> >>>> Again.... I say to you
>
> >>>> That NOTHING you have BELONGS to you
>
> >>> And *again*, I tell you that you're full of shit and wrong. What I
> >>> have *does* belong to me. It's mine. I own it, and I get to decide
> >>> how it's used, or if it's used at all.
>
> >> That was the PRE-Obama America, *WE ARE ALL SOCIALIST NOW*-
>
> > And you have a black leader!
>
> Nope, a half black one.
>
> > Sure! Canada and the UK had women;
>
> Britain never did.
>
You don't know about Dame Margaret Thatcher? Prime Minister?
She was one of Ronald Reagan's friends!
== 24 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:17 pm
From: Ork
On Oct 10, 2:57 pm, Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everyth...@talk-n-
dog.com> wrote:
> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Beam Me Up Scotty wrote
>
> >>> K wrote
> >>>> RickMerrill wrote
> >>>>> K wrote
> >>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service.
> >>>>>> Someone might choose to provide some goods and services
> >>>>>> to deadbeats, but that doesn't imply a right to them; and the
> >>>>>> provider may subsequently decide to stop providing them.
> >>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big
> >>>>>> screen TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
> >>>>>> don't have a "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
> >>>>>> services, you must pay for them, or you must persuade someone
> >>>>>> to give them to you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are
> >>>>>> weak, you'll fare poorly.
> >>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
> >>>>> You have the right to Pursue what makes you happy. If you 've never been
> >>>>> sick, then you might not understand that sickness makes you unhappy.
> >>>>> You have a constitutional right to purchase health care.
> >>>> It's not a constitutional right, but you do have a right to contract,
> >>>> and one thing you might contract to buy is health care.
> >>> Everything you buy is a contract....
> >> Wrong, as always.
>
> > I guess he's never heard of Caveat Emptor? :)
>
> The law recognizes a verbal contract.
Oh! I get it! You're telling us that you like the idea of "Liberal
Trial Lawyers" who go up against corporations when "the little guy" is
getting fucked! And I'm confident that you support Tort laws, which
allow law suits against physicans who are accused of misconduct.
Yeah! Sure!
== 25 of 25 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:17 pm
From: rgc@nodomain.none (Roy Culley)
begin risky.vbs
<haq56p$1t9$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
Jim_Higgins <gordian238@hotmail.com> writes:
> Roy Culley wrote:
>> <m3qvc5hip6ruj96j8885dt117s45qsad9s@4ax.com>,
>> no_one@void.nul writes:
>>> Only a fool says there is no God!
>>
>> Only a fool believes in a 'God' for which there is zero evidence and
>> based only on primitive myths.
>
> Psalm 14:1
Umtil you can show any evidence for your god you know where you can
stick your bible reference.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment