Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 4 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
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 - 20 messages, 12 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
* less wear on car, save gas, drive 55 - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0667e7a8ca75811?hl=en
* "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what
leftists think - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
* remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders were
really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without the
support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?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 20 ==
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.

== 2 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:22 pm
From: Ork

On Oct 10, 3:52 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I burned a flag pin once. But it was a Canadian flag pin, and it
just happened to be attached to a Beatles record, when we had this big
bonfire in the south, back in the 1960's after John Lennon said "We're
bigger than Jesus".

Burning Beatles records was all the rage back in those days.

== 3 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:46 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Josh Rosenbluth 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)

Yes you do. All you have to do is stay out of the areas that are taxed.

Dont have a job, dont own any property, dont buy what is sales taxed.

> and the policy (people do not voluntarily provide health care,

Some do just that.

> that's obvious from the empirical evidence).

Like hell it is.

== 4 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 1:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Cyrus Purvis wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Cyrus Purvis wrote
>>> 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?

Thats not a woman, stupid.

And she's a Baroness, not a Dame.

And a drunk.

> She was one of Ronald Reagan's friends!

Ronny's problem.

== 5 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 2:05 pm
From: Mark Anderson

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:22:02 -0700, Ork wrote:

> I burned a flag pin once. But it was a Canadian flag pin, and it just
> happened to be attached to a Beatles record, when we had this big
> bonfire in the south, back in the 1960's after John Lennon said "We're
> bigger than Jesus".
>
> Burning Beatles records was all the rage back in those days.

I'm sure Jesus is proud of you.

== 6 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:05 pm
From: Wilson Woods

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.

You don't, of course, which is why you had to put quotes around buy.

== 7 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:09 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Josh Rosenbluth 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.

That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a form
of government.

>> 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)

You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely to
give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
operation of the departments of government. Government may not
legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others. That's
called looting.

> and the policy (people do not
> voluntarily provide health care,

That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants or
open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
to dictate the extent of it.

== 8 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:11 pm
From: Wilson Woods

Cyrus Purvis wrote:
> 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?

I know where they *DON'T* come from: they are not granted or given by
the state.

> 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.

Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.

== 9 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:33 pm
From: John Q Public

On 2009-10-10 15:20:30 -0400, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> said:

> 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.

Your a fucking idiot, your socialist policies you love are what got us
to this point, the free market
is the only solution, its not perfect and it doesn't provide your so
called social justice but in the
end it always be more efficient and fair than any other system

== 10 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:36 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:33:48 -0400, John Q Public wrote:

> On 2009-10-10 15:20:30 -0400, Michael Coburn <mikcob@verizon.net> said:
>
>> 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.
>
> Your a fucking idiot, your socialist policies you love are what got us
> to this point, the free market
> is the only solution, its not perfect and it doesn't provide your so
> called social justice but in the
> end it always be more efficient and fair than any other system

The typical spittle and stupidity from the "free market" religious morons.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 11 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:41 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:40:42 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

> 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.
>> And 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.

Whenever the rightarded get their assess handed to them they muddy the
water and/or change the subject.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 12 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:48 pm
From: mg

On Oct 10, 10:25 am, 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. 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.

Most everyone undoubtedly has their own personal opinion of what their
"rights" are, or ought to be. If you were to ask 10 people, you might
get 10 different opinions depending on where they're at on the
political spectrum and their religious or moral beliefs. That's what a
democracy and our constitution are all about and if you want to
fantasize about some right that's not in the constitution and most of
your fellow citizens disagree with you, you're out of luck.

== 13 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:48 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:05:41 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:

> 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.
>
> You don't, of course, which is why you had to put quotes around buy.

Of course _I_ in particular do not have to buy your free medical care
because I do not have private sector "for profit" medical insurance. But
the vast majority with families must pay the rip off insurance companies
their "protection money" or, in the event that anyone in the family
incurs a serious medical problem, all assets will be wiped out. Hence,
the typical person pays for the care of the indigent (which may be
acceptable so long as the rich pay it too), but the free riders are also
supported.

I also don't have to "pursue happiness" or pay my electric bill either.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 14 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:56 pm
From: Always Right

On Oct 10, 5:05 pm, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 13:22:02 -0700, Ork wrote:
> > I burned a flag pin once. But it was a Canadian flag pin, and it just
> > happened to be attached to a Beatles record, when we had this big
> > bonfire in the south, back in the 1960's after John Lennon said "We're
> > bigger than Jesus".
>
> > Burning Beatles records was all the rage back in those days.
>
> I'm sure Jesus is proud of you.

I never saw a Ringo album that wasn't worth burning.

I really hated "Goodnight Vienna", and some of
George's stuff was simply awful until the Wilbury's.

== 15 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 4:12 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:25:51 -0700, Wilson Woods 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.

Then that would be "struck down", wouldn't it??????

>>> 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.

Nice editing job, lying pig. Just take it out of context and use it to
lie.

>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights.
>>
>> Right do not exist in "nature".
>
> Human rights exist in the mind of man.

Thank you for acknowledging reality. How monumental.

>>> 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.

Yes.. It is. If you're version of "rights" disagrees with the vast
majority then your version of "rights" is inoperable accept as a an
internalized religious view. You can sit in a jail cell believing you
have the right to rape chickens until you die. And so long as you
believe such is your "right" then it will be so. The "right" will do you
no good and when you die the "right" will die with you. But it _WILL_ be
your inalienable right until death do you part.

> > 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.

That is your opinion, moron. It is like your version of "rights". And
again you have edited what I have said in order to take it out of context
and lie like a typical rightarded lying pig. When I delete stuff I note
that I did so.

>>> 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.

The law typically DOES yield to "rights". We simply come back to the
problem YOUR internalized religious beliefs concerning a fixed set of
"rights" that SERVE _YOU_ and your rightarded pals in spite of the
society as a whole.

>>> 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.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 16 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 4:21 pm
From: Josh Rosenbluth

Wilson Woods wrote:

> Josh Rosenbluth 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.
>
>
> That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a form
> of government.

OK. Majority rule is overlayed on rights.

>>> 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)
>
>
> You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely to
> give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
> functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
> operation of the departments of government. Government may not
> legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others. That's
> called looting.

You and I have different views about the legitimate functions of
government. I would include health care for all in those functions (at
the option of the majority). I have no doubt the courts would agree
with me.

>> and the policy (people do not
>> voluntarily provide health care,
>
>
> That's a lie. Doctors traditionally gave away quite a lot of medical
> care without compensation. It might not have been liver transplants or
> open heart surgery, but you don't have a right to those anyway. If
> you're the beneficiary of others' generosity, you don't have any power
> to dictate the extent of it.

I guess I was mistaken about the millions of people with inadequate
health care in the USA.

Josh Rosenbluth

== 17 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 4:24 pm
From: Josh Rosenbluth

Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.

Did you just say longer life spans and lower infant mortality should be
reserved to those who can afford it? That crazy-ass Congressman who
accused Republicans of wanting the poor to die quickly might have told
the truth had he been speaking about you.

Josh Rosenbluth

== 18 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 4:27 pm
From: Joe

On Oct 10, 2:17 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.

I believe health care is a right just as every child has a right to an
education. These are not luxuries, but necessities.

== 19 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:13 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:11:04 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:

> Cyrus Purvis wrote:
>> 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?
>
> I know where they *DON'T* come from: they are not granted or given by
> the state.

Only those "rights" enforced by "the state" are of any economic or social
benefit. "The state" in modern time and in any proper "republican form
of government", should represent the thoughtful deliberations of the
society. Ergo, "rights" of social and economic value are "recognized"
and "enforced" by the society through "the state". That certain of these
"rights" are agreed to be sacrosanct from a simple majority and therefore
written into a Constitution that can only be changed by agreement of a
super majority attests to the fact that "rights" are agreements between
the sentient beings of a society and not an inviolate religious dogma.

>> 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.
>
> Yes, of course it should be reserved to those who can afford it.

Self evident truths are a matter of belief. Truths concerning the rules
of society are only "self evident" to those who believe them to be so.
Still, the formation of a sovereign state is normally based on the shared
opinions concerning self evident truth. Did Americans believe as the
words of the Declaration of Independence proclaimed? Do Americans
believe these doctrines today?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed".

Those of us who understand the English language do not have a problem
parsing this passage from the DCI. The ROOT proposition is that all are
created equal with regard to "life, liberty, and pursuit". Many will
legitimately argue that "pursuit" is redundant in that "liberty" already
encompasses "pursuit". And most are capable of understanding that the
reason for the existence of "the state" is t "secure these rights" as
directed by the people themselves.

To than say that these "rights" are only available to those who can
afford it seems to be the position of the latter day Republican fascist
party. If all are created equal regarding the right to life then the
right to medical care is also equal. So to the right to food. We have
long since passed the point where people are allowed to starve in this
country. They may be allowed to freeze to death under a bridge, but the
food banks and the shelters and the food stamps prevent starvation. IN
1986 the Republican government created the EMTALA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EMTALA

The Democrats, since that time, have been trying to figure out how to pay
for it.

--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson

== 20 of 20 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:18 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 9, 3:53 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mrs Irish Mike wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 1:44 pm, John Galt <kady...@gmail.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.
> >>> Solution: remedial preschool in order to fully comprehend the lesson
> >>> of sharing.
> >> You think taxation is "sharing"?
>
> >> Please. The issue has more moving parts than that.
>
> >> JG
>
> > I am waiting for all you John Galts to shit or get off the pot.
>
> Wait all you like. Are you doing to answer the question? Is taxation, to
> you "sharing?"
>
> Take
>
> > to 'superior' minds and riches and move to some 'effing island like
> > you 'threaten' to.
>
> Many already have, many more probably will. Are you going to answer the
> question?
>
> The sooner you leave the better for the rest of
>
> > Americans.
>
> I *am* an American, and have as many votes as you do. (OK, I guess
> you're not going to answer the question.)
>
>
>
> > So when you leaving?
>
> My preference is to beat you looters' heads into the ground. You never
> succeed for long, since your economic policies are unsustainable, and
> the electorate always comes to their senses.
>
> This time, it looks like a very short learning curve.
>
> JG

i am sure that the founders would look at a asshole as you, as a
tory, and would have shown you to the door.
this of course will mean nothing to a idiot, but the rest of us will
understand its truths, and how it applies to america, today.
you can see paines hand in the preamble, and constitution.
here is one for that stupid selfish fucker galt,
"In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits."

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm

Philosopher of the Month
December 2000 - Thomas Paine
Robin Harwood
The great and glorious Thomas Paine was a political theorist who tried
to put his theories into action. His aim was to free human beings from
oppressive government, oppressive religions, and oppressive poverty.
His method was to appeal to reason, so that all people could recognise
truth and justice. His achievements were spectacular. Paine invented
America, took part in the French Revolution, and inspired
revolutionary movements in Britain. The American Revolution was a
success, the French revolution was a disaster, and the British
Revolution never happened. Even so, Paine's ideas of democracy and
social welfare have been at least partly realized not only in these
countries, but in many other countries as well.
He was born in England, but his life there was difficult, and on
Benjamin Franklin's advice, he emigrated to the New World. Paine
arrived in Philadelphia in 1774, and took a job as editor for the
Pennsylvania Magazine. One of his first essays was a call for the
abolition of slavery. Inspired by the first moves of the American
Revolution, he wrote the pamphlet Common Sense (1776), in which he
argued that independence was both morally justified and the only
practical option for the American Colonies. The book was massively
influential, and converted many waverers, including Thomas Jefferson
and George Washington, to the idea of the United States of America
(Paine coined the name) as an independent nation.
After the War of Independence was over, he went to France, and then to
England, where he wrote The Rights of Man. Paine's message was clear
and powerful.
All individual human beings, he argued, are created with equal rights.
However, human beings do not live as isolated individuals, but as
members of society. In society we flourish fully, both because we can
enjoy the company of other people, and from being able to gain help
and support from each other. Nonetheless, human beings are not perfect
and so sometimes infringe each other's rights. As individuals we may
not have the power to exercise some of our rights, such as the right
to protect ourselves. Thus, we create the state to protect those
rights, and the individual's natural right is transformed into a civil
right of protection. Also, as members of the state, we gain additional
rights, such as the right to vote, and the right to run for office.
The only legitimate form of state is a democratic republic. Hereditary
monarchy is morally illegitimate, since it denies the current
generation the right to choose their own leaders.
Of course, Paine held that we also have duties. We have a duty to
protect the rights of our fellow citizens, and to maintain society,
but we also have to improve, enrich, and benefit society. This
includes the duty to eliminate poverty as much as we can. Paine
proposed a system of welfare to do just this. This welfare was not
charity, but a civil right.
The popularity of the book frightened the British Government. Paine
was outlawed for treason, and he fled to France. The British
revolutionary movements were squashed.
The French elected Paine to a seat in the National Convention. During
the Terror he was imprisoned and came close to being executed. After
his release, he took little active part in French politics, and
concentrated mostly on writing, particularly on religion and
economics. He produced The Age of Reason, arguing for Deism, and
against atheism and Christianity. He demonstrated that Christian
theology was unreasonable, and the doctrine of redemption was immoral.
He also showed that the Bible cannot be divine revelation, and
condemned it for its portrayal of God as cruel and vindictive.
In Agrarian Justice, he returned to the question of rights and social
justice. Civilization, he argued, should not throw people into a worse
condition than they would be in if they were uncivilized, and yet in
Europe many people were poorer than American Indians. The Earth had
been given by God as common property to all men, but the system of
land ownership meant that only some could use it. Paine argued that
they should compensate the others by paying a ground rent to society.
Also, he argued that no-one could produce riches without the support
of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society. This would provide funds for a social program that
included education, pensions, unemployment benefits, and maternity
benefits.
When Paine finally returned to America in 1802, his writings on
religion had made him an unpopular figure. Nonetheless, Paine did yet
another great service to his ungrateful country, in proposing that the
U.S.A. buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon. Jefferson took
Paine's advice, and thus more than doubled the size of the United
States.
Paine carried on writing to the end, but his old age was miserable,
and he died in obscurity. Officialdom has preferred to ignore him,
even when carrying out his proposals, and his name is seldom on the
lists of great men, and yet many of his ideas are common currency now.
However, much of the world is still not completely free from political
oppression, organized religion, and poverty. We can still learn from
him.

Suggested reading Thomas Paine, A. J. Ayer, (Secker and Warburg) The
Thomas Paine Reader, ed. Michael Foot and Isaac Kramnick (Penguin) Tom
Paine: a political life, John Keane, (Little, Brown and Company)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: less wear on car, save gas, drive 55
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0667e7a8ca75811?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:22 pm
From: Al

On Oct 9, 10:55 pm, bob syr <rcran...@syr.edu> wrote:
> Why a law? Anybody who wants to can drive 55 on the interstate. I
> find it more relaxing and the time "wasted" isn't that much of a
> factor, even on a long trip. On a recent trip from NY to NC, I drove
> down I81 to W.Va. and had no problems. It was night so as I drove
> down I95 I didn't have any problems. On the return trip however, I
> drove up I95 to the Washington-Baltimore beltways during the day.
> After going through Richmond going north, I experienced people getting
> annoyed at my slow speed. I got a couple of honks, a few flip-offs,
> but most important, I felt that my slow 55mph speed might have
> actually been too dangerous in that high-speed, high-density traffic.
>
> I figure that those drivers who are passing me left and right as I go
> slow should be allowed to go as fast as they want. They paid their
> own hard earned money for their gas guzzlers and by god those hard-
> working citizens should be able to drive as fast as they want. ;->
> WkWkNdgNdg After all it's their money they're burning and as far as
> I'm concerned they are hastening up depletion of the oil supply, and
> not a minute too soon as far as I'm concerned, by god!
>
> One thing you don't hear about as much is that driving 55 places less
> wear on the car, especially small ones. Next time I make that trip
> I'm going to rent a car and then I can move my speed up closer to the
> average speed others are driving. I won't be wearing out my own car
> that way.
>
> Happy motoring - Bob

You are stuck in the 50's, Bob.
All you did was piss off a thousand other drivers as you went your
merry way.
How much do you think you saved on this 40 mile trip from Washington
to Baltimore?
How is renting a car going to save money?
And if you are willing to rent a car so you can drive normally, you
are not as concerned about saving oil as you stated.
In short, you don't make any sense whatever.
Take a bus, a very short bus.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 3:45 pm
From: Mrs Irish Mike

You are spot on. I drive cars for years and love to see 200K and more
on the odometer. One of the things I do is drive 55. The easiest thing
to do is to get behind a large truck that is going about the right
speed. Trucks take longer to brake, so I reduce my chance of a rear
end collision. Also the trucks tend to cut through the wind resistance
and pull you along, further reducing the wear on your car. With the
truck in front, most drivers will not want to get between you and the
truck.

When I was much younger (and even more stupidier) I drafted a semi
with my VW bug. I got real close to his bumper and drafted him for
nearly 300 miles. I hardly had my foot on the gas. I exited when he
did and refueled, and found I was getting in excess of 50 mpg. Getting
that close to a truck is dangerous, but a safe distance (1 car length
X 10 mph) can make a difference also.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Promote the general welfare of the United States" - doesn't mean what
leftists think
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3f1993b181e2faf4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:13 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

On Oct 10, 12:21 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Nickname unavailable wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 10:40 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >> Tater Gumfries wrote:
> >>> On Oct 8, 12:48 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>> The clause in Article I Section 8 does not mean to provide goods and
> >>>> services to people. It means to promote welfare - the interests - of
> >>>> the United States of America as a political entity - that is, as a nation.
> >>> That ain't what the founders said about it.
> >> It is.
>
> > nope,
>
> Yep.

chirp, chirp, chirp on thomas paine hey idiot:)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:30 pm
From: Tim Crowley

awww, how cute. the insane retard changed her "handle".

"plonk"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders
were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without
the support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it
back to society
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Oct 10 2009 5:40 pm
From: Nickname unavailable

misc.consumers.frugal-living, alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,
soc.retirement, alt.california

lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the
founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could
produce riches without the support of society, so anyone who
accumulates property owes a part of it back to society for social
programs

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm

==============================================================================

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Saturday, October 10, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 4 topics - digest

No comments: