RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor

RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 4:29:25 PM)
Edwards wants to force me to see a Doctor, eh? Ok, is she "Hot?" I had a real hot one up in N.H.! That's why I chose her! I couldn't have cared less if she'd gone to medical school or not! "Mr P....., ANOTHER testical and penis exam?" "A snake bit my penis."

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 7:12:51 PM)
quote: you are now correct in your statement. R Hopefully, I got to this before you read it, I have slightly changed my post that you replied to, but hope you feel that I have not mislead you in what I said, it wouldn't seem so at any rate. I’m really confused now. I’m not sure what you overall contention is. Are you saying that the Constitution was subverted a long time ago, the Federal government will do what it wants to do, so why bother whining about it? Or Are you saying the Federal Government can do what it wants, and that’s a good thing because we need universal healthcare, compulsory education, etc.?

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 8:32:42 PM)
quote: ...why? ...that is, why are the words of long dead men so integral to all social debate in the US? Were they supermen, holding powers of mind far in excess of what is known now? Quite the contrary, and they knew it. They understood the limits of knowledge. They also knew the seductiveness of power. That is why they designed a system of distributed power and checks and balances – to prevent any one part of the government from becoming too powerful. quote: Why, when discussing US social policy, is it so damn important to go ask the constitution? Can no-one have an idea not covered in its august paragraphs? Certainly people can have ideas. They can have all the ideas they want. That’s kind of the idea behind the first amendment – people can have all the ideas they want and the government is not allowed to say boo about it. However, it is not a good idea to let a few people implement ideas that can affect the lives of millions of others on mere whim. A little circumspection is in order. That’s why legislation has to go through a process before it becomes law. That’s why some people aren’t allowed to implement some ideas at all. That is why the Federal Government (a natural concentration of power and a natural attractant of the power seeking) is limited in what ideas it can implement, and what authority it can wield. Under the U.S. Constitutional system people can have a state run health care system if that is what they really want. They can have it under the State itself! If the majority of the people of Massachusetts want a state run health care system, they can vote it in – and they don’t have to convince anyone in Oklahoma (or any other State for that matter) to go along with it. BUT They can’t charge the people of Oklahoma for their state run health care system either. They’ll have to pay for it themselves. Seems only fair, doesn’t it? After all, maybe the majority of Oklahomans don’t want anything to do with any pinko, commie, state run health care. And if anyone in one state don’t like how things turned out in their state – they can move! Same thing for education. If one State wants to have a state run public school system with a set curriculum and compulsory attendance, they can while if another state leaves education policy up to the counties, allows home schooling and doesn’t make attendance compulsory, it can too. When observed, the U.S. Constitutional system actually improves the chances of new ideas being tried. It just limits how many people have to be subject to someone else’s ideas. It has the added benefit of "testing" many ideas at once, with the results plain to see. quote: What was the literacy rate when it was written? Could these people have foreseen a time when education is the major key to economic success, and thus social stability? If they had, wouldn't they have mentioned it? If they hadn't then why are their words relevant to the specific debate? Their words are relevant because the Constitution is relevant to the debate. This is how we govern ourselves. At least, it is supposed to be.

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 8:37:24 PM)
quote: are you sure this is the best time to quote 'Oliver Twist'? I saw Oliver! in Stratford, Ontario and it was an excellent prodution. The time for my Stratford visit and my yearly dose of Shakespeare draws nigh! Can't wait to see Graham Green in The Merchant of Venice and Of mice and Men. My cat (RIP) was named after Oliver Twist. Just thought I'd toss these tidbits (or should I say Tim-bits?) in.

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 8:41:52 PM)
quote: I don't mind helping my fellow man. I object to the government helping themself to my money, while my fellow man still goes without. BINGO! quote: And what happened to my fellow man helping me as well? Society has gone too far to an entitlement mentality, where everyone thinks their entitled to everything, and therefore need to work for nothing. [sm=applause.gif]

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 8:48:33 PM)
quote: "Mr P....., ANOTHER testical and penis exam?" "A snake bit my penis." Cue the music. "Doctor, doctor, can you see the real me?" By... I forget who... so all due credit to whoever credit is due. Will punctured penises be covered by universal health care?

Estring -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 8:51:30 PM)
I sure don't worry about anything Edwards wants. He has about as much of a chance at being president as Miss Teen South Carolina does.

Sinergy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 10:23:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b Which would you rather have, several companies competing with each other to please you via the quality of their care and their prices because failure to please the customers means they might lose their jobs – or – a single massive bureaucracy whose workers don’t have to worry about pleasing you to keep their jobs. [sarcasm] A perfect example of a non-regulated industry which seeks to excel by pitting various companies against each would be cell phone providers. Because it is obvious that if they upgraded their systems and provided better service to the customers than the other guy, they would excel. [/sarcasm] The reality is that their money is used to hire people away from other companies with advertising, rather than making cell systems that actually work and relying on providing a superior product to become that top dog. Sinergy

thompsonx -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/4/2007 10:31:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: I generally agree with you Marc, but I have to point out the food distribution system is full of gov interference and support. I am more inclined towards carefull cutting with a very sharp knife than whacking with an axe. There is little today that is not free of government interference but generally speaking, the less government interference, the better. Imagine if food production and distribution were run on a purely socialist model. I really would have the whack Thompson upside the head so I could eat him. Marc2b: Your continued threats of personal violence against me seems to indicate that you are in the camp of the right wing thugs who have fled Venezuela to live in your neighborhood. Why is it that you feel compelled to threaten me with physical violence? Do you not posses the intellectual capacity to discuss this matter in a rational fashion? Is not violence against those who disagree with you the hallmark of the very dictators whom you claim to despise? thompson

chellekitty -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 2:19:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Dickens was a social reformer in a time when being poor was seen as being wholly the poor persons problem. He advocated personal charity as opposed to any state action, but was unsure if that would work. Hence the ambivilance in his work and his anxiety over what direction his society was moving towards......... dude...you read way too much into things...its about the message not the messenger...or do you always read a book by its cover? only look at art by certain artists? would you shit a brick if you found out your favorite painting was done by a former nazi who ran away and was hiding out having a nice long life on some white sandy beach with clear blue oceans? it was one line, from one scene, from one play...

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 8:32:38 AM)
quote: A perfect example of a non-regulated industry which seeks to excel by pitting various companies against each would be cell phone providers. Because it is obvious that if they upgraded their systems and provided better service to the customers than the other guy, they would excel. [/sarcasm] The reality is that their money is used to hire people away from other companies with advertising, rather than making cell systems that actually work and relying on providing a superior product to become that top dog. I'm quite happy with my cell phone company. Reasonable rates, great coverage. What's to bitch about? If you don't like the service you're getting, try someone else (and be happy that you can try someone else and aren't stuck with a single, government run, carrier).

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 8:34:41 AM)
quote: Your continued threats of personal violence against me seems to indicate that you are in the camp of the right wing thugs who have fled Venezuela to live in your neighborhood. Why is it that you feel compelled to threaten me with physical violence? Do you not posses the intellectual capacity to discuss this matter in a rational fashion? Is not violence against those who disagree with you the hallmark of the very dictators whom you claim to despise? You really are a simple minded creature, aren't you?

philosophy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:13:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Dickens was a social reformer in a time when being poor was seen as being wholly the poor persons problem. He advocated personal charity as opposed to any state action, but was unsure if that would work. Hence the ambivilance in his work and his anxiety over what direction his society was moving towards......... dude...you read way too much into things...its about the message not the messenger...or do you always read a book by its cover? only look at art by certain artists? would you shit a brick if you found out your favorite painting was done by a former nazi who ran away and was hiding out having a nice long life on some white sandy beach with clear blue oceans? it was one line, from one scene, from one play... ...ah but context is everything......and you can bet that Dickens would have something interesting to contribute to this very debate...........

chellekitty -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:22:48 AM)
context is everything....however...you added information that was not contextual...and therefore irrelevant to the arguement...

philosophy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:26:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: chellekitty context is everything....however...you added information that was not contextual...and therefore irrelevant to the arguement... ......on reflection you may decide that the example of social reform minded people from history may be more relevant than you first thought..........as i mentioned earlier Dickens was ambivilant in the end, not sure how to make social reform work even though it was obvious to him that it had to work. Today, in much of the western world we struggle with the same kind of problem.........Dickens example is definitely relevant......

chellekitty -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 10:45:15 AM)
ok...so i quoted a line from play...and the context around that quote would be the scene it is in...because according to my dictionary this is the definition of context: discourse that surrounds a language unit and helps to determine its interpretation no where in that definition does it say anything about who the author/speaker of said discourse is, nor their personal political/philosophical/religious/insert thought and/or belief set pattern here are we gonna keep playing this...dang it brain fart...but...i recognize historical value...heck i can even go back a little bit further than charles dickens...there was a quote i pulled out of my NA basic text that one person claimed was an original quote from the bible and another claimed was an original quote from one of the nature philosophers...i don't think it was an original quote from either because english hadn't even been conceptualized at that point but, the general concept may have come from either or both, but did some one in biblical times come up with it on their own or did they write it down after studying the nature philosophers? was it in written or oral form? you seem to think that i will have some great moment of enlightenment when i will see your way...but...maybe our paths are different...cause my glasses are lavendar while yours are...whatever color...so...good luck with that whole seance with dickens thing... edited for formatting

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 11:41:49 AM)
"and from the nothingness of good works, she passed to the somethingness of ham and toast with great cheerfulness." -- Charles Dickens

Sinergy -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 12:17:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b There is little today that is not free of government interference but generally speaking, the less government interference, the better. Imagine if food production and distribution were run on a purely socialist model. I really would have the whack Thompson upside the head so I could eat him. Au contraire. Both Iraq and Katrina are situations where the Federal Government did not institute any rigorous control over the actions of corporations. Look how well they turned out. Food production, medical practices, quality of medicines, water quality, emergency management, power pricing, driving laws, interstate commerce, communications, etc., are all situations where government control kept things running along swimmingly until the voters were convinced to deregulate. I dont know about your state, but after California deregulated cable television and electrical power, prices shot up. The situations where deregulation and a hands-off approach by the Government in terms of regulation had positive outcomes for the consumer are fairly few and far between. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 12:30:02 PM)
and there is enough evidence right there, that I think we can leave airlines out of it. Ron

Marc2b -> RE: Edwards wants to force you to see a doctor (9/5/2007 1:22:52 PM)
quote: Au contraire. Both Iraq and Katrina are situations where the Federal Government did not institute any rigorous control over the actions of corporations. Look how well they turned out. Food production, medical practices, quality of medicines, water quality, emergency management, power pricing, driving laws, interstate commerce, communications, etc., are all situations where government control kept things running along swimmingly until the voters were convinced to deregulate. I dont know about your state, but after California deregulated cable television and electrical power, prices shot up. The situations where deregulation and a hands-off approach by the Government in terms of regulation had positive outcomes for the consumer are fairly few and far between. First things first, because I seem to need to explain this to people – being against socialism (a centrally planned economy), being against excessive regulation does not mean that I am against all regulations. I certainly don’t have a problem with laws on where you can dump you toxic waste or what have you. That aside... I’ve talked to many people who’ve been in Iraq, both in a military and civilian context, and if there is one thing they agree on, it is that – except for the Baghdad area – things over there aren’t near as bad as the media would have you believe. One guy told me that there are places you’d be hard pressed to tell from any American suburb. And, if your thinking of Haliburton, remember that they didn’t have to compete for their contract – they were awarded a no bid contract. As for the aftermath of Katrina... thousands of volunteers went down their and provide much more aid and comfort than the government could. All FEMA did was stumble around, trying to fill out forms in triplicate with both thumbs up it’s ass. A friend of mine moved down there because her husband’s skill as a carpenter were in such high demand that he was being offered three times as much as he could make around here. He’s still down there and I’ll bet he’s done more to rebuild people’s homes than the government has ("please fill out these forms then wait six to ten weeks for us to tell you that the forms have been lost."). As for the cable and electric industries in California, if prices went up after deregulation then that means the prices were being kept artificially low and besides, deregulation may not be the only reason for price increases. If supply is low and demand goes up... well... I’m given to understand that California hasn’t built a new power plant in what?... ten, fifteen years? The bottom line is this: in any situation who is more qualified to make certain decisions, knowledgeable, experienced people on the scene with a stake in keeping the consumer happy or a government bureaucrat, sitting in an office thousands of miles away, operating on untested theory and with no stake in the outcome?

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875