ReelinRoc did not say that liberal progressives' deeply held beliefs had no foundation, he said they rested on no CONCRETE foundation. Foundations can and often are slippery, sandy, foolish entities.

His implication, among others, is that the concept of "principles" is counterintuitive to moral relativism, that cornerstone of liberal/progressive thinking.

When you say he is "declaring" words or ideas to be invalid on his personal judgement . . . it's called hubris--isn't that what you are doing to HIS words and ideas--is that hubris? Perhaps, anyway, his personal judgement is superior to yours. OH!--that's right--I forgot--moral relativism doesn't allow for hubris.

Your reference to his supposed "circular argument" shows it went over your head. And "talk radio stereotypes"??? Is that dismissing out of hand by simply calling names. Typical liberal trick.

You don't have to be a commie to espouse ideas generated by the soviet revolution.

"Change by the courts alone"??? What part of the Constitution allows for change via the courts at all?

He didn't say there were no principles behind the redefined rights--the fuzzy, moldable menu of goods and services, privileges, and entitlements. He opined that the "federal government possesses very little authority to act upon those issues in any fashion."

Your comments seem to nitpick at some of his language, but don't engage, at all, his constitutional argument.

I'm not going to argue the notion of a negatively biased constution, for the most part it is. But the application of the constution as an absolute isn't very practical, there are always exceptions. The lession I take is that those exceptions should be very well thought out.

Moral relativism is a deke, I don't know anybody who believes it should be a guiding principal in a pure form. The reality is that the vast majority of the country lives, quite well mind you, with a combination of beliefs.

Too much of anything will kill you.

-spence

[QUOTE=detbuch;

Your comments seem to nitpick at some of his language, but don't engage, at all, his constitutional argument.[/QUOTE]

classic Saul Alinsky....I think John R pointed this out very clearly a short time ago...his purpose is never to prevail in an argument because he can't based on facts, destroy/discredit the opponent...his objective is to find a tiny flaw with your argument, even just one word... and focus on that and claim that since this is erroneous your entire stance is invalid and you are discredited, throw in a couple of smarmy insults as you kick dirt in the hole and he is elevated while having not really achieved anything of sustance...

"I'm not going to argue the notion of a negatively biased constution, for the most part it is. But the application of the constution as an absolute isn't very practical, there are always exceptions. The lession I take is that those exceptions should be very well thought out.

Moral relativism is a deke, I don't know anybody who believes it should be a guiding principal in a pure form. The reality is that the vast majority of the country lives, quite well mind you, with a combination of beliefs.

Too much of anything will kill you.

-spence "

this is Obama off the teleprompter gobligook...

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

I don't think the entire argument is invalid, quite the opposite in fact I happen to agree with a lot of it. What I don't agree with is the outright demonization of liberalism based on the rejection of moral relativism. This I do believe is a bunk argument.

If you ever botherd to read any of my posts you'd know that I nearly always work from a centrist position.

According to some, this means I believe in nothing :bshake:

-spence

Superficially supported beliefs can be deeply held, have you ever dealt with a woman with PMS?

The two terms, "values" and "principles" identify beliefs of very different origin. Principles are foundational and unalterable and generally last a lifetime; values are fluid and undergo constant examination and tweaking to conform to one's feelings at that moment.

No, those sentiments come from nearly 20 years of experience debating liberals about gun control on the internet. First was talk.politics.guns on USENET, way before any forums had a presence on the WWW, then once that technology took off, on many news and politics forums on the web. Gun control is one topic where all those peccadilloes of liberals are really exposed and liberal's true beliefs about individual liberty shine through.

But to the topic at hand; usually the most ardent "strict gun control" supporters are the ones most ignorant of firearms and their most simple functions as mechanical objects, let alone technical aspects like ballistics . . . Those people "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position.

In fact, their profound ignorance is worn as a badge of honor because they don't want to share anything, even knowledge, with Neanderthal gun-nuts. They are incapable of logical thought and utterly immune to logical debate because, as I said, their entire position is based in emotion and "feelings" so opposition in debate is viewed as an attack on them personally. I always knew when I won when liberal's replies contained nothing but personal insults and then accusations of Nazi sympathies. (Of course whenever the liberals invoked the Nazi's I automatically won because of Godwin's Law)

Yes they were and the progressive political philosophers who wrote the treatises that influenced the progressive founders wrote them as denunciations of the authoritarian King ruling over his subjects any way he saw fit. Funny how things have a way of coming around. Today's progressives are tearing apart everything our progressive founder's built.

I agree, but . . . The fundamental principles upon which the Constitution rests are unalterable and all law and even amendments must be in agreement with those principles. See Marbury v Madison:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Since the Constitution is supreme and the governmental powers granted through it are strictly defined and thus limited, government "can seldom act," thus no LEGITIMATE power to change those principles exists. There is no way to empower the government to retroactively change them, even by an amendment demanded by the people. The legitimate path is to erect a new Constitution based on new principles to establish a new government to better serve the wishes of the people.

I specifically avoided using the "communist" label . . . One can promote and endorse "communitarian" ideals and not be a communist. Do you have an alternate history to offer for the genesis of social, cultural and economic "rights" and their emergence in western culture, post Depression, other than the Soviet Revolution and communitarian thought being embraced by the powers that be? Is there any evidence of such thought from the founding period? Where exactly do you think the general philosophy came from?

Speaking as he was . . .

the recording from '01

. . . as an Illinois state senator, his comments are perfectly understandable. The comments and the sentiments behind them must now be re-filtered through the Presidency and the opportunity Obama has to shape the federal judiciary with ideologues who agree with him that the "fundamental flaw in the Constitution and its interpretation" must be corrected.

Back then, he was speaking as a law professor and state senator with those position's limited impact and "legislative" bias on display (he admits this in the recording). The realization has occurred that what he once thought only possible via the legislature, is not viable politically; . . . and what he once thought impossible though the courts, is possible with the new duty to nominate federal judges and Justices in his hands.

He is Plato's Philosopher King but without wisdom, just power.

I can not compose a reasoned reply for this, when read in the context of my statement you quote . . .

Monthly :lama:


Most people use them interchangeably, although I think you have them reversed. Value is the unalterable belief and a principal would guide how the value was applied.

I think the liberal position on gun control is pretty straightforward and is based on individual liberty (a deeply held value), or more precisely the right to not have your safety taken away by another.

That being said I think the counter argument is stronger. I've always been a proponent for responsible gun ownership.

Certainly there are elements of the AWB that are based on emotion, such as the restrictions on weapons that "look" more dangerous. I don't think this is necessarily illogical though, a lawmaker has to draw the line somewhere. For instance that evil "looking" semi-auto could be indistinguishable from a real automatic weapon in the eyes of law enforcement.

This cuts both ways. Many consider the Bush administrations radically progressive response to 9/11 as running counter to our Founder's principals as well. I don't think one faction has a monopoly on constitutional erosion.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Liberals are not necessarily opposed to the fundamental values of liberty and equality, but rather the application of these values often differs from that of conservatives. Holding the constitution as supreme is always going to be seen through a lens if your interpretation of the values differs. Hence, the basis for this entire discussion.

Was there influence from the communist thinking of the time? I'm sure there was...even The Communist Manifesto makes an interesting point now and then. I think progressive ideas came about in this country largely as a response to how were evolving as an industrialized nation and as an alternative to socialism.


You use quotes but I don't hear that statement in the audio.

Obama's point, that the framers of the Constitution had a "blind spot" on the issue of civil rights and that the Warren Courts weren't really that radical...isn't that radical of a statement.

I think he was speaking as an academic.

But ultimately the proof is in the putting. Had Obama's intent been to subvert the Constitution via the bench, the nomination of Sotomayor was a very poor choice.

-spence

ReelinRod refers to liberal/progressives going on about values and is shocked that you used the word "principles." Saying that that "principle" is usually at odds with the lib/prog agenda. In this post, you prove his contention by "progressively" morphing PRINCIPLE and CONCEPT into VALUE. You say that "most people" use principle and value interchangeably. Perhaps, (I don't think that's true) but "most people" is irrelevent to THIS discussion. More important, you are wrong to assert that RR has reversed the words. RR's use, throughout, is correct. By definition, a principle is a basic truth. IT is unalterable. VALUES change and fluctuate. There are phrases like "fundamental principles." Even you, in your first post to this thread, differentiated between "a set of issues" and "a set of core principles". When RR refers to the Constitution being founded upon the PRINCIPLE of "all not surrendered is retained" it would be awkward to say the VALUE of "all not surrendered is retained." Originally, in this thread, you and RR used the phrase "the fundamental CONCEPTS of liberty and equality". Later you changed the phrase to "the fundamental VALUES of liberty and equality". You say "liberals are not necessarily opposed to the fundamental values of liberty and equality." (?not necessarily??) "But rather the application of these values often differs from . . . conservatives . . . to be seen through a lens if your INTERPRETATION of the values differs." In that paragraph you belie your own assertion that a value is an unalterable belief. You don't interpret an unalterable belief. The principle of jet propulsion, for instance, is not to be interpreted. You might interpret the value of jet propulsion, whether it is necessary, too expensive, too toxic, just wonderful, etc. But the PRINCIPLE (not the VALUE as you imply) of jet propulsion is to be APPLIED, not interpreted.

So, if for a lilberal, liberty and equality are values, not unalterable principles, to be interpreted, one way by a lib, another way by a con, and who knows what way by any number of anybodys, and if all the rights granted or implied by the Constitution are values to be interpreted in any number of differing ways and not unalterable principles that apply to all alike, then the Constitution is not only flawed, but worthless.

Perhaps that is what those who wish to CHANGE it want.

PLEASE KEEP GOING THIS IS SO VERY INSTRUCTIVE..... AND REVEALING :claps:

Reading online I generally see (and according to the dictionary) it's clear (to me at least) that values are the building blocks of principals. I do see some sites that reverse it, so clearly people do read it both ways.

Regardless, you're just mincing words, it's what you believe that's important. And to think that in this very thread you were accusing me of trying to nitpick on a single point in invalidate an argument. That didn't take long...:hs:

That's because it's not a value, it's a principal concept, made up by people, that was meant to set limits on the Federal Government. The limit (i.e. principal) is based on the value of liberty which can't be changed if it's given from God.

In your example the value would be thrust, and jet propulsion would be a method of achieving that thrust.

My principal may be based on a propeller (like the one on Scott's head), but we both believe god has given us the right to move forward.

Take equality as a good example. That is a value that our Founding Fathers jumped on as pretty important. A conservative is likely to interpret this strictly as it was written, that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you.

A progressive, who also believes in the value of equality might argue that since the world is a complex system with overlapping generations that equality should extend beyond birth. A good example might be the progressive tax system. I believe it was a principal exposed by Karl Marx, but perhaps based on different values. Some, like Ted Kennedy would argue that if not for it we might not have had the rise of the middle class and the economic engine that it created. Personally I feel there's some merit to this and don't discount the idea simply because it shares socialistic roots.

It's certainly fair to argue that how it has sometimes been applied in this country (i.e. Federal welfare programs) violates the intent of "not surrendered is retained".

But neither has changed the fundamental meaning of equality. For the most part all Americans believe in applying equal rights via citizenship to everyone born on our soil.

Go to other countries and they don't allow this right because their values are different.

Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. If Obama's more left of center policies don't deliver short-term results it will show in the mid-term elections.

-spence

this is so convoluted Spence...principles(our founding principles) are the basic "building blocks", "truths that we hold to be self evident" that identify, unify and distinguish our nation...VALUES are simply the degree to which an individual or group feels compelled/obligated to adhere to these princilpes based on their wants/needs/beliefs at the time... (values) are not "unalterable beliefs" they change constantly among individuals as well as groups....Values change over time, principles do not...you have this completely upside down because you seek, promote values based on no principles, arbitrary to suit your whims....we all share the same basic principles on which this country is founded, we all have differing values however, for a whole host of reasons...liberal progressives seek to make their values univeral through the deconstruction of the Constitution and it's principles, activism on the courts, supression and activism in the press...the disdain is obvious...the evidence is abundant, I don't think that most self -described "liberals/democrats" have the slightest clue as to the Progressive agenda or the history of the Progressive movement in this country...I hope that this conversation continues because you making things crystal clear and are revealing yourself in a frightening way...nice job :spin:

Primarily, the Independent voters who got Obama elected wanted a more transparent government and pragmatic policies. they are getting neither

You seem to be having a difficult time differentiating between words and ideas. Call them farnicks and labdubs for all I care...it doesn't change the argument at all...

I think I now understand the argument that the liberal position isn't based on a strong foundation. They just lay claim to the words they want and assert the other side is left empty.

The FOX News crowd seems quite enamored by Glenn Beck these days, here are his top values and principals. See how perhaps if we stopped being honest (a value) that a principal like "America is good" could change.

-spence

now you are babbling...

America is "good" while not perfect and has been an extraordinary force of good on this planet since it's inception and has done more to improve humanity through charity, protection of freedom and rebuttal of tyrrany, advancement of technology etc..than any other country in world history...however, you wouldn't know this by listening to Obama, Flotus or your average progressive and the blame America first crowd...

you have been reduced to farnicks and lubadubs and cut and paste from Glenn Beck...sad state of affairs for the Alynski, but I still love you:heybaby:

And thus ScottW illustrates another failing of many conservatives, a deep belief (a principal really) that their own %$%$%$%$ doesn't stink held so dear they're unable to even ponder a hypothetical scenario which is unsettling.

Perhaps this is why they tend to reject academic thought as it often encourages this sort of thing?

I'd note that in the Peanuts cartoons the children always thought their teachers were babbling as well.

-spence

:fishslap:

never forget - Spence is a Republican

I'm not a registered Republican anymore. The nice thing in RI is you can vote in either primary if you're unregistered.

But party affiliation means little to me. I've never voted a straight ticket and probably never will.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;694272]Reading online I generally see (and according to the dictionary) it's clear (to me at least) that values are the building blocks of principals. I do see some sites that reverse it, so clearly people do read it both ways.

Did you not also say that values and principles are used interchangeably by most people? So brick and house are interchangeable? So one can refer to a whole by one of its parts?

[QUOTE=spence;]Regardless, you're just mincing words, it's what you believe that's important. And to think that in this very thread you were accusing me of trying to nitpick on a single point in invalidate an argument. That didn't take long...:hs:

So is it mincing words if I #^&#^&#^&#^&er over whether to call my home a brick or a house? So what really matters is whether I "believe" it's a brick or a house? I didn't accuse you of trying to nitpick on a single point to invalidate an argument. I said your comments seemed to nitpick at some of RR's langauge and I picked a half dozen examples. It was Scott W., not me, who mentioned the method of attacking a single, insignificant point to invalidate an entire argument. My focus on your nitpicking was actually a demonstration that the great bulk of your response was incorrect and that you did not even engage the real points of RR's post. Nitpick was actually a mild, rather kind, choice of words to describe your deceptions.


[QUOTE=spence]That's because it's not a value, it's a principal concept, made up by people, that was meant to set limits on the Federal Government. The limit (i.e. principal) is based on the value of liberty which can't be changed if it's given from God.

Is a principal concept a principle? Could RR have said "the principal concept of "all not surrendered is retained"? Is the VALUE of liberty equal to or the same as the CONCEPT of liberty? Is concept also interchangeable with value and principle? And what are the building blocks of concept if it can be interchanged with principle? What, indeed, are the building blocks of VALUE if values are the building blocks of PRINCIPLE? If a value is the "unalterable belief" can belief be interchanged with value and is principle also an unalterable belief when it is interchanged with value? Same for concept? So how could RR have reversed value and principle if they're interchangeable?

[QUOTE=spence]In your example the value would be thrust[/I], and jet propulsion would be a method of achieving that thrust.

Is thrust an unalterable belief? Can thrust and jet propulsion be interchanged? Why are the values I mentioned of no merit and only your "thrust" is THE value? Are you straining to discredit my example of a principle? The PRINCIPLE of Jet Propulsion IS in the lexicon. It is SCIENTIFICALLY recognized as a PRINCIPLE. And are you saying ("value is the unalterable belief and a principal would guide how the value was applied") that the PRINCIPLE of Jet Propulsion cannot be applied? That a principle cannot be applied? I guess it can be applied when it is interchanged.


[QUOTE-spence]Take equality as a good example. That is a value that our Founding Fathers jumped on as pretty important. A conservative is likely to interpret this strictly as it was written, that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you.

[QUOTE=spence]A progressive, who also believes in the value of equality might argue that since the world is a complex system with overlapping generations that equality should extend beyond birth. A good example might be the progressive tax system. I believe it was a principal exposed by Karl Marx, but perhaps based on different values. Some, like Ted Kennedy would argue that if not for it we might not have had the rise of the middle class and the economic engine that it created. Personally I feel there's some merit to this and don't discount the idea simply because it shares socialistic roots.

[QUOTE=spence]But neither has changed the fundamental meaning of equality. For the most part all Americans believe in applying equal rights via citizenship to everyone born on our soil.

But are we mincing words? It's what you believe that's important. If a conservative believes "that we are all equal at birth and what happens after that is up to you." And a liberal believes equality should extend beyond birth and in the progressive tax system, they certainly believe equality to be a DIFFERENT value, concept, principle.
And their beliefs are not interchangeable.

Are you trying to parody yourself :laugha:

This is becoming all very clear to me know. The liberal position has no strong foundation because they don't know which words to use to describe it! :smokin:

-spence

CPUSA must have been thrilled to get your application !...:cheers:

Naw (unless you and I are interchangeable) I'm just demonstrating your absurdity with absurdity by extending your language and logic to its absurd conclusions. Wait . . . that would be a parody of you!

Actually, diction that shifts, changes, interchanges, (a mark, in my opinion, of much liberal argument) IS a sign of weak foundation. A strong foundation, in argument, evokes clear, direct, unambiguous language. Ambiguity, lack of clarity, shifty words, bespeak uncertainty. Such words are often used to cover up lack of proof or merit. Politicians have to be masters of weak, unfounded diction. You should run for office, or consult for and write for them.

By the way, did you notice in my previous reply that it was not me that accused you of nitpicking a single point to invalidate an argument? The "straw man" is, of course, a common way to create a false or non-existent foundation to an argument. You're also adept at that--turning my demonstration of your SEVERAL nitpicking nonsequiturs in response to ReelinRoc against me by implying that I was doing the very thing of which, you say, I was accusing you--trying to nitpick on a single point to invalidate your argument--when, of course, I never made such an accusation, scottw said that, not I, nor was I doing such a thing.

You do the same to ReelinRoc in your response to scottw when you say that you agree with a lot of RR's post, but "what I don't agree with is outright demonization of liberalism based on rejection of moral relativism. This I do believe is a bunk argument." ReelinRoc did not do that. His main contention, to which you hardly respond, is that a liberal/progressive is dangerous because of liberal redefinition of "rights" and the lib/prog (Obama's) view that negative rights "exceptions to powers not granted" is a fundamental flaw of the Constitution, and that a Bill of Rights should also be included declaring what the Government CAN or should do for you. He NEVER mentions moral relativism. He may not even imply it. It was ME who injected that phrase in a response to you. It was MY OPINION that the concept of "principles" IMPLIES (among other implications) counterintuition to moral relativism. Yet you debunk the remainder (to that which you agree) of his post on the count of what he never said.

You do the same again in the ABSOLUTELY NAILS IT thread (the article by Hanson). You say "the author is clearly trying to make the same moral relativism argument against lilberalism as was made in the other thread" ??? Again, Hanson was not speaking about liberalism. He was speaking STRICTLY about OBAMA. Three posts earlier in the same thread, you said "his core argument, that liberals don't care about lying because all truth is relative, is pretty silly." I pointed out, in reply, that Hansen was speaking about Obama, not liberals.

You persist in seeing what you want rather than what is there, setting up straw men to knock down, shapeshifting words, using phrases like "I don't know anyone who believes". You're relentless, you are a MASTER.

EERIE.. DE JA VU

Here are several quotes from Mises’s Bureaucracy, first published in 1944, but holding relevance for today.


“The characteristic feature of present-day policies is the trend toward a substitution of government control for free enterprise. Powerful political parties and pressure groups are fervently asking for public control of all economic activities, for thorough government planning, and for the nationalization of business. They aim at full government control of education and at the socialization of the medical profession. There is no sphere of human activity that they would not be prepared to subordinate to regimentation by the authorities. In their eyes, state control is the panacea for all ills.” (p. 4)



“America is faced with a phenomenon that the framers of the Constitution did not foresee and could not foresee: the voluntary abandonment of congressional rights. Congress has in many instances surrendered the function of legislation to government agencies and commissions, and it has relaxed its budgetary control through the allocation of large appropriations for expenditures, which the Administration has to determine in detail.” (p. 5)



“Today the fashionable philosophy of Statolatry has obfuscated the issue [of tyrants versus popular government]. The political conflicts are no longer seen as struggles between groups of men. They are considered a war between two principles, the good and the bad. The good is embodied in the great god State, the materialization of the eternal idea of morality, and the bad is the ‘rugged individualism’ of selfish men. In this antagonism the State is always right and the individual always wrong. The State is the representative of the commonwealth, of justice, civilization, and superior wisdom. The individual is a poor wretch, a vicious fool.” (p. 76)



“The fading of the critical sense is a serious menace to the preservation of our civilization. It makes it easy for quacks to fool people. It is remarkable that the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism are the intellectuals, not the boors. (p. 108)



“The main propaganda trick of the supporters of the allegedly ‘progressive’ policy of government control is to blame capitalism for all that is unsatisfactory in present day conditions and to extol the blessings which socialism has in store for mankind. They have never attempted to prove their fallacious dogmas or still less to refute the objections raised by the economists. All they did was to call their adversaries names and to cast suspicion upon their motives. And, unfortunately, the average citizen cannot see through these stratagems.” (p. 111)



[The Middle Way] “The most detrimental outcome of the average citizen’s repugnance to a serious concern with economic problems is his readiness to back a program of compromise. He looks upon the conflict between capitalism and socialism as if it were a quarrel between two groups – labor and capital – each of which claims for itself the whole of the matter at issue. As he himself is not prepared to appraise the merits of the arguments advanced by each of the parties, he thinks it would be a fair solution to end the dispute by an amicable arrangement: each claimant should have a part of his claim. Thus the program of government interference with business acquired its prestige. There should be neither full capitalism nor full socialism, but something in between, a middle way.” (pp.117-118)

1. Government Health Care: You say it should be provided for minors who can't afford it, etc. Scottw says it already is. You say the Gov. should work to make it more affordable rather than universal. I don't see the LOGIC in the Gov. working to make it more affordable. Logically, the private sector must make its services and products affordable or they cease to exist. Furthermore, the Gov. working on behalf of some people at the expense of others, without constitutional authority, no matter how noble, IS liberal, not logical.

As far as more affordable goes, health care is at the most affordable level when it must be payed for by all, or the great majority, OUT OF POCKET. Insurance, private or public, that covers the majority of clients RAISES the price. The health insurance plans that began to blossom in this country in the 1920's were very attractive at the time. The insured groups were relatively small and the totality of clients was a small percentage of the population. So the cost of care was still based on the majority's ability to pay. As the insurance idea caught on, more groups followed suit, companies even used health insurance as a benefit to attract employees, so that, I believe, by the 1960s more were insured than not. By the latter twentieth century the vast majority were under some plan. The cost of health care was now totally driven by the big pockets of the insurance companies, not the little pockets of individuals. Insurance became the CAUSE of high medical costs, not an answer on how to "fix" the problem. Insurance premiums steadily rose to cover the costs that insurance created. Transferring the burden of insuring clients from the private sector to the Gov. may place the latter in the same position of, say, G.M., which became insolvent largely due to the onerous cost of health care and pension plans. The only ways the Gov. can lower costs is to remove some free market forces and reduce service and quality. The vaunted role of big money pouring into the medical arena to create the wonders of modern medicine may be a bit exagerated, though not wholly so. Medical discoveries occured without it. The currently faster pace may not be due solely to the influx of money, but as well to the natural compression of time as civilization and science advance. Certainly, much pharmaceutical advancement extends the latter decade of life with handfulls of expensive pills so that we have the paradox of legally aborting well over 40 million potentially vibrant lives since Roe v. Wade, while at the same time extending the last decade (with the accompanying pain and physical infirmity) of a like number of non-productive senior citizens.

I vote Liberal not logical on number 1.

2. "improve" local school . . .as scottw pointed out it was a Kennedy bill, appointed and signed by Bush as a non-partisan gesture.

You say we need more work to improve thinking. Nature already provides that. Good genes, good food and lifestyle and repeated use of the brain. Use it or lose it. There are no magic Gov. buttons that can be pushed, certainly not indoctrination. Using clear, concrete diction can be taught. Though thinking can be expressed in other ways, language is the most common way of developing and expressing your thoughts. A common language facilitates communication. The old fashioned readin, ritin, & rithmatic provided a good basis to develop common and scientific languages. Have various progressive teaching methods improved the cognitive ability of new generations? Your lament seems to indicate not.

You say there should be more incentives to hire the best possible teachers. The best incentive is a desire to teach. Imbue admiration for teaching. Portray it,constantly, as a noble proffesion, not as a job. Money, beyond comfort, should NOT be an incentive for publically funded teaching. Inordinate salaries would attract those who value the money more, or solely, above the desire to teach. The contract rhetoric of salaries commensurate with industry in order to hire the best and brightest is an insult to those already in the profession. Such rhetoric "concedes" that current teachers are NOT the best and brightest. Worse, raising salaries would not result in mass firing of incompetents or run-of-the-mill to make room for the supposed influx of better mettle. They would all stay on, receiving the raises, with no concurrant raise in quality--same old show, just more expensive tickets. And "industry" would correspondingly raise salaries to continue to get the pick of the litter--all just an illogical inflationary exercise. This 3 year contract dance has occured several times since the coincidence of the 1960's great societal "investment" in education and the unionization of teachers. To a great extent, teaching has become labor intensive to the detriment of its pedagogic mission.

All sounds liberal, not logical.

3. Salary caps. Being sickened by someone making millions while his clients are losing money is an emotional response, not a logical one. Logically, you would determine why it happened, was it legal, what role both parties played, what can be done, IF NECESSARY, to prevent it, etc. Emotional responses are definitely in the domain of liberals, although . . . conservatives would react similarly to this, but only in that tiny, pre-civilized appendage of liberalism that lurks in the deepest cavern of their mean-spirited soul. :hihi:

Definitely liberal not logical.

5. Abortion. You say it "should ABSOLUTELY be a women's right to choose, period." Even the abomination of partial birth abortion? It's never been explained how delivering a live birth might, in some rare instance, endanger the woman's life, but delivering it dead, KILLING it, removes the threat. Talk about sickening. This procedure sickens me far, FAR more than #3.

Absolutely liberal.

So--4 1/2 out of 5, you ARE, as you say, pretty liberal (not logical?)

You're ignoring the reason we have insurance in the first place. If everybody had a strong cash position and could absorb catastrophic bills, sure, we could let competition lower prices.

Unfortunately this isn't very realistic.

That's not to say that insurance isn't part of the problem, it certainly is, but you haven't proved his position "not logical" at all. All you've done is argue in theory that had pure free market principals been allowed to shape our present health care system from it's inception that it would be different.

As for constitutionality, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. If a state government wishes to change it's constitution to provide health care, it could be quite constitutional and I'm sure you would argue still liberal.

You score RIROCKHOUND a liberal yet nearly all who label themselves a liberal (less than 20% of the US) are for a single payer system which he clearly states isn't necessary.

Sounds like his position is in the mainstream and very logical.

This is more of a mindless rant than an assessment of his position.

RIROCKHOUND clearly advocates:

1) Limits on Federal intrusion on local school systems
2) Emphasis on critical thinking
3) Unfettered access to private education
4) Performance based pay contrary to the existing union standards

All sounds like something I'd hear from a conservative.

It's a completely logical response when excesses are often gained by unethical or illegal means. In the financial sector it's certainly possible to make money while your clients loose (via transactional fees) but to see large gains usually requires your customers to be successful as well. We have had numerous events in the past few years of just the opposite which have led to exposed corruption or regulatory need. The lack of oversight for credit default swaps is a perfect example.

The simple fact is that the general public, unless they go to cash, has little influence with the top executives who have free reign to play with the tens of trillions of notional dollars floating through the system. There is a lack of implicit trust that the people expect the government to back fill via reasonable regulations.

Not liberal, just logical.

According to the last polling only about 21% of Americans believe abortion shouldn't be permitted. RIROCKHOUND's statement is really just stating the obvious. Most Americans believe abortion should be available in some form, and to be for some abortion doesn't mean you're for all forms of abortion all of the time.

Believing in the right of a woman to control her body is more mainstream than liberal. Only a small segment of the fringe left believes in unfettered abortion.

Your focus on partial birth abortion is an emotional argument more than a logical one, as doctors do say there are legitimate reasons for the procedure in some circumstances.

As by your own teachings I've learned that liberals are driven by emotion over logic, I'd have to say that you are the liberal on this one.

-spence

you shouldn't call people liberal, that's mean:jester:
go fishing Spence, the fish are biting...

[QUOTE=spence;695573]You're ignoring the reason we have insurance in the first place. If everybody had a strong cash position and could absorb catastrophic bills, sure, we could let competition lower prices. [END QUOTE]

If the reason for having health insurance is to pay for catastrophic ills, then the comprehensive plans we have are superfluous. Catastrophic ins. has been proposed but doesn't catch on. If Everybody had a "strong cash position the price of EVERYTHING would go up since sellers charge what the market will bear.

[QUOTE=spence]That's not to say that insurance isn't part of the problem, it certainly is, but you haven't proved his position "not logical" at all. All you've done is argue in theory that had pure free market principals been allowed to shape our present health care system from it's inception that it would be different. [END QUOTE]

His position is not logical because if health care were not affordable we would not have it now. If he means less expensive, my position is that insurance makes it more expensive and that "pay out of pocket" would lower costs, not government "working" to make it more affordable. BTW, if he means Gov. health savings plans, which is a way of Gov. "pay out of pocket," I might go for that. But liberal politicians don't.


[QUOTE=spence]As for constitutionality, this has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. If a state government wishes to change it's constitution to provide health care, it could be quite constitutional and I'm sure you would argue still liberal. [END OF QUOTE]

How does that differ from what I said?

[QUOTE=spence]You score RIROCKHOUND a liberal yet nearly all who label themselves a liberal (less than 20% of the US) are for a single payer system which he clearly states isn't necessary. [ENDQUOTE]

I NOTED that he wished that health care should be more affordable RATHER THAN UNIVERSAL. What I don't see the logic in is the Gov. working to make it more affordable. That is the position which I called liberal, not that he nor 80% of libs don't want single payer. Again, if he backs Health Savings Plans, I could reverse my vote.

[QUOTE=spence]This is more of a mindless rant than an assessment of his position. [ENDQUOTE]

Your curt assessment of my position is typical. At best, it is nothing, at less than best, it is nasty.


[QUOTE=spence]RIROCKHOUND clearly advocates:
1) Limits on Federal intrusion on local school systems
2) Emphasis on critical thinking
3) Unfettered access to private education
4) Performance based pay contrary to the existing union standards
All sounds like something I'd hear from a conservative. [ENDQUOTE]

Of your four bullet points, nos. 1,3, & 4 have to be conjectures on your part. He may well advocate those positions, but that is not "clearly" propounded. In his position #2, what I think is liberal gobbledy gook is "work to improve thinking" as if there is some specific way other than good, sound, basic education to achieve his wish. How long has public education existed? How many reforms and progressions has it seen? And yet RR still laments that we need more work to improve thinking. Have we seen the likes of the Founding Fathers or Abe Lincoln since the wonders of education reform have attempted to find ways to "improve thinking"? And his "there should be more incentives to hire the best possible teachers" does not CLEARLY ADVOCATE anything specific. My contention that it is illogical, is that the best possible teachers (so-called "qualifications" being equal) are those who desire to teach rather then those who are in it for the money. Teachers make a good living now off the taxpayers. To create inordinate salaries for the "best" for doing what you love would create a star system as exists in sports.

[QUOTE=spence]It's a completely logical response when excesses are often gained by unethical or illegal means. In the financial sector it's certainly possible to make money while your clients loose (via transactional fees) but to see large gains usually requires your customers to be successful as well. We have had numerous events in the past few years of just the opposite which have led to exposed corruption or regulatory need. The lack of oversight for credit default swaps is a perfect example.[ENDQUOTE]

As for being sickended by this--to be sick over someones perfidy is a natural, emotional response. It is logical to assume that one would respond emotionally to such, but the response, itself, is not logical, it is emotional.

[QUOTE=spence]According to the last polling only about 21% of Americans believe abortion shouldn't be permitted. RIROCKHOUND's statement is really just stating the obvious. [ENDQUOTE]

I didn't argue that abortion, in general, is right or wrong. I'm agnostic on that. I tend not to like it as I feel it deadens our spiritual (not religious) and even emotional affection for life.

[QUOTE=spence]Most Americans believe abortion should be available in some form, and to be for some abortion doesn't mean you're for all forms of abortion all of the time. [ENDQUOTE]

RR picked a segment of the market that sickened him. In parallel, I picked a form of abortion that, in my opinion, should evoke FAR more sickness (horror for that matter) on the emotional level.

[QUOTE=spence]Believing in the right of a woman to control her body is more mainstream than liberal. Only a small segment of the fringe left believes in unfettered abortion. [ENDQUOTE]

If the "mainstream" believes "in the right of a woman to control her body" by aborting, then the mainstream is liberal in that respect. Certainly, the mainstream can be liberal or consevative on different issues. Pro-abortion has clearly been marked as a liberal issue.

[QUOTE=spence]Your focus on partial birth abortion is an emotional argument more than a logical one, as doctors do say there are legitimate reasons for the procedure in some circumstances. [ENDQUOTE]

"as doctors say" (are these weasel words?) As I said in my reply to RR--it's never been explained how delivering a live birth might, in some rare instance, endanger the woman's life, but delivering the baby dead, KILLING it just before fully removing it from the mother, removes the threat. Ergo, my question asks, LOGICALLY, is partial birth abortion really necessary to save the life of the mother?


I do have a strong emotional reaction to partial birth abortion. But I am not, in general, "driven" by emotion. Emotions, obviously, are important. They are part of human nature. But they should not be the driving force in crafting government.

So in otherwords, healthcare providers should seek to obtain the highest possible price for product. Seems like the perfect rationalization for price gouging. Snake oil salesmen need apply. I always thought of healthcare - with all its implied demand inelasticity - as fitting squarely in the public domain given whats at stake, i.e. human life. But by your LOGIC, lets just let the free market purist doctrine of perfect discrimination roll all over that.


So when gas prices are up again, I expect to see the same roll out of free market theory :soon: in defense of $5/gallon premium.

[QUOTE=EarnedStripes44;695838]So in otherwords, healthcare providers should seek to obtain the highest possible price for product. Seems like the perfect rationalization for price gouging. Snake oil salesmen need apply. [ENDQUOTE]

Health care providers should seek the highest competitively profitable price for their product. If they charge more than the consumer can pay, their business will dwindle and perish. If they charge low enough so the consumer can pay but still above a margin below which they could still profit, then competitors will charge the lower profitable rate and the high end provider will, again, dwindle or adjust down or perish. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, when the vast majority of consumers are private individuals paying out of pocket, the competitively profitable rate must be what they can pay. When a wealthier mass consumer such as an insurance co. or government pays for the majority of clients, the prices rise to higher competitively profitable margins.

[QUOTE=earned stripes]I always thought of healthcare - with all its implied demand inelasticity - as fitting squarely in the public domain [ENDQUOTE]

The Rand Health Insurance Experiment, the most important heath insurance study ever conducted, showed that demand is, actually, elastic. When patients share the costs with insurance, their demand goes down. Totally free health care leads to greater demand and demands for unecessary, or more costly than necessary, care. What also may become more elastic with greater coverage and benefits is the behaviour of the client in ways that raises costs for insurance. This is referred to in the industry as Moral Hazard.

[QUOTE=earned stripes] given whats at stake, i.e. human life. [ENDQUOTE]

What is at stake is not some general concept of human life, but, specifically, YOUR LIFE. Surely, you are FAR more interested in your life than any bureaucracy. If you are so trusting to turn over total control of your health and life to a government bureaucracy to choose what care you need and when you can get it as opposed to consulting physicians of your choice and determining what's best for you, fine. But let the rest of us who prefer to be totally involved in our own well being continue to be able to do so.

[QUOTE=earned stripes] But by your LOGIC, lets just let the free market purist doctrine of perfect discrimination roll all over that. ENDQUOTE]

I have to admit, I am not familiar with this doctrine. Please expound.

Will Bush be responsible for the coming $5/gallon price? How many Senate hearings on gas prices have we had over the last two decades? How often were they preceded by blustering threats to get at the bottom of the gouging and to expose the evil doers and bring them to justice? What was ever found? What was ever done? The senators knew beforehand that market forces drove the prices, not gouging. Occasionally A gas station! was found to be charging well above others. The only real action ever taken was price controls by Nixon, and that resulted in long lines and gas shortages, so was quickly dropped. Congress also knows it makes more profit off a gallon of gas in taxes than big oil. And when the price goes up to your projected $5--then the government will really be gouging us. By the way, didn't Al gore (forget if it was while he was veep or running for Pres.) say, at that time, that gas prices were too low in the U.S. That, for environmental reasons, we should be paying European prices, which, at that time were over $4/gallon? But when they got that high under Bush, why then, it was gouging. And what about drilling for our own oil. Is the free market responsible for forbidding that?

you mean "WORLD MARKET THEORY", when oil prices surge they surge worldwide, our domestic companies control only a small portion of the world market which makes it unfair to blame them for(although certainly easy and intellectually dishonest) increases in oil costs unless you expect them to keep oil prices artificially low and operate at a loss during times of high oil prices, should government likewise take less of their tax cut to keep oil affordable during spike periods, aren't they gouging? "


healthcare providers should seek to obtain the highest competitive price for their service....real actual (not the phony claims by politicians) "price gouging" occurs when there is no alternative product/service for the consumer, "price gougers" and "snake oil salesmen" in a competitive market do not remain in business very long, however, if they(supposed gougers) happen to provide a superior service or product that consumers are willing to pay a premium for, should they be labled in a derrogatory way and forced to provied that product/service at a government mandated "fair" price? Debutch mentioned, congressional claims of "price gouging" with regard to oil price hikes and the subsequent hearings have never proven the claim, it is nothing more than cheap grandstanding to gain public support for pathetic politicians........ if you would like consistently priced $5-10 per gallon gasoline...Obamacare will certainly get you there...between that and the obvious fraud of the Global Warming scare there will be easy justification to rape the public for their own good through high gas prices to pay for the goodies...

government provided/run healthcare in whole or in part will be grossly inefficient, operate at huge deficits and demand will outpace the ability to provide resulting in rationing...no different than any other government run entity, why would you expect this to be any different..because OBAMA is in charge? you'd think that with "what's at stake..ie..human life" that you wouldn't want government anywhere near it given the track record...:hs:

hey Spence, just my propellor thinking for me...but...are you going to provide anything to support this claim? I'm dying(bad chioce of words) to hear any instance where as detbuch pointed out... killing a child in the birth canal and delivering it expired rather than alive is preferrable when considering the life/health of the mother...the ONLY difference in the delivery would be /is the the ulitmate condition of the child???? which doctors?? what legitimate reasons??? and which circumstances??? Emotional or Logical (or Liberal) ?

Wow.
I've been slammed lately and haven't had time to read this.
what did I start :D