Cool beans def of a liberal:

[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

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

Monthly

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Today's progressives are tearing apart everything our progressive founder's built.

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 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:[INDENT] "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."

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.

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?

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.

. . . 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.

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.

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.

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Monthly



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.

[EarnedStripes44]

How does the 9th amendment figure into all of this? Is it the spring board for "2nd generation rights?

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

How does the 9th amendment figure into all of this? Is it the spring board for "2nd generation rights?

No.

Where would one find the philosophical support for the government to compel one person to provide anything to another?

The way I read the 9th, such a reservation of power would specifically preclude it.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Because the typical justification for the government mandating such "second generation rights" is an expansion of the general welfare clause of the Constitution's Preamble.

The 9th's purpose was to allay Federalist fears that by simply listing some rights, such enumeration would be taken as the formal and complete listing of the rights of the citizen.

This particular principle is where some conservatives go off on an illegitimate tangent, usually in their zeal to oppose abortion.

[RIJIMMY]

never forget - Spence is a Republican

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I trimmed it down, but left the meat of the quote...

1. Gov. healthcare: so all liberals believe in this? I'm pretty liberal and believe it should be provided for minors who can't afford it or whose parents can't provide it. Should the government work to make it more affordable! absolutely! Do I need to see universal healthcare? Nope, but it should be more affordable. Liberal or logical?

2. "Improve" local school... No child left behind was a bush act, no? Do I want federal oversite and more regulations on teaching to tests? No, but we need more work to imrove thinking, not rote memorization... Should there be tolerance taught, and making sure religious tone stays out of schools 100% yes. Kids can go to private school if they need that education. There should be more incentives to hire the best possible teachers. period. Liberal or logical?

3. Salary caps: Do I have a problem with people getting rich, Hell no. but does it sicken me when John Doe of the X investment company made millions while his clients were losing money, hell yes. There was just a 2million dollar wedding in newport from someone who made a fortune with a trading co... I hope his clients are making money if he is! But no, it is socialist to question the golden parachutes some of the corporate guys get... liberal or logical?

4. Gun control: You cna own all the hand guns and rifles you want for hunting, sporting, whatever, but I still advocate a ban on automatic weapons, and would love to see it remain hard to get a gun. I have zero problem with law-abiding people owning weapons/

5. Abortion: the rights favorite zinger... all liberals do not promote abortion as birth control, but it should ABSOLUTELY be a women's right to choose, period.

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.

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?)

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Definitely liberal not logical.

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.

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.

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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. we'll never know because governments(federal and state) have constantly tinkerd with, created mandates and requirements that take all or most competition out of the system and make it impossible for companies to even operate in many makets.....RI is a shining example of this with the criminality that was going on between the dems in the legislature and BC/BS, OBAMACARE will be the mother of all tinkering, eliminate the competition then infect what is left with government inefficiency

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. ummmm, wouldn't the people have some say in changing their constitution???

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. "he argues that GOVERNMENT should make it more affordable and provide it for minors whose parents can't afford it" and at the same time he states that we don't need Universal Healthcare....soooo, since government makes things more affordable by giving things away and creating large beaureaucracies to manage making things more "affordable"....how exactly is this supposed to work....sounds like stating many obvious or appealing, unarguable postitons with no practical answers and claiming to be liberal, logical or both?....GOVERMENT SHOULD MAKE MY GROCERIES MORE AFFORDABLE....single payer is the goal, Obama and his henchmen have all said it in the past and will admit to it now when caught gloating that the private insurers SHOULD go out of business if they can't compete with the PUBLIC OPTION...if you are for this phony PUBLIC OPTION then you are for single payer as that is the ultimate destination

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: WHAT??? with all due respect, he lists a bunch of HOPES and never explains how you get there....I think we should all have PEACE

1) Limits on Federal intrusion on local school systems keep Ted Kennedy away!
2) Emphasis on critical thinking imrove thinking, not rote memorization
3) Unfettered access to private education " "Kids can go to private school if they need that education." is this what you mean??
4) Performance based pay contrary to the existing union standards. Performance pay and union standards ...haaaaaaaaa

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. OBAMA IS, even the really icky ones

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. I love your rediculous generalizations "DOCTORS DO SAY"...I'm sure that's exactly what all the partial birth abortionists say..."legitimate reason" could be pretty much anything I suppose


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
go fishing Spence, the fish are biting...

[detbuch]

[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?

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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.

-spence

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) ?

[EarnedStripes44]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

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 in defense of $5/gallon premium.

[detbuch]

[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.

Originally Posted by earned stripes

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

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?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44

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.

WOW, please elaborate on this and
"implied demand inelasticity - as fitting squarely in the public domain given whats at stake, i.e. human life"
I'd love to hear more



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

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...

[RIROCKHOUND]

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

a great discussion, nice goin' Rock

[RIROCKHOUND]

sorry I'm not a welfare collecting liberal, otherwise I'd have time to go point by point on the thread.

glad it is fostering discussion...

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

sorry I'm not a welfare collecting liberal, otherwise I'd have time to go point by point on the thread.

glad it is fostering discussion...

Same here, first look in on this board for a while. It's been 12 -14 hrs plus travel days for me. Haven't fished since the Memorial day weekend . . .

Here's another good tangent:

How liberalism is destroying our children; "self esteem" being cultivated as a proxy for "self respect" and "dignity" and what that has begot . . .