Bible is filled with bigotry

[Franklin Johnson]

In the Bible, the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Another passage, Leviticus 20:13, reads: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

The last passage, ladies and gentleman, prescribe the DEATH PENALTY. You cannot get any clearer than that. It is plain and evident. To any Christian, homosexuality is a terrible sin and is absolutely unacceptable.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 6:10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The last passage states that homosexuals will not go to heaven (purgatory or more likely hell is the destination).

This is an open and shut case because it is so simple and straightforward. The Bible is good to have around when you run out of toilet paper. It is impossible for anyone on this forum to offer an argument to the contrary.

Proposition 8 was an initiative based on bigotry from the Bible. Period. It is pathetic that a contemporary developed society as ours continues to follow this science fiction as a moral guide. The Bible is America's favorite theatrical prop, certainly not a reliable source of morality. Indeed, the Bible has proven to be a source of gross immorality, hatred, and intolerance, as we have seen with the passage of Prop. 8.

Franklin

[phooph]

Anyone who is going to quote Leviticus as justification for their beliefs needs to read the whole of Leviticus. There are a great many things that are forbidden in Leviticus that modern day Christians would take issue with. Anyone who is blemished or deformed in any way, for instance, is unclean and to be shunned. Not a very Christian attitude.

A good deal of Leviticus is concerned with the correct execution of blood sacrifices. The proper killing, cutting up, and burning of the various body parts that must be done in order to bring about the desired response from God. Smacks of witchcraft, no? You can get all the gory details here and much, much more here:
https://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/KjvLevi.html


In the Bible, the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Another passage, Leviticus 20:13, reads: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them."

The last passage, ladies and gentleman, prescribe the DEATH PENALTY. You cannot get any clearer than that. It is plain and evident. To any Christian, homosexuality is a terrible sin and is absolutely unacceptable.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 6:10: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The last passage states that homosexuals will not go to heaven (purgatory or more likely hell is the destination).

This is an open and shut case because it is so simple and straightforward. The Bible is good to have around when you run out of toilet paper. It is impossible for anyone on this forum to offer an argument to the contrary.

Proposition 8 was an initiative based on bigotry from the Bible. Period. It is pathetic that a contemporary developed society as ours continues to follow this science fiction as a moral guide. The Bible is America's favorite theatrical prop, certainly not a reliable source of morality. Indeed, the Bible has proven to be a source of gross immorality, hatred, and intolerance, as we have seen with the passage of Prop. 8.

Franklin

[toddwquigley]

You are offering the opinion that homosexuality is correct, and that you are of course right because you say so. Apparently the majority of the polulation does not agree with you, which in your socialistic view, whereupon the majority rules, means that you are wrong. Quite a contradiction there..

I for the record, could care less either way, because there are far more important things to worry about, and it is focusing on issues like this that distract us from the real problem which is removing the power of the financial elite that really run the show, so that the majority vote again rules (although in this case it did).

By the way, having lived in Russia, I can tell you that in Russia homosexuals go to the Gulags, because homosexuality is against the law. Your friend Castro doesn't like them either, they invariably wind up being jailed for some imagined crime. Compared to Communism, Capitalism treats them pretty well. Progress, not perfection...

The Bible also gave us some pretty good laws like "thou shalt not kill", and "thou shalt not steal", in fact I can't fault any of the Ten Commandments. This country was founded on Christianity, and it's still the best place in the World to live.

The Bible has far more good than problems, so don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Even Atheists use it as an effective philosophy to lead a happy and productive life.

As for Leviticus, it was written long before modern medicine, and the laws there were to keep the society as a whole healthy. If your arm has cancer, do you cut it off so that you can live, or do you keep it out of principal and die? Except for the Ten Commandments, the laws laid forth in Leviticus were superceeded by the New Testament.

By the way, Castro allowed the church back into Cuba in 1992, and has allowed Catholics in the Communist party.

As for toilet paper, anything written by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler or Castro makes good toilet paper, and in fact that is it's only use, unless one is studying failed forms of government.

[MsTerry]

The last time somebody used this phrase he was standing tall as a Valley Oak.
Do you think it is possible that Edward has risen from the dead ?


The Bible is good to have around when you run out of toilet paper
Franklin

[wbreitman]

The last time somebody used this phrase he was standing tall as a Valley Oak.
Do you think it is possible that Edward has risen from the dead ?

And "F" is only a short distance away from "E."

W

[MsTerry]

And "F" is only a short distance away from "E."

W
That depends on what you are deriving.

[MsTerry]

So, Todd
I'd like to hear your outspoken opinion on healthcare.
What did you think of the Michael Moore movie on said subject?



As for Leviticus, it was written long before modern medicine, and the laws there were to keep the society as a whole healthy. If your arm has cancer, do you cut it off so that you can live, or do you keep it out of principal and die? Except for the Ten Commandments, the laws laid forth in Leviticus were superceeded by the New Testament.

[Neshamah]

You have no imagination. This refers to heterosexual males. Scripture is apparently self-contradictory and open to a vast range of interpretations. If you do not want to see the best in it, read something else. You are not going to change any minds by bashing it.

Proposition 8 would not have existed or mattered had government not started meddling in religious institutions like marriage in the first place.

~ Neshamah



In the Bible, the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Another passage, Leviticus 20:13, reads...

...It is impossible for anyone on this forum to offer an argument to the contrary.

Proposition 8 was an initiative based on bigotry from the Bible. Period. It is pathetic that a contemporary developed society as ours continues to follow this science fiction as a moral guide. The Bible is America's favorite theatrical prop, certainly not a reliable source of morality. Indeed, the Bible has proven to be a source of gross immorality, hatred, and intolerance, as we have seen with the passage of Prop. 8.

Franklin

[toddwquigley]

Ok MsTerry here it is, you are right, I should post it...

You asked two good questions while I was away, so I have responded here, maybe I should post them for all to read:

As far as Einstein ordering an elevator on his house on Huntington drive in Pasadena. I'm sure I can find the reference with a little digging, as this was a well known "Einstein-ism" of his days teaching at Cal Tech. When I worked as an intern at JPL back in the early 1980's, (I was going to be a Physicist at that time, and I still might go back and get my PhD for the heck of it) there were still people working there who had known him personally. (For many years Cal Tech grads generally went to either JPL, Scandia, Lawrence Livermore or Los Alomos, and in fact they are still all interconnected).

Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of the man's Physics, and I would rate him right up there with Oppenheimer, Teller and Bethe for sheer genius, but he was a scatterbrain/"absent minded professor" of the first degree, and as such his eccentricities provided us with lots of entertainment at coffee breaks.

That's my point: While Relativity has provided the foundation of modern physics, he could barely tie his own shoes. Therefore to use him as an example of any one political ideology is self defeating, and I would say the same even if his views were exactly in line with my Centrist leanings.

As far as medical care goes: I have no interest in the government providing health care, retirement plans or any other social services. I have lived in England (Social Medicine) USSR (Communism) and Germany (Conservative Socialism), and you can have all three. All they do is foster mediocrity and abuse of the system.

Our medical system should be if anything, scaled back as it is so abused already. It is our responsibility to take care of our bodies, and I cannot support any system that pays for anything but absolute emergencies for people that can not, or will not take responsibility for themselves.

I pay for my own medical care/insurance, and I expect everyone else to do the same. If you have to sell your car and take the bus to pay for your medical care, so be it (I have done just that), that's the price of life. What's next, social car repairs? social home maintenance? (IE: Communism) what about goverment funded cosmetic surgery?

Does this logic sound crazy: "Gosh I feel really depressed that my ass is too big, my teeth are not white enough and my boobs are not big enough, so you can either pay for a lifetime of anti-depressants and counseling, or pay for liposuction, cosmetic dentristry and a boob job"? Sounds like complete abuse of the system right? Well the French do exactly that...

The system is too easy to abuse: Look at all the illegals who come up here to have children, get their dental work done and have surgery. Look at all the people that are perfectly capable of working but are too proud to take a menial job and support themselves. Why should my hard earned tax dollars pay for their selfish lifestyles? (By the way, I give between 10% and 15% to charity).

I do believe that there should be help for those that really need it, but the system needs to be overhauled. If you are not working, then you should be required to be actively looking for work 20 hours a week (IE: come back each week with a signed off job search sheet, just like Australia), and you should be required to work at least 20 hours a week for the government, or actively getting educated so that you are more employable.

There needs to be accountability in the system.

The whole thing is interconnected: If the existing rules were enforced, we would be in a pretty good state, but they aren't: We have white collar criminals operating with impunity because the laws are not enforced, we have a huge abuse of the social systems because the laws are not enforced, and we have a huge abuse of our National Borders because the laws are not enforced.

Start prosecuting White Collar crimes as aggressively as they do with drug dealers. Who is really a bigger crime against the public: Some kid selling dime bags, or some CEO stealing the investors money?

Start prosecuting welfare and social program abuse, send them to jail and make them work on the road crews bettering our society, and when they get out, make their probation conditional to working full time either as volunteers or privately.

Start prosecuting any and all employers who can not prove that they verified a person's right to work in our country with big fines and jail time for repeated offences, and the illegals will go home, and to help encourage them to go home, let's put them on road crews for 90 days before we deport them.

Do these three things, and we can recapture some of that spirit we had back in the 1950's, when the USA truly was the greatest place on Earth, when people worked more and complained less.

I am no fan or Rush Limbaugh, but my Conservative friend made me listen to him once, and he said one thing that stuck with me: (I am para-phrasing here) "Go to work". "Got problems, go to work, unhappy? go to work" etc. etc. The point was simple, stop whining about why the World will not give you what you want, and go make it happen yourself.

People talk about being "down on their luck" and needing some help to get back up. I have been there, and I'm all for it, but if you put everything else (all your emotions) aside and make a reasonable effort at it, getting back on track does not really take that long. The problem is that people get used to it and after a while they get comfortable with it, and then they just become a burden on society, and drag the rest of us down to their pathetic level.

(https://us.mc351.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected])
(https://us.mc351.mail.yahoo.com/mc/[email protected])There is every opportunity in this country like no other place to get ahead in life, not because of our social programs, but because of our lack of them. There is more than enough help out there for people who really need it, and as long as it is used only when it is really needed, there will never be a lack of help, and a lack of oppurtunity, but once we become another socialist country, we will become yet another mediocre country, because that's what Socialism is: Enforced mediocrity.

[Photoguy]

Hi Todd,
I would like to say this nicely but I can't figure out how without watering it down so I will just say it, You sir are not very nice! (edited for collegiate reasonableness) We have an aging population where there is not enough insurance available for the problems that come with that. Alzheimer's disease starts slowly and can take years to bloom to the level of incapacitation. Once the patient is no longer able to take care of themselves family must step in and help. Once the entirety of the family funds and emotional abilities are totally devastated that person must enter skilled nursing. Unless you were quite wealthy as a working person your insurance can't come close to covering the costs of long term care. Medical and medicaid pay for very little to augment. Essentially the current level of care is to wipe the feces off the inflicted person twice a day and make sure they do not starve. Often the family member looses their job or business and then has no health insurance of their own. Government is the only solution to this. I pray this is something you never have to deal with, as I have.

[toddwquigley]

My grandfather died of alzheimer's, I was the one who put my life on hold for the last 18 months of his life to care for him, because it was the right thing to do. Instead of being selfish and expecting the government to do what was my responsibility, I quit my job, and lived on my savings and credit cards, so that someone else could die in comfort.

You assume a lot, and it shows your ignorance and closed mind. I shall henceforth remember whenever communicating with you, that you have a small and closed mind.

My arguement stands: There is plenty of help out there for those that need it, people just need to stop being selfish, and instead of expecting their government to take care of them, their families and friends, they should take these matter into their own hands.

It is your responsibility to take care of yourself and plan for your future, not mine. I don't believe in Social Security either, your retirement is your responsibility, not mine.

People should take care of each other and themselves, this worked just fine for thousands of years. The majority of those that have nobody to help them have themselves to blame. 9 times out of 10, they don't have any friends because they have personality and behavioral issues that they are not willing to compromise. If they are not willing to take part of society, why should society take care of them.

For thousands of years what held society together was the fear of being an outcast and not having help when you needed it. Now that the government takes care of you whether or not you behave, we have a country full of asshole running around, because they know that they can be an asshole and there are no reprocussians.

I have been in retirement homes in Third World South American countries, and the level of care that the church provided was better and more humane than any state run agency in a socialist country. This however means that once again, you can't run around being a selfish asshole, because if you do, you don't have anything coming.

Your mind is 180 degrees from logic and reality, and there is 10,000 years of history to prove you wrong.

I don't know why you guys call yourselves liberals and progressives, you don't give any liberty for anybody that doesn't live in your fantasyland, and you certainly don't make any progress when you are going backwards.

Liberals are the most closed minded people there are, you guys make even the conservatives look open minded, I can't believe the level of your selfish thinking. If you stopped worrying about yourself, and actually took responsibility for yourself and helped other people, we wouldn't need your abused and ineffective social programs.

[MsTerry]

Todd, you are contradicting yourself on 2 levels in this statement.



I can't believe the level of your selfish thinking. If you stopped worrying about yourself, and actually took responsibility for yourself and helped other people, we wouldn't need your abused and ineffective social programs.

To take care of oneself would require a lot of self centered actions and it could be an act of selfishness.
To help out other people and members of your family would in effect be a social program on a smaller scale, or not?
So maybe, you want to rephrase your thoughts on this.

[Zeno Swijtink]

(...) Often the family member looses their job or business and then has no health insurance of their own. Government is the only solution to this. I pray this is something you never have to deal with, as I have.


My grandfather died of alzheimer's, I was the one who put my life on hold for the last 18 months of his life to care for him, because it was the right thing to do. (...)

Would this acrimony survive having coffee together? Maybe you guys should meet!

[MsTerry]

I pay for my own medical care/insurance, and I expect everyone else to do the same. If you have to sell your car and take the bus to pay for your medical care, so be it (I have done just that), that's the price of life. What's next, social car repairs? social home maintenance? (IE: Communism) what about goverment funded cosmetic surgery?



Todd
A friend of mine got in a head-on collision, because a drunk guy decided to go over the centerline.
They got her all stitched up again, except, she can't walk anymore, can't eat normally yet, in a year or so she might be able to brush her teeth.
Pretty soon she is going to be released from the hospital, not because she is ready but because her insurance stops paying for her recovery. She will need full time daycare.
How do you suggest her necessary surgeries are paid for?
Fundraisers twice a year?

[toddwquigley]

Hi MsTerry, lets answer them one at a time:

First; To take care of oneself and be responsible for oneself is not being selfish, but expecting other people to do it for you is. This is a pretty basic precept, and if you want further elaboration, go to your nearest 12 step meeting, where I am sure you will have your question answered more than you wanted

Secondly; Sorry about your friend, but what kind of policy did she buy? I know this sounds cold, but it is reality that we are responsible for ourselves. This means looking into the future, and planning ahead. The excuse of: "but I didn't know those were the rules" has never washed. If you don't understand this, I suggest that you drive through downtown Sebastopol at 100 MPH until you get pulled over. Try explaining to the officer, that "I didn't know it was illegal".

Like I said: Cold, but true. Don't think I don't have a heart, because I do, if your friend had a fundraiser, I would donate. I have organized and been part of several for friends over the years, and surprisingly, they work.

This is how life has worked for the last thousands of years. You have a big problem, and it's a real problem, you turn to your friends, family and neighbors, and they pitch in to help you out, but you keep it local.

It builds community, while socialism destroys community, and replaces it with a bureaucracy.

When I first moved to Sonoma 10 years ago, I was hit from behind by an unlicensed, and uninsured driver. My car was totaled, and I wound up in the hospital. My auto insurance covered the car, but I only had $2500 in medical coverage on the auto policy, and no general medical policy. I was stuck withover $61,000 in medical bills.

I paid off the remainder myself, and in fact finally got it paid off a few months ago. It cost me probably another $15,000 in interest (I am not even sure), and destroyed my credit. Ever since then I have carried the maximum on my auto insurance, and after looking at cases like your friend's, I bought the best Blue Cross policy I could, that has a high deductible, but almost unlimited coverage, to include aftercare. It's not cheap, but unless I want to rely on the government, that's what it costs. And no, I don't want to have a social medical program that gives me "free" coverage, because it will just cost me more in taxes for all the people that abuse their bodies and the program.

Before this, I had JUST finished paying off an expensive divorce (ie: another bad decision on my part), and I was still making the final payments on my student loans from 10 years earlier.

This is the first time in the last 20 years that I have not been paying off some big mistake that I made, and I to tell the truth, it's a nice feeling.

It's not like I make a bunch of money either, I just don't spend what I have on frivilous junk that I don't need.

I'm not going to go into my whole life here, but trust me, I have had it worse than most and I have still made it. It hasn't been easy, but I never expected it to be. It's my life, I'm responsible for it. My problems and bad decisions are mine, and mine alone. If somebody feels like helping out fine, but I'm certainy not expecting or them to, and I would never consider going to society as a whole and asking them to bail me out of my bad decisions, because the only thing I am a victim of is myself.

[Neshamah]

Advocating government solutions is an abdication of social responsibility. In every area that the government has stepped in, service has suffered and traditional organizations have atrophied or been forcefully pushed out of the public sphere.

This substitution of government for a strong and flexible society started with Republicans in the 19th century and their handouts to newly defined corporations. Rather than cut off the handouts, the New Deal expanded them to almost everyone. This should not be reversed over night, but it will be reversed because thanks to the last eight years we have run out of resources. Individuals can succeed when government stops playing favorites through selective funding.

Social responsibility means taking a look at what you can do either yourself or through organizations in your local community, preferably organizations that do not accept public money. When foreign countries stop lending us money, the organizations that did not accept Federal dollars will be the ones we will depend on.

~ Neshamah

[Photoguy]

Todd, I am not sure how pointing out the impossibility of personally financing long term care for an afflicted person is closed minded or selfish. This problem is complex and your arrogant proclamation that it is everyone's own responsibility to care for their sick relatives regardless of cost shows an extreme lack of understanding or compassion on your part. I did the right thing, lost everything I had built over a lifetime of working and "being responsible", it still wasn't enough. I, as well as many others I have since counseled on this subject, tried to use every social networking tool available to me. When you are busy feeding and wiping the feces off your loved one searching for resources is not that easy.

Neshemah, in the world that is coming your idea might work, in this world of scattered families and poor social networks it is not. I and my wife are currently actively seeking out intentional community. I believe the only real hope in the future is for people to come together and I generally support your ideas. Currently Government is the only entity large enough to set up and fund health care on a large scale, or at least provide actual aid. In the coming change I hope "Government" will be what it should be- the collective power of "The People" put in action. We are government. If people would step up and learn the issues, actively participate, and vote accordingly.

This is a very hot topic and one that has consumed most of the last 9 years of my life. I am not actually sure of anything. The only thing I am sure of is that my parents are in a better place now.

[MsTerry]

Todd, you are advocating socialism with a twist, whether you like it or not.
As a matter of fact, it is closer to the Chinese form of communism, where things were to be dealt with on a local level, rather than a governmental level. People also had to get along in this system or they were ostracized and fell out of the community benefits.
For thousands of years, people lived in communities and took care of their community as a whole, but it is still a form of socialism.




.

This is how life has worked for the last thousands of years. You have a big problem, and it's a real problem, you turn to your friends, family and neighbors, and they pitch in to help you out, but you keep it local.

It builds community, while socialism destroys community, and replaces it with a bureaucracy.

[zenekar]

Interesting evolution of this thread. Yes, the Bible was written by mortals obsessed with perpetuating myths and is mistakenly interpreted as the word of 'god' by 'believers' who choose to not think for themselves.

I haven't had time to read every post on this subject but now I see the discussion swinging to how a society is governed. Used to be kings and churches that created laws. It is unfortunate that populations still rather have someone else take responsibility.

Then there was the idea of democracy -- where citizens have a say as to how a society's resources/commons are used -- a government of, by and for the people. 'Of the people' because citizens decide how the system is constructed; 'by the people' when citizens are actively engaged and 'for the people' when there is equity in the way the resources are distributed. Sounds like socialism, no? Not a hierarchic system but a true democracy where everyone in the society benefits.

We are witness to the consequences of the 'free' market, where we have put our trust in the hands of corporate entities that are in existence for profit rather than the well being of society. The insistence that every person has equal opportunity in such a system is unrealistic considering people's religious prejudices, racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, greed, etc.

Attila

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
- Edward R. Murrow

---



Advocating government solutions is an abdication of social responsibility. In every area that the government has stepped in, service has suffered and traditional organizations have atrophied or been forcefully pushed out of the public sphere.

This substitution of government for a strong and flexible society started with Republicans in the 19th century and their handouts to newly defined corporations. Rather than cut off the handouts, the New Deal expanded them to almost everyone. This should not be reversed over night, but it will be reversed because thanks to the last eight years we have run out of resources. Individuals can succeed when government stops playing favorites through selective funding.

Social responsibility means taking a look at what you can do either yourself or through organizations in your local community, preferably organizations that do not accept public money. When foreign countries stop lending us money, the organizations that did not accept Federal dollars will be the ones we will depend on.

~ Neshamah

[Neshamah]

Democracy is a form of government, not a one-size-fits-all charity organization. Government does have a role in protecting the rights of citizens to pursue happiness. On that front, we have come a long way in the last century, and we still have a ways to go.

Government does not have a legitimate role in providing charity or insurance, or in bailing out corporations just because they have more lawyers and paid advocates than the rest of us.

Markets will not be free nor promote responsible behavior so long as the Federal government is handing our money to whichever corporation makes the loudest claim that our economy will sink without it. Every mega-corporation started out as a small business. If a century old corporation with billions in assets cannot succeed without help, then we need to let new businesses grow to take its place.

The present course is not sustainable, and we need to be supporting alternatives to government today. Many of the best service organizations accept no Federal money at all.

~ Neshamah


Interesting evolution of this thread....


A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
- Edward R. Murrow

---

[Lorrie]

Photoguy

You have to find the "LIKE MINDED INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY"
Not knowing of alot of those in one place...:hmmm::2cents:

[Photoguy]

I am going to start a new thread, maybe you could expand on your comment.
See - Government and Community roles/differences


Photoguy

You have to find the "LIKE MINDED INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY"
Not knowing of alot of those in one place...:hmmm::2cents:

[toddwquigley]

Hello Ms terry,

Yes there is a form of socialism through the local community, the smallest functioning community being the best form of it, because there are less cooks in the kitchen. To expect a large goverment beaurocracy to effectively govern millions is folly. You have to keep it small and keep it personal. This has worked in China as you have noted, for 6,000 years, and it worked in the rest of the World for much longer, until governments became bigger in the days of the Greeks and then the Romans. When the Roman Empire fell apart, Europe reverted to feudal community, and surprisingly, people were happier.

See this excellent post by Neshamah, which I will also re-post in the new thread:

Advocating government solutions is an abdication of social responsibility. In every area that the government has stepped in, service has suffered and traditional organizations have atrophied or been forcefully pushed out of the public sphere.

This substitution of government for a strong and flexible society started with Republicans in the 19th century and their handouts to newly defined corporations. Rather than cut off the handouts, the New Deal expanded them to almost everyone. This should not be reversed over night, but it will be reversed because thanks to the last eight years we have run out of resources. Individuals can succeed when government stops playing favorites through selective funding.

Social responsibility means taking a look at what you can do either yourself or through organizations in your local community, preferably organizations that do not accept public money. When foreign countries stop lending us money, the organizations that did not accept Federal dollars will be the ones we will depend on.

~ Neshamah

[zenekar]

One problem with 'intentional communities,' like nation states, is that they become intentionally exclusive and xenophobic.

Attila
---




Hello Ms terry,

Yes there is a form of socialism through the local community, the smallest functioning community being the best form of it, because there are less cooks in the kitchen. To expect a large goverment beaurocracy to effectively govern millions is folly. You have to keep it small and keep it personal. This has worked in China as you have noted, for 6,000 years, and it worked in the rest of the World for much longer, until governments became bigger in the days of the Greeks and then the Romans. When the Roman Empire fell apart, Europe reverted to feudal community, and surprisingly, people were happier.

See this excellent post by Neshamah, which I will also re-post in the new thread:

Advocating government solutions is an abdication of social responsibility. In every area that the government has stepped in, service has suffered and traditional organizations have atrophied or been forcefully pushed out of the public sphere.

This substitution of government for a strong and flexible society started with Republicans in the 19th century and their handouts to newly defined corporations. Rather than cut off the handouts, the New Deal expanded them to almost everyone. This should not be reversed over night, but it will be reversed because thanks to the last eight years we have run out of resources. Individuals can succeed when government stops playing favorites through selective funding.

Social responsibility means taking a look at what you can do either yourself or through organizations in your local community, preferably organizations that do not accept public money. When foreign countries stop lending us money, the organizations that did not accept Federal dollars will be the ones we will depend on.

~ Neshamah

[theindependenteye]

>>When the Roman Empire fell apart, Europe reverted to feudal community, and surprisingly, people were happier.

I'm curious about the source of this conclusion.

-Conrad

[toddwquigley]

Todd, I am not sure how pointing out the impossibility of personally financing long term care for an afflicted person is closed minded or selfish. This problem is complex and your arrogant proclamation that it is everyone's own responsibility to care for their sick relatives regardless of cost shows an extreme lack of understanding or compassion on your part. I did the right thing, lost everything I had built over a lifetime of working and "being responsible", it still wasn't enough. I, as well as many others I have since counseled on this subject, tried to use every social networking tool available to me. When you are busy feeding and wiping the feces off your loved one searching for resources is not that easy.

What do you mean "impossibility"? You did it, I've done it, people have been doing it for thousands of years. You are completely wrong, it's not impossible just uncomfortable, and that seems to be your complaint, that you would rather the government stepped in and handled it for you, so that you wouldn't be inconvenienced, that is SELFISH.

Again, your ignorance and arrogance shows: Did I not tell you in an earlier post that I have done the exact same thing you have; namely see a relative through Alzheimer's to their death, did you miss this? I have had the same experience you did, the difference is that I never once considered asking the State for help because I knew it was my responsibility, while you whine that the Satate didn't help you.

It's your job it's your family, it's not the taxpayer's responsibility. That's what people do when their elders die: We are supposed to drop what we are doing and handle it. Again, you are railing against over 10,000 years of history because it was uncomfortable for you. That's life, it's not all about you.

When my mother starts to go, I expect that I will have to put my life on hold for quite a while and take care of her, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I certainly wouldn't want some State appointed nurse to do it for me. What a horrible thing for her to have some person she doesn't even know taking care of her during her dying days, instead of having her family. I don't expect or want any financial help from the State either, why should the State be responsible for my issues?

I expect that in the next ten years or so, I will move her into my home, so that she is well looked after as she gets older and daily tasks get harder for her. This will be a big inconvenience and expense for me, and I will have to re-structure my life around it, but I certainly wouldn't have it any other way. This is what humans have done since day one, even most higher level animals take care of the elderly in their family group.

You are an incredibly selfish person to put yourself in front of your family. Family is the most basic and strong of social groups, and when family would rather have the State take care of each other, there is something really wrong with their thinking.

Neshemah, in the world that is coming your idea might work, in this world of scattered families and poor social networks it is not. I and my wife are currently actively seeking out intentional community. I believe the only real hope in the future is for people to come together and I generally support your ideas.

Scattered families and social networks are not the responsibility of the State, this is the responsibility of the family. When my Grandfather died of Alzheimer's, he wasn't conveniently next door, he was 3000 miles away, and I had to drop everything I was doing, pack up, and move there to take care of him. I was not by any means rich, and by the time he died, I was deeply into debt because of it.

I wish that my aunt or uncle had stepped up and taken care of their parent, instead of being selfish and leaving it to me, the grandchild, but I certainly wouldn't want some State appointed nurse to have taken my place. Alzheimer's is terrible for the person attending the patient, but it is even worse for the patient, because they have moments of lucidity, and they know exactly what is happening to them. What could be worse, than to have one of those moments, and to find yourself not in your home surrounded by family, but to find yourself in a nursing home surrounded by strangers?


Currently Government is the only entity large enough to set up and fund health care on a large scale, or at least provide actual aid. In the coming change I hope "Government" will be what it should be- the collective power of "The People" put in action. We are government. If people would step up and learn the issues, actively participate, and vote accordingly.

Why must government handle these things that the people have traditionally done, and done well by the people, why do you want some faceless entity to handle your life?


This is a very hot topic and one that has consumed most of the last 9 years of my life. I am not actually sure of anything. The only thing I am sure of is that my parents are in a better place now.

[toddwquigley]

When the Roman Empire fell apart, Europe reverted to feudal community, and surprisingly, people were happier.

I'm curious about the source of this conclusion.

Are you joking, you can't be serious. Did you not attend ANY history or social studies classes in school?

Would you (ie: most people) rather live in a small community where you know each other, help each other, know the people making the decisions and have some representation in them ("Medieval" Europe was not "evil"), or would you rather be governed from afar? Even to this day, large cities are broken down into seperate neighborhoods that look after themselves because they would rather not have the city as a whole doing it for them.

This is why America seperated from the British Empire. This is what has perputuated the (collectively) Chinese people for 6,000 years, even against the nest efforts of socialism to turn them into numbers.

Would you rather be a number, or part of a community?

I'm not even going to bother elaborating further, please put some logical thought into your next post...

[theindependenteye]

>>>When the Roman Empire fell apart, Europe reverted to feudal community, and surprisingly, people were happier.

>>I'm curious about the source of this conclusion.

>Are you joking, you can't be serious. Did you not attend ANY history or social studies classes in school?

Todd, are you always this abusive to people you don't know?

Your response ignores my question, I guess because you feel you're the only logical creature in town. But if I were to state categorically, "In Tsarist Russia, village Jews were happy after a pogrom, because it brought them closer together," you might reasonably ask me the source of my historical acuity. You didn't say "it just stands to reason that people were happier," you stated it as a fact. To answer your question, yes, I've had history courses and read a lot of history — Braudel is a pretty good source, I think — and I don't know what leads to your certainty that people were "happier" in a feudalistic society, except your simply deducing it from your worldview. Someone else might say that it just stands to reason that people were happier under Stalin because Marx argued quite logically that they would be.

But if they didn't teach you politeness in kindergarten, then forget I asked.

-Conrad

[toddwquigley]

Your response ignores my question,

Evidently you didn't read my response because it completely answers your question with simple logic. Give it another try.

I guess because you feel you're the only logical creature in town. But if I were to state categorically, "In Tsarist Russia, village Jews were happy after a pogrom, because it brought them closer together," you might reasonably ask me the source of my historical acuity.

No, I would just laugh at you...

You didn't say "it just stands to reason that people were happier," you stated it as a fact.

Fact: Life under the Magna Carta, and the social mores that lead up to it were considerably better than under Roman law, which treated anyone that was not a Roman citizen like livestock.

Fact: Rome was overthrown, because of it's tyranny, corruption and abuse of the people, did you miss this???

To answer your question, yes, I've had history courses and read a lot of history — Braudel is a pretty good source, I think — and I don't know what leads to your certainty that people were "happier" in a feudalistic society, except your simply deducing it from your worldview.

Read the above.

Someone else might say that it just stands to reason that people were happier under Stalin because Marx argued quite logically that they would be.

That someone would be an illogical idiot, Marxism is an illogical fantasy, because it does not take into account human nature, 70% of the World saw this, but somehow the Russians didn't,(The Chinese never had a choice). It was many years between Marx and the October Revolution, and during that time nobody else saw enough logic in Marxism to try it.

(Your statement does remind me of Obama though: "Trust me not because there is a preponderance of facts and logic against what I say, but trust me because I say so and it sound good", and millions did, just as they believed Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Peron, Castro, etc., just because they were told what they wanted to hear, even though it didn't make any logical sense).

But if they didn't teach you politeness in kindergarten, then forget I asked.

You portray yourself to be intelligent, so ask a well though out question and I'll respect it. Right now, based on your questions and statements, I classify you on a level with Franklin who is a complete emotional reactionary that questions logic and attacks it with emotions. However with some thinking involved, I'll move you up to the status of MsTerry, who I may not always agree with, but because her questions are well thought out and logical, I respect very much.

[Photoguy]

Here's a simple emotional response Hey Todd, go f%#@ yourself!!!!


Todd, I am not sure how pointing out the impossibility of personally financing long term care for an afflicted person is closed minded or selfish. This problem is complex and your arrogant proclamation that it is everyone's own responsibility to care for their sick relatives regardless of cost shows an extreme lack of understanding or compassion on your part. I did the right thing, lost everything I had built over a lifetime of working and "being responsible", it still wasn't enough. I, as well as many others I have since counseled on this subject, tried to use every social networking tool available to me. When you are busy feeding and wiping the feces off your loved one searching for resources is not that easy.

What do you mean "impossibility"? You did it, I've done it, people have been doing it for thousands of years. You are completely wrong, it's not impossible just uncomfortable, and that seems to be your complaint, that you would rather the government stepped in and handled it for you, so that you wouldn't be inconvenienced, that is SELFISH.

Again, your ignorance and arrogance shows: Did I not tell you in an earlier post that I have done the exact same thing you have; namely see a relative through Alzheimer's to their death, did you miss this? I have had the same experience you did, the difference is that I never once considered asking the State for help because I knew it was my responsibility, while you whine that the Satate didn't help you.

It's your job it's your family, it's not the taxpayer's responsibility. That's what people do when their elders die: We are supposed to drop what we are doing and handle it. Again, you are railing against over 10,000 years of history because it was uncomfortable for you. That's life, it's not all about you.

When my mother starts to go, I expect that I will have to put my life on hold for quite a while and take care of her, and I wouldn't have it any other way. I certainly wouldn't want some State appointed nurse to do it for me. What a horrible thing for her to have some person she doesn't even know taking care of her during her dying days, instead of having her family. I don't expect or want any financial help from the State either, why should the State be responsible for my issues?

I expect that in the next ten years or so, I will move her into my home, so that she is well looked after as she gets older and daily tasks get harder for her. This will be a big inconvenience and expense for me, and I will have to re-structure my life around it, but I certainly wouldn't have it any other way. This is what humans have done since day one, even most higher level animals take care of the elderly in their family group.

You are an incredibly selfish person to put yourself in front of your family. Family is the most basic and strong of social groups, and when family would rather have the State take care of each other, there is something really wrong with their thinking.

Neshemah, in the world that is coming your idea might work, in this world of scattered families and poor social networks it is not. I and my wife are currently actively seeking out intentional community. I believe the only real hope in the future is for people to come together and I generally support your ideas.

Scattered families and social networks are not the responsibility of the State, this is the responsibility of the family. When my Grandfather died of Alzheimer's, he wasn't conveniently next door, he was 3000 miles away, and I had to drop everything I was doing, pack up, and move there to take care of him. I was not by any means rich, and by the time he died, I was deeply into debt because of it.

I wish that my aunt or uncle had stepped up and taken care of their parent, instead of being selfish and leaving it to me, the grandchild, but I certainly wouldn't want some State appointed nurse to have taken my place. Alzheimer's is terrible for the person attending the patient, but it is even worse for the patient, because they have moments of lucidity, and they know exactly what is happening to them. What could be worse, than to have one of those moments, and to find yourself not in your home surrounded by family, but to find yourself in a nursing home surrounded by strangers?


Currently Government is the only entity large enough to set up and fund health care on a large scale, or at least provide actual aid. In the coming change I hope "Government" will be what it should be- the collective power of "The People" put in action. We are government. If people would step up and learn the issues, actively participate, and vote accordingly.

Why must government handle these things that the people have traditionally done, and done well by the people, why do you want some faceless entity to handle your life?


This is a very hot topic and one that has consumed most of the last 9 years of my life. I am not actually sure of anything. The only thing I am sure of is that my parents are in a better place now.

[toddwquigley]

Hey Photoguy, what a Brilliant, articulate and logical response. It looks like I hit upon the truth of the matter: You are a selfish, illogical and emotional person that would rather hand your responsibilities to someone else.

It's funny how we both went through the same experience, and have had to two entirely different reactions to it: You would rather that the goverment handle your family responsibilities so that you are not inconvenienced. While I would rather handle my responsibilities so that the government is not inconvenienced.

It sounds just like JFK: "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".

You are asking what your country can do for you, and I am asking what I can do for my country.

You are part of the problem, not the answers to the problem.

[theindependenteye]

>>Evidently you didn't read my response because it completely answers your question with simple logic. Give it another try.

Tried it twice. Same answer. You're making a deductive argument that may or may not be true, but you're asserting it as fact: people were happier under that system, i.e. 1297 AD and the preceding 800 years. You may be quite right, but your only evidence is that they should have been. But suppose they were as vile and misguided as present-day liberals and hated every minute of feudalism, not realizing how happy they should actually be?

>>Fact: Life under the Magna Carta, and the social mores that lead up to it were considerably better than under Roman law, which treated anyone that was not a Roman citizen like livestock.

Sorry, did I miss your saying that you'd lived there? That sounds to me like a very broad speculation (given we're talking about more than a thousand years of history in an extremely diverse collection of cultures) that seems undeniably true to you because it fits so well into the argument you're making.

And by the way, I wasn't challenging that basic argument. I'm only reacting to your abusive response to a very simple question.

>>Fact: Rome was overthrown, because of it's [sp] tyranny, corruption and abuse of the people, did you miss this???

I'm no cheerleader for the Romans, the bastards, but between the Republic and the Empire, those guys ruled the roost a considerable number of centuries, not to mention evolving a culture that's shaped our world to the present day.

But if you're arguing that the Goths, etc., over several hundred years, at last prevailed because the Empire's inhabitants were unhappy under centralized rule, then what, pray tell, caused the dissolution of feudalism? I would say a growing capital-driven market economy coupled with the gradual centralization of power in monarchies that, like Rome, could build roads, regulate commerce, and keep the peace between quarreling dukes.

But in any of these cases, to say that for sure people were happier? How do you judge? By church attendance? By the Nielsen ratings? By the GNP? Or by the infinite capacity of deductive reasoning to jigger the results?

>>But if they didn't teach you politeness in kindergarten, then forget I asked.

>You portray yourself to be intelligent, so ask a well though out question and I'll respect it. Right now, based on your questions and statements, I classify you on a level with Franklin who is a complete emotional reactionary that questions logic and attacks it with emotions.

Well we're down to the level of "So's your old man!" But since we're in classification mode, no tact or gracefulness admitted, I would classify you as a man who portrays himself as a truthteller, as experienced in all degrees of adversity and taking pride in overcoming them, as highly skilled in logic and analysis, and as both emotionally more mature and intellectually superior to the vast majority of your fellow citizens. Is any of that an exaggeration?

It must be difficult.

>However with some thinking involved, I'll move you up to the status of MsTerry, who I may not always agree with, but because her questions are well thought out and logical, I respect very much.

That's ok, don't do me any favors. My mom used to say, "It takes a long time for somebody to get on my shit list, but when they're on, they're on." In fact I think of myself as a pretty tolerant guy, but you've made it onto mine in record time.

Which I regret.

-Conrad

[MsTerry]

Conrad,
Now I feel passed up by you.
What if God passed thewholetruth to Todd
You might be missing out on something






>However with some thinking involved, I'll move you up to the status of MsTerry, who I may not always agree with, but because her questions are well thought out and logical, I respect very much.That's ok, don't do me any favors.

-Conrad

[Braggi]

One problem with 'intentional communities,' like nation states, is that they become intentionally exclusive and xenophobic.

Attila
---

I can think of far more people I would exclude from my intentional community than those I would include. Are you suggesting you feel otherwise? Please explain.

-Jeff

[zenekar]

Jeff, you have proven my point.

Attila
---


I can think of far more people I would exclude from my intentional community than those I would include. Are you suggesting you feel otherwise? Please explain.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Jeff, you have proven my point.
---

So, Attila, what exactly is your point?

You invoked the term "intentional community." The "intentional" part of that is choosing who you want to live with. By definition that is exclusionary.

If you are willing to live in a community where all of the occupants are chosen for you, the County of Sonnoma has a lot of people they'd like to assign you as room mates. They'll even pay you for living with them.

-Jeff

[zenekar]

My point: when we segregate ourselves into communities with only like minded people we deprive ourselves the opportunity to learn from having direct contact with the vibrant diversity of cultures and ways of being. What is the difference between "intentional community" and a gated community?

Attila
---



So, Attila, what exactly is your point?

You invoked the term "intentional community." The "intentional" part of that is choosing who you want to live with. By definition that is exclusionary.

If you are willing to live in a community where all of the occupants are chosen for you, the County of Sonnoma has a lot of people they'd like to assign you as room mates. They'll even pay you for living with them.

-Jeff

[zenekar]

Reply to Jeff, part 2: What do you mean by the County assigning roommates? Nobody is choosing for me who to live with but I prefer to mix with and live along with people from all walks of life -- to walk in their shoes so to speak, to walk down their streets, share in their meals, conversation... It is a way to have a better understanding of humanity. Isolation creates distrust.

Attila

[MsTerry]

LMAO
I had no idea you could be this funny, Jeff.


So, Attila, what exactly is your point?
If you are willing to live in a community where all of the occupants are chosen for you, the County of Sonnoma has a lot of people they'd like to assign you as room mates. They'll even pay you for living with them.

-Jeff

[toddwquigley]

Hey Conrad, I'm back, and I really must respond to your post below


>>Evidently you didn't read my response because it completely answers your question with simple logic. Give it another try.

Tried it twice. Same answer. You're making a deductive argument that may or may not be true, but you're asserting it as fact: people were happier under that system, i.e. 1297 AD and the preceding 800 years. You may be quite right, but your only evidence is that they should have been. But suppose they were as vile and misguided as present-day liberals and hated every minute of feudalism, not realizing how happy they should actually be?

Well Conrad, it's the only argument anybody can make since none of us lived there, we can look at history of the situation and make decisions based on that information. For example, who's to say that we really went to the moon, were you actually on the Apollo flights?

The historical evidence we have proves my point. I gave you a small but significant part of it, and really nothing more was needed to effectively and logically make my point. The statement below effectively covers it.

>>Fact: Life under the Magna Carta, and the social mores that lead up to it were considerably better than under Roman law, which treated anyone that was not a Roman citizen like livestock.

Sorry, did I miss your saying that you'd lived there? That sounds to me like a very broad speculation (given we're talking about more than a thousand years of history in an extremely diverse collection of cultures) that seems undeniably true to you because it fits so well into the argument you're making.

It seems undeniably true to everyone else also, which is why it is accepted fact, and you are the first I know to (ineffectively) debate it.

And by the way, I wasn't challenging that basic argument. I'm only reacting to your abusive response to a very simple question.



As you have pointed out here and before, you claim to know your history pretty well. Therefore, you know exactly what I am talking about, and agree with it as you admit in the paragraph above.

No we get to the meat of the matter, the fact that this was all nothing but a game that you are unhappy about being called on. You set out a question that based on your supposed intelligence, is so stupid that the only response was to point out that fact.

So, what was the purpose of the question? We both know that it cannot ever be proven with 100% certainty one way or another, therefore any debate is pointless, we just have a preponderance of information that points to the fact that people were happier in the feudal societies that came about after the fall of the Empire. As such, it is commonly accepted as historical fact.

As this has been a precept of European history that anybody that had taken a high school World History class would know, it made your question one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard, or simply a play to start an equally stupid argument over semantics.

You have admitted that you agree with my assessment of the situation (IE: World History as we presently know it to be from the evidence we have), you are simply peeved that I called your question what it was, which was that of someone who is either woefully historically ignorant, or that of a game playing cretin.

I naturally assumed that you would rather be called historically ignorant rather than a game playing cretin and gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I see that I was wrong, and you are the lower of the two lows.


>>Fact: Rome was overthrown, because of it's [sp] tyranny, corruption and abuse of the people, did you miss this???

I'm no cheerleader for the Romans, the bastards, but between the Republic and the Empire, those guys ruled the roost a considerable number of centuries, not to mention evolving a culture that's shaped our world to the present day.

But if you're arguing that the Goths, etc., over several hundred years, at last prevailed because the Empire's inhabitants were unhappy under centralized rule, then what, pray tell, caused the dissolution of feudalism? I would say a growing capital-driven market economy coupled with the gradual centralization of power in monarchies that, like Rome, could build roads, regulate commerce, and keep the peace between quarreling dukes.

Greed did it in, greed was what bred the monarchies, and the monarchies couldn't stay in power, simply with force alone, they had to do something for the people, or the people would once again revolt (which they did).

But in any of these cases, to say that for sure people were happier? How do you judge? By church attendance? By the Nielsen ratings? By the GNP? Or by the infinite capacity of deductive reasoning to jigger the results?

I guess you will just have to travel back in time and enlighten us all, until then we will all just to go with what we know so far, and call it "accepted historical fact".

>>But if they didn't teach you politeness in kindergarten, then forget I asked.

>You portray yourself to be intelligent, so ask a well though out question and I'll respect it. Right now, based on your questions and statements, I classify you on a level with Franklin who is a complete emotional reactionary that questions logic and attacks it with emotions.

Well we're down to the level of "So's your old man!" But since we're in classification mode, no tact or gracefulness admitted, I would classify you as a man who portrays himself as a truthteller, as experienced in all degrees of adversity and taking pride in overcoming them, as highly skilled in logic and analysis, and as both emotionally more mature and intellectually superior to the vast majority of your fellow citizens. Is any of that an exaggeration?

Thank you for the compliment, I agree with you completely!

It must be difficult.

It sure as hell is...

>However with some thinking involved, I'll move you up to the status of MsTerry, who I may not always agree with, but because her questions are well thought out and logical, I respect very much.

That's ok, don't do me any favors. My mom used to say, "It takes a long time for somebody to get on my shit list, but when they're on, they're on." In fact I think of myself as a pretty tolerant guy, but you've made it onto mine in record time.

Which I regret.

-Conrad

Why do you regret it, this was your game plan from the start, you simply got what you deserved. Are you not happy with the results of your trolling?

Which label would you like, "Historically ignorant" or "Game playing cretin"?

Since you have proven yourself to be another one that likes to start arguments of semantics because you have nothing more intelligent to say about the subject under discussion, you are now permanently at the level of Franklin, which is: TROLL.

I shall remember this in my future dealings with you: Conrad knows a little history, but he is a TROLL...

[MsTerry]

You see, Todd, this is where i get a little confused with your thinking.
It looks like you are not opposed to the government collecting taxes. And on top of that you are willing to pay a self imposed tax in order to take care of your loved ones.
Now the people who don't have near or loved ones are out of luck, or as you put; " they did it to themselves".
Do you think it is possible that there are hard working people out there who can't afford medical coverage?
Do you think it's possible, that there are good, honest hard-working people out there with no next of kin to care for them?



It's your job it's your family, it's not the taxpayer's responsibility. That's what people do when their elders die: We are supposed to drop what we are doing and handle it. Again, you are railing against over 10,000 years of history because it was uncomfortable for you. That's life, it's not all about you.

[Braggi]

Reply to Jeff, part 2: What do you mean by the County assigning roommates? Nobody is choosing for me who to live with but I prefer to mix with and live along with people from all walks of life -- to walk in their shoes so to speak, to walk down their streets, share in their meals, conversation... It is a way to have a better understanding of humanity. Isolation creates distrust.

Attila, so, you're not exclusive, but you don't want anyone assigning you housemates. Hmmm. Sounds exclusive to me.

If you really want to mix and live among a wide variety of folks, great, move to San Francisco, Berkeley or Oakland. You could hardly do better. There is less diversity in Sonoma County.

You and I probably have very similar values Attila, but I want to call you on your comment about exclusiveness. You make it sound like a bad thing, but you practice it yourself and we all do. It's kind of like judgement. Both of those words have gotten a bad rap in my opinion.

You just plain can't live with a whole lot of people and a lot of those people wouldn't want to live with you. That's a part of diversity and respecting other people's wishes too. Don't fret about it. It's real but it's not real bad.

-Jeff

[phooph]

Advocating government solutions is an abdication of social responsibility. In every area that the government has stepped in, service has suffered and traditional organizations have atrophied or been forcefully pushed out of the public sphere.

~ Neshamah

I'd have to take issue with that in some instances. Public transportation has proven superior on the local level. When GM bought the public transportation systems of several large cities they eventually closed them down forcing people to buy cars or use taxis. Los Angeles is a prime example of the result. I have yet to see a private municipal transportation system to equal any of the public ones.

Private corporations have purchased the water utilities of a number of cities only to have the prices go up and the infrastructure and service to deteriorate. When you are running a utility as a for profit venture, corners must be cut. In some cities the citizens have revolted and the water utility was returned to the public. When Cal-Am took over the water utility in Sacramento they closed the local offices, laid off a lot of the utility staff and raised the fees 62%. The citizens of Sacramento eventually reclaimed their water utility.

This also happened in Bolivia and the revolt of the populace against the privatization of their water forced upon them by the World Bank eventually led to a revolt against the government. They now have a socialist president.

Some things don't work well with the capitalist model.

[toddwquigley]

Hello MsTerry,

You see, Todd, this is where i get a little confused with your thinking.
It looks like you are not opposed to the government collecting taxes.

I don't have a problem with the government collecting taxes, and actually our taxes are not that bad as they are. What I have a problem with is how that tax money is spent. In order to have a place where people have the opportunity to better themselves, we need some basics.

The first one would be to provide for a military to secure the borders, defend the country, and to protect our interests abroad. I'm not going to get into the politics of exactly when and where the military should be used right now, I'll save that for another question.

Next comes printing the money and carrying the mail so that we can have commerce, closely followed by common infrastructure. Roads, bridges, and the basics of common transportation.

With the things in place, you have the basics: A safe place to live, mail, money and transportation basics. With these basics, we did pretty well for 150 years or so, and by the time you have taken good care of these things, there are not too many dollars left over at our current tax rate.

The problems start when we start taking care of people on an individual basis, by this I mean providing their medical care, retirement, food, housing, clothing, babysitting, car maintenance, buying them a car, buying them video games, paying for their drugs and alcohol, hair coloring, boob jobs, cat food, dog bones, nail polish remover, cell phones, gambling debts, vacations, air travel, gasoline, utilities, porno DVD's, breathmints, sunglasses etc, etc, etc, each of which people will argue that they just must have in order to survive, get ahead, get out of debt, be happy, etc, etc.

This to me, is when you stop looking to the State to help you, and start looking at yourself, and if you can't provide all those things, your family, friends and immediate community. I have said this before, but bears repeating again: The newest scam in France is for women to get the State to pay for their cosmetic surgery by saying that they are depressed because their boobs are too small, or their nose is too big, or their teeth are not white enough, and that because of this depression the State has two options: Either pay for a lifetime of anti-depressants and therapy, or to pay for the desired surgery. Thousands and thousands of young French women are getting State boob jobs, and everyone else is paying for what is their, and/or their significant other's responsibility. People are using this same line of thinking to get their teeth done, not just to have rotten teeth extracted, but to have thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic dentistry done.

My point is that once you start spending tax dollars on individuals, the abuse of these tax dollars immediately gets out of control.

Now let me lead this into the second part of your question.

And on top of that you are willing to pay a self imposed tax in order to take care of your loved ones.

Yes, I certainly am, because of the above, and because it is MY responsibility to take care of myself and my family.

Now the people who don't have near or loved ones are out of luck, or as you put; " they did it to themselves".

There are a very few, that actually don't have anywhere to turn, but the truth is that there are not very many of them. The vast majority do have family and friends to turn to. For those that really, truly don't have ANY OTHER resources, I believe that yes, society as a whole should step in.

But again, the number of people that really, really don't have anywhere else to turn to, and it's really, truly not because of their own actions, the number of these people is very small. The vast majority do have places to go, or they would have if their behavior didn't cut them off from society.

If you want to act in such a way, that your family disownes you, and nobody wants to be around you, then why oh why is your problem my problem. You have rejected society, don't be surprised when society rejects you.

Do you think it is possible that there are hard working people out there who can't afford medical coverage?

Well, what's your priorities? If you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you can afford to feed, cloth and house yourself, AND, provide for medical coverage. You may not eat much more than Ramen, live in a tent, and wear clothes from the thrift stores, but you WILL have enough money left over for medical coverage. I would say this would be true for 99% of the people in that situation, the 1% being the person who has so many pre-existing medical conditions, that the insurance company charges a gigantic premium to cover that condition.

What it usually comes down to is that the last priority is medical coverage, long after other luxuries are covered. People will say: "But I don't have any luxuries". Really, what's that thing you are driving, is it called a car, it sure doesn't look like a bus or a bike or your feet, is that a Starbuck's in the cup holder? Really, you don't have any luxuries, what are those sunglasses doing on your head? Why do you really need a purse or wallet, when your pockets will do just as well.

I mean, I can go on, and on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Do you think it's possible, that there are good, honest hard-working people out there with no next of kin to care for them?

Yes there certainly are, in fact a couple of my friends have no living blood family, but I am part of their extended "family", and they will never lack for help with the basics if I can help it. Nobody has ever left my house hungry, or sick unless it was by their choice, and I will bet it is the same with you, because it is with almost everyone.

I will concede that there are a very small number of people that really and truly don't have anywhere to turn, and really can't make it happen even though they have really tried everything to make it, and for these very few true unfortunates, there should be State help. However, there needs to be much better and tougher oversight of the programs. The simple way to do this is to make it really sting for people caught abusing the programs. Jail time and fines keeps people in line quite well, if people that abused social programs were subject to jail time, fines in the form of higher payroll taxes and being blacklisted from the programs they were caught abusing, the incidents of abuse would drop by 90%, which means that 80% of the people using the programs wouldn't be using them, and there would be plenty of money for these programs after the basics of government were paid for with our tax dollars.

People are lazy, selfish and prideful, they would rather lie and steal from the Government (AKA society as a whole), then make sacrifices and prostrate themselves in front of their friends and family, by saying: "Hey, I made some mistakes, I'm not as cool as I have been pretending to be, and I not only need some help, but I need some advice so that I don't put myself in this position again with my selfishness and pride."

That is how the World worked effectively for thousands of years, and it worked just fine, in fact it made America the greatest place in the World. But when people could go lie to a faceless government agency and have it solve their problems, instead of relying on honesty in close interpersonal relationships, we started to slide, and it keeps getting worse.

People complain about how bad it is, and it seems the only thing they can come up with is not to turn back to what was sometimes uncomfortable, but worked well, but to go with more of the easy thing, the thing that caused the problem in the first place. To me it makes as much sense as putting your fingers in the fire, and saying: Wow, that really hurts, I think I'll put some more wood on the fire, and put the rest of my hand in the flames.

Are you getting it?

[zenekar]

I can't say for sure because I don't know where you live, Jeff, but perhaps you're not aware of the diversity in Sonoma County because you insulate yourself within your comfort zone. West County's "conscious community" in general appears to be a good example of an insulated (exclusive) community. I've often heard the expression, "navel gazing" attributed to folks of this "new age" community. Latino's, Erithrians, African-Americans, folks from various nations of Asia, Europe, Africa, immigrants from many parts of the world, also live in this County. We become more rich in the soul when we get in the mix with people not like ourselves -- our "lifestyle", or values.

Attila
---



Attila, so, you're not exclusive, but you don't want anyone assigning you housemates. Hmmm. Sounds exclusive to me.

If you really want to mix and live among a wide variety of folks, great, move to San Francisco, Berkeley or Oakland. You could hardly do better. There is less diversity in Sonoma County.

You and I probably have very similar values Attila, but I want to call you on your comment about exclusiveness. You make it sound like a bad thing, but you practice it yourself and we all do. It's kind of like judgement. Both of those words have gotten a bad rap in my opinion.

You just plain can't live with a whole lot of people and a lot of those people wouldn't want to live with you. That's a part of diversity and respecting other people's wishes too. Don't fret about it. It's real but it's not real bad.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Todd,
Now I like your idea of living on the fringe, huddling in a tent to save some money, the only problem with that idea is that the government and your neighbours won't allow it.
There are laws against this.
I myself was evicted because I was living in a trailer, and had the nerve to hook up some water and electrical.
IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO LIVE IN A TRAILER EVEN IT IS PARKED ON YOUR OWN LAND.

Now getting back to health care.
You do realize that paying for health care coverage, is another hidden tax. And as Michael Moore pointed out, a large % goes to administration rather than care. This is wasteful.
So why not flat tax every one, and use the money saved to improve healthcare.
Your so-called basic needs, are a little too basic.
You leave out a few important and functioning governmental entities, such as;
The Police department
The Court systems
The Fire Dept
Emergency Vehicles
The Military
The IRS
Do you suggest they should all be privatized? And we can pay for as needed?



Hello MsTerry,


Well, what's your priorities? If you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you can afford to feed, cloth and house yourself, AND, provide for medical coverage. You may not eat much more than Ramen, live in a tent, and wear clothes from the thrift stores, but you WILL have enough money left over for medical coverage. I would say this would be true for 99% of the people in that situation, the 1% being the person who has so many pre-existing medical conditions, that the insurance company charges a gigantic premium to cover that condition.

What it usually comes down to is that the last priority is medical coverage, long after other luxuries are covered. People will say: "But I don't have any luxuries". Really, what's that thing you are driving, is it called a car, it sure doesn't look like a bus or a bike or your feet, is that a Starbuck's in the cup holder? Really, you don't have any luxuries, what are those sunglasses doing on your head? Why do you really need a purse or wallet, when your pockets will do just as well.

[zenekar]

Todd,

I wish I had as much time to write as you do, but there are a few of your statements I need to respond to. As I read your view of life I think that maybe you're like Stephen Colbert, a tongue in cheek "conservative" but I'm saddened to see that you are dead serious.

You write:
...What I have a problem with is how that tax money is spent. In order to have a place where people have the opportunity to better themselves, we need some basics. ... The problems start when we start taking care of people on an individual basis, by this I mean providing their medical care, retirement, food, housing, clothing, babysitting, ... [you then continue with exaggerations]

My reply:
I would argue that a caring society might consider as basic needs to provide for or subsidize (with our taxes): education, health care, affordable housing, child care, and care for the elders.

You write:
The first one would be to provide for a military to secure the borders, defend the country, and to protect our interests abroad...

My reply:
What are "our interests" that the US military needs to protect. It appears that those interests are to invade, colonize and loot resources (including cheap labor) of other nations, for corporate profit. Yes, a bit of those resources (like gasoline) trickles down to the average consuming citizen but at the high cost of maintaining corporate welfare and military security for the ruling class. What of the cost of millions of lives, suffering and poverty inflicted on others "to protect our interests."

You write:
If you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you can afford to feed, cloth and house yourself, AND, provide for medical coverage. You may not eat much more than Ramen, live in a tent, and wear clothes from the thrift stores, but you WILL have enough money left over for medical coverage....

My reply:
Aside from being unrealistic, you lack compassion for humanity. Your I got mine, screw everyone else -- Republican attitude -- is difficult to bear. May I advise you to speak with someone from the Living Wage Coalition about what is a living wage? Also, there is a book by Jonathan Cozol "Savagea Inequalities" that my open your eyes about education in the US. You seem to know much about history but maybe you haven't read "A Different Mirror" by Ronald Takaki or for that matter, "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Smile at a stranger.

Attila
---




Hello MsTerry,

You see, Todd, this is where i get a little confused with your thinking.
It looks like you are not opposed to the government collecting taxes.

I don't have a problem with the government collecting taxes, and actually our taxes are not that bad as they are. What I have a problem with is how that tax money is spent. In order to have a place where people have the opportunity to better themselves, we need some basics.

The first one would be to provide for a military to secure the borders, defend the country, and to protect our interests abroad. I'm not going to get into the politics of exactly when and where the military should be used right now, I'll save that for another question.

Next comes printing the money and carrying the mail so that we can have commerce, closely followed by common infrastructure. Roads, bridges, and the basics of common transportation.

With the things in place, you have the basics: A safe place to live, mail, money and transportation basics. With these basics, we did pretty well for 150 years or so, and by the time you have taken good care of these things, there are not too many dollars left over at our current tax rate.

The problems start when we start taking care of people on an individual basis, by this I mean providing their medical care, retirement, food, housing, clothing, babysitting, car maintenance, buying them a car, buying them video games, paying for their drugs and alcohol, hair coloring, boob jobs, cat food, dog bones, nail polish remover, cell phones, gambling debts, vacations, air travel, gasoline, utilities, porno DVD's, breathmints, sunglasses etc, etc, etc, each of which people will argue that they just must have in order to survive, get ahead, get out of debt, be happy, etc, etc.

This to me, is when you stop looking to the State to help you, and start looking at yourself, and if you can't provide all those things, your family, friends and immediate community. I have said this before, but bears repeating again: The newest scam in France is for women to get the State to pay for their cosmetic surgery by saying that they are depressed because their boobs are too small, or their nose is too big, or their teeth are not white enough, and that because of this depression the State has two options: Either pay for a lifetime of anti-depressants and therapy, or to pay for the desired surgery. Thousands and thousands of young French women are getting State boob jobs, and everyone else is paying for what is their, and/or their significant other's responsibility. People are using this same line of thinking to get their teeth done, not just to have rotten teeth extracted, but to have thousands of dollars worth of cosmetic dentistry done.

My point is that once you start spending tax dollars on individuals, the abuse of these tax dollars immediately gets out of control.

Now let me lead this into the second part of your question.

And on top of that you are willing to pay a self imposed tax in order to take care of your loved ones.

Yes, I certainly am, because of the above, and because it is MY responsibility to take care of myself and my family.

Now the people who don't have near or loved ones are out of luck, or as you put; " they did it to themselves".

There are a very few, that actually don't have anywhere to turn, but the truth is that there are not very many of them. The vast majority do have family and friends to turn to. For those that really, truly don't have ANY OTHER resources, I believe that yes, society as a whole should step in.

But again, the number of people that really, really don't have anywhere else to turn to, and it's really, truly not because of their own actions, the number of these people is very small. The vast majority do have places to go, or they would have if their behavior didn't cut them off from society.

If you want to act in such a way, that your family disownes you, and nobody wants to be around you, then why oh why is your problem my problem. You have rejected society, don't be surprised when society rejects you.

Do you think it is possible that there are hard working people out there who can't afford medical coverage?

Well, what's your priorities? If you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you can afford to feed, cloth and house yourself, AND, provide for medical coverage. You may not eat much more than Ramen, live in a tent, and wear clothes from the thrift stores, but you WILL have enough money left over for medical coverage. I would say this would be true for 99% of the people in that situation, the 1% being the person who has so many pre-existing medical conditions, that the insurance company charges a gigantic premium to cover that condition.

What it usually comes down to is that the last priority is medical coverage, long after other luxuries are covered. People will say: "But I don't have any luxuries". Really, what's that thing you are driving, is it called a car, it sure doesn't look like a bus or a bike or your feet, is that a Starbuck's in the cup holder? Really, you don't have any luxuries, what are those sunglasses doing on your head? Why do you really need a purse or wallet, when your pockets will do just as well.

I mean, I can go on, and on, but I'm sure you get the point.

Do you think it's possible, that there are good, honest hard-working people out there with no next of kin to care for them?

Yes there certainly are, in fact a couple of my friends have no living blood family, but I am part of their extended "family", and they will never lack for help with the basics if I can help it. Nobody has ever left my house hungry, or sick unless it was by their choice, and I will bet it is the same with you, because it is with almost everyone.

I will concede that there are a very small number of people that really and truly don't have anywhere to turn, and really can't make it happen even though they have really tried everything to make it, and for these very few true unfortunates, there should be State help. However, there needs to be much better and tougher oversight of the programs. The simple way to do this is to make it really sting for people caught abusing the programs. Jail time and fines keeps people in line quite well, if people that abused social programs were subject to jail time, fines in the form of higher payroll taxes and being blacklisted from the programs they were caught abusing, the incidents of abuse would drop by 90%, which means that 80% of the people using the programs wouldn't be using them, and there would be plenty of money for these programs after the basics of government were paid for with our tax dollars.

People are lazy, selfish and prideful, they would rather lie and steal from the Government (AKA society as a whole), then make sacrifices and prostrate themselves in front of their friends and family, by saying: "Hey, I made some mistakes, I'm not as cool as I have been pretending to be, and I not only need some help, but I need some advice so that I don't put myself in this position again with my selfishness and pride."

That is how the World worked effectively for thousands of years, and it worked just fine, in fact it made America the greatest place in the World. But when people could go lie to a faceless government agency and have it solve their problems, instead of relying on honesty in close interpersonal relationships, we started to slide, and it keeps getting worse.

People complain about how bad it is, and it seems the only thing they can come up with is not to turn back to what was sometimes uncomfortable, but worked well, but to go with more of the easy thing, the thing that caused the problem in the first place. To me it makes as much sense as putting your fingers in the fire, and saying: Wow, that really hurts, I think I'll put some more wood on the fire, and put the rest of my hand in the flames.

Are you getting it?

[Photoguy]

I don't know why I am posting on this thread again other than that I have come to some realizations and my sympathy for poor Todd has been able to overcome my outrage at him.

Ms Terry you have hit the nail on the head. For anyone who doubts that current health coverage is essentially a scam to enrich CEO's and middle managers of Health Care Companies here is an excerpt from the White House at the time the bill allowing HMO's was passed.

"John D. Ehrlichman: “On the … on the health business …”
President Nixon: “Yeah.”
Ehrlichman: “… we have now narrowed down the vice president’s problems on this thing to one issue and that is whether we should include these health maintenance organizations like Edgar Kaiser’s Permanente thing. The vice president just cannot see it. We tried 15 ways from Friday to explain it to him and then help him to understand it. He finally says, ‘Well, I don’t think they’ll work, but if the President thinks it’s a good idea, I’ll support him a hundred percent.’”
President Nixon: “Well, what’s … what’s the judgment?”
Ehrlichman: “Well, everybody else’s judgment very strongly is that we go with it.”
President Nixon: “All right.”
Ehrlichman: “And, uh, uh, he’s the one holdout that we have in the whole office.”
President Nixon: “Say that I … I … I’d tell him I have doubts about it, but I think that it’s, uh, now let me ask you, now you give me your judgment. You know I’m not to keen on any of these damn medical programs.”
Ehrlichman: “This, uh, let me, let me tell you how I am …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “This … this is a …”
President Nixon: “I don’t [unclear] …”
Ehrlichman: “… private enterprise one.”
President Nixon: “Well, that appeals to me.”
Ehrlichman: “Edgar Kaiser is running his Permanente deal for profit. And the reason that he can … the reason he can do it … I had Edgar Kaiser come in … talk to me about this and I went into it in some depth. All the incentives are toward less medical care, because …”
President Nixon: [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: “… the less care they give them, the more money they make.”
President Nixon: “Fine.” [Unclear.]
Ehrlichman: [Unclear] “… and the incentives run the right way.”
President Nixon: “Not bad.”

It's interesting how some people not only allow themselves to become sheep led to slaughter, they become incensed at others who point out the exit from the killing floor.:heart:

[toddwquigley]

I don't know why I am posting on this thread again other than that I have come to some realizations and my sympathy for poor Todd has been able to overcome my outrage at him.

Ms Terry you have hit the nail on the head. For anyone who doubts that current health coverage is essentially a scam to enrich CEO's and middle managers of Health Care Companies here is an excerpt from the White House at the time the bill allowing HMO's was passed.

And you really believe that socialized health care is any different? They do the exact same thing in England (personal experience). The patient comes last, and the money comes first. The BBC did a famous study a few years ago where they found out that British health care system had enough funds to handle twice as many people as were using it, IF it wasn't mined for money. In other words, the same corruption you rail about was happening in socialized healthcare, the only difference being that the taxpayers paid for it. The government does a horrible job, because it's the government itself that is on the take. Where the is money, there is corruption, I would prefer to have corruption in private industry where at least we can attempt to do something about it.

Ignorance is bliss...

[Photoguy]

That's very nice Dear. Is your tent cold? I have some blankets and Christmas ornaments I could give you to help improve your surroundings.:heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart:


I don't know why I am posting on this thread again other than that I have come to some realizations and my sympathy for poor Todd has been able to overcome my outrage at him.

Ms Terry you have hit the nail on the head. For anyone who doubts that current health coverage is essentially a scam to enrich CEO's and middle managers of Health Care Companies here is an excerpt from the White House at the time the bill allowing HMO's was passed.

And you really believe that socialized health care is any different? They do the exact same thing in England (personal experience). The patient comes last, and the money comes first. The BBC did a famous study a few years ago where they found out that British health care system had enough funds to handle twice as many people as were using it, IF it wasn't mined for money. In other words, the same corruption you rail about was happening in socialized healthcare, the only difference being that the taxpayers paid for it. The government does a horrible job, because it's the government itself that is on the take. Where the is money, there is corruption, I would prefer to have corruption in private industry where at least we can attempt to do something about it.

Ignorance is bliss...

[toddwquigley]

Todd,

I wish I had as much time to write as you do, but there are a few of your statements I need to respond to. As I read your view of life I think that maybe you're like Stephen Colbert, a tongue in cheek "conservative" but I'm saddened to see that you are dead serious.

You write:
...What I have a problem with is how that tax money is spent. In order to have a place where people have the opportunity to better themselves, we need some basics. ... The problems start when we start taking care of people on an individual basis, by this I mean providing their medical care, retirement, food, housing, clothing, babysitting, ... [you then continue with exaggerations]

My reply:
I would argue that a caring society might consider as basic needs to provide for or subsidize (with our taxes): education, health care, affordable housing, child care, and care for the elders.

I would argue that a caring society not make SHEEP out of our citizens with socialism. Read my post again, I suggest that we provide for everything you list (Although I did mean to include K-12 education in the basics), I just suggest that we not rely on the State, but upon our community. Again, this worked fine for thousands of years, people took care of each other. However, when you make it the State's responsibility, the people no longer have those ties that strenghten community, and we become a society of un-caring individuals. My girlfriend is French, and she would never consider giving to charity and thinks I am an idiot to give away my money, "Because the State takes care of that". 6 years later and she still doesn't have but one (me) close friend because she came from a society that does not promote community.

You write:
The first one would be to provide for a military to secure the borders, defend the country, and to protect our interests abroad...

My reply:
What are "our interests" that the US military needs to protect. It appears that those interests are to invade, colonize and loot resources (including cheap labor) of other nations, for corporate profit. Yes, a bit of those resources (like gasoline) trickles down to the average consuming citizen but at the high cost of maintaining corporate welfare and military security for the ruling class. What of the cost of millions of lives, suffering and poverty inflicted on others "to protect our interests."

This is a whole different topic as I noted, I am just putting forth the same idea that our founding fathers did that there will be circumstances where we will need to project ourselves internationally in OUR countries best interest. Not the World's best interest, we are not the "United World of America", but OUR best interest, and yes, that means somebody else goes without so we can have.

If you want to discuss the role of our military in foreign affairs, I'm all for it, but start another thread.

You write:
If you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you can afford to feed, cloth and house yourself, AND, provide for medical coverage. You may not eat much more than Ramen, live in a tent, and wear clothes from the thrift stores, but you WILL have enough money left over for medical coverage....

My reply:
Aside from being unrealistic, you lack compassion for humanity. Your I got mine, screw everyone else -- Republican attitude -- is difficult to bear. May I advise you to speak with someone from the Living Wage Coalition about what is a living wage? Also, there is a book by Jonathan Cozol "Savagea Inequalities" that my open your eyes about education in the US. You seem to know much about history but maybe you haven't read "A Different Mirror" by Ronald Takaki or for that matter, "The People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn. Smile at a stranger.

You assume I have never experienced what I write about, and you are wrong. I have been there and I know of what I speak.

My attitude is not Republican, it's centrist/smaller government.

[theindependenteye]

>>>...this was all nothing but a game that you are unhappy about being called on. ... based on your supposed intelligence... your question one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard, or simply a play to start an equally stupid argument over semantics. ... you are simply peeved that I called your question what it was, ... someone who is either woefully historically ignorant, or that of a game playing cretin... you are the lower of the two lows.... a complete emotional reactionary that questions logic and attacks it with emotions. ... this was your game plan from the start,... TROLL.

So, Todd, since your impression of me is summarized above, and my impression of you is a pretty rational guy who becomes an enraged fanatic whenever someone signals for a left turn, maybe we should get together for coffee some time and check the validity of our impressions.

--Conrad

[Photoguy]

So Conrad, I am beginning to suspect you either own a coffee shop or are a Diplomat at Large. You seem like a very nice TROLL:):, where's your favorite coffee shop?


>>>...this was all nothing but a game that you are unhappy about being called on. ... based on your supposed intelligence... your question one of the stupidest questions I have ever heard, or simply a play to start an equally stupid argument over semantics. ... you are simply peeved that I called your question what it was, ... someone who is either woefully historically ignorant, or that of a game playing cretin... you are the lower of the two lows.... a complete emotional reactionary that questions logic and attacks it with emotions. ... this was your game plan from the start,... TROLL.

So, Todd, since your impression of me is summarized above, and my impression of you is a pretty rational guy who becomes an enraged fanatic whenever someone signals for a left turn, maybe we should get together for coffee some time and check the validity of our impressions.

--Conrad

[Neshamah]

I believe local solutions are best and am equally opposed to giant governments and giant corporations. Public transit in Delaware is pretty awful. Every time a bus fails to show up, or fails to stop, I wish I could take that other bus service, and there is none. If the managers were elected officials, that might serve the same purpose as competition.

I do not think single payer health care in the tiny state of Delaware is a good idea, but I am not automatically opposed to it assuming that we get open and accountable government first. I am open to even socialism at the local level, but in order to allow each locality the freedom to find its own solutions, the national government has to be as libertarian as possible, its role limited to limiting tyranny, (which includes limiting the power of the largest corporations.) Don't get me started on world government.

This is a little rushed, but my theory on free markets is akin to Newtonian physics. It works most of the time, but not at the extremes. I believe people should be able to provide their own food, housing, and healthcare without government assistance, and want to see a living wage that covers all three even if it has to be mandated. At the other end of the spectrum, I think higher taxes and more regulation on companies large enough to be threatening America with economic armageddon if they don't get our money is appropriate. In between those extremes is where I believe markets should be as free as possible.

Regulations and litigation tend to disproportionately affect small businesses. The largest businesses stay a step ahead of the regulations with the help of vast legal teams and creativity, e.g., "credit default swaps" instead of insurance so that they don't have to follow insurance regulations. Regulations can also have unintended consequences. Regulations need to be crafted carefully and used as a last resort.

Not only will growing government across the board put us in danger of losing control of it (as though we have not already,) we simply no longer have the resources to grow it any further without cutting somewhere. Obama will get more support for some of his programs if he is willing to relinquish government control over others.

Progressives and libertarians agree that most of us are getting shut out of decisions that affect our lives, our finances, and our futures. More voter participation is one approach. Greater separation of powers and restoring economic power to the working class is another.

~ Neshamah



I'd have to take issue with that in some instances. Public transportation has proven superior on the local level. When GM bought the public transportation systems of several large cities they eventually closed them down forcing people to buy cars or use taxis. Los Angeles is a prime example of the result. I have yet to see a private municipal transportation system to equal any of the public ones.

Private corporations have purchased the water utilities of a number of cities only to have the prices go up and the infrastructure and service to deteriorate. When you are running a utility as a for profit venture, corners must be cut. In some cities the citizens have revolted and the water utility was returned to the public. When Cal-Am took over the water utility in Sacramento they closed the local offices, laid off a lot of the utility staff and raised the fees 62%. The citizens of Sacramento eventually reclaimed their water utility.

This also happened in Bolivia and the revolt of the populace against the privatization of their water forced upon them by the World Bank eventually led to a revolt against the government. They now have a socialist president.

Some things don't work well with the capitalist model.

[phooph]

Hello MsTerry,

Do you think it is possible that there are hard working people out there who can't afford medical coverage?

Well, what's your priorities? If you are working 40 hours a week at minimum wage, you can afford to feed, cloth and house yourself, AND, provide for medical coverage. You may not eat much more than Ramen, live in a tent, and wear clothes from the thrift stores, but you WILL have enough money left over for medical coverage. I would say this would be true for 99% of the people in that situation, the 1% being the person who has so many pre-existing medical conditions, that the insurance company charges a gigantic premium to cover that condition.

In Sonoma county you can't pay rent and pay health insurance on minimum wages. You also can't legally live in a tent as it is considered being homeless, and being homeless is illegal in most cities and towns in the county. There is no law against homelessness per se, but camping in other than a designated camp ground or on private property with permission is illegal, and any camping must be temporary. I know it is illegal in Santa Rosa to even put a trailer on your property and allow someone to live in it.

Having to live on Ramen would, over time, lead to health problems. The poor tend to have more health problems due to malnutrition and poor lifestyle choices.




That is how the World worked effectively for thousands of years, and it worked just fine, in fact it made America the greatest place in the World. But when people could go lie to a faceless government agency and have it solve their problems, instead of relying on honesty in close interpersonal relationships, we started to slide, and it keeps getting worse.

People complain about how bad it is, and it seems the only thing they can come up with is not to turn back to what was sometimes uncomfortable, but worked well, but to go with more of the easy thing, the thing that caused the problem in the first place. To me it makes as much sense as putting your fingers in the fire, and saying: Wow, that really hurts, I think I'll put some more wood on the fire, and put the rest of my hand in the flames.

Are you getting it?


I have several friends who live on disability. One of them works part time. None of them have family they can count on. I find that all of these people come from exceedingly dysfunctional families. Their families didn't take good care of them when they were children, which contributes to their physical and emotional health problems. Their families have no interest in taking care of them as adults. In fact the relationship towards family members is mutual hostility and always was since early childhood. (I have seen so much bad parenting in my life I'd support forced birth control for all until they can pass a sanity test and exhibit the ability to raise reasonably healthy children, but that's another subject.)

You mention that the world worked well for a long time without all the social programs, but this was also a world in which people were left to die if they had no social support. The cliche´of the old or crippled beggar was common. People who were unemployable were left to the mercies of individual charity. And to quote Hobbes, who noted that life was a war of every man against every man, "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." There has been much literature devoted to the nastiness of life in the days before government began to actually look to the welfare of the people as a whole. The rich have always done well. It is the rest of society that suffers.

In biblical times people were expected to tithe, and that money often went to support the poor. Those who did well were expected to offer some support those who did less well.

Prior to state social services when people lived in clans and tribes, those in need were taken care of by the rest of the clan or tribe, depending on the philosophy of the clan or tribe, of course. There have been some notoriously brutal tribes where all but the strongest were likely to suffer. Aside from those, one could look upon these groups as socialistic. A family is a socialistic unit. We don't expect small children to bring home the bacon. They are an investment in the future when they will bring home the bacon for those who can't. Till then they are material parasites. If someone is disabled they may never contribute materially to the group which is why in most primitive tribal societies sickly or deformed babies were allowed to die or were killed. This also happened to healthy babies in times when food supplies were short, and the tradition of putting grandma out on the ice for the polar bears when her teeth were worn completely away by chewing leather to soften it for clothing rendered her a burden to the family is another example. We are talking about group survival in a rather brutal world here.

Once a group grows beyond a population of around 300 individuals, anonymity begins to arise and it becomes easier to ignore the needy. One of the major changers in society was the harnessing of energy from sources other than human and animal muscle for production and transportation. It led to the industrial revolution, a decrease in the agrarian population, which had been the majority till then, and the dissolution of close-knit, family oriented groups.

The move to industry and cities and the development of cheap transportation destroyed the clan structures and created the nuclear family, a notoriously fragile social structure. Now we are seeing a move from industry to a knowledge based culture that is even more mobile and fractured than an industrial one. The family and tribal social safety nets have largely been shredded and the state is left to become the clan and tribe. The question is, what services are necessary for the state to provide to maintain a healthy, productive society? Where is the balance point between being overburdened with caring for the sick and being overburdened with uncared for people? One of the reasons that Africa is so poor is the wide spread diseases and malnutrition that reduce the productivity of the citizens.

The current situation is that health insurance is available to those who's employers provide it and those who can afford private health insurance who have no pre-existing conditions that disqualify them. I know self employed people who cannot get health insurance because they are diabetic or have had cancer. No company will sell them a policy. If they have a catastrophic health crisis they must spend themselves into debt and possibly poverty, at which point the state will pick up the tab, not to help the individual, but to support the health care industry. Much of what looks to be social services to the individual actually supports the business community. If the government didn't cover these unpaid bills the hospitals would be in worse shape than they already are, just as grocery stores in poor neighborhoods are dependent on food stamps for a good chunk of their revenue.

Of course that brings up the question about where the responsability lies when wages do not cover the actual cost of living, and who is the government really subsidizing when they make up the difference? Are you saving money buying stuff from companies that keep costs low by paying low wages only to pay it out in taxes to support those people through government programs? This became apparent enough to some local governments that they passed what is called WalMart legislation, requiring health insurance and living wages for WalMart employees to relieve the counties of the burden of caring for WalMart's staff. This led WalMart to call for national health insurance. WalMart is now the world's largest employer and grocer. They get a lot of food stamp money.

[theindependenteye]

>>So Conrad, I am beginning to suspect you either own a coffee shop or are a Diplomat at Large. You seem like a very nice TROLL:):, where's your favorite coffee shop?

Nope, don't own one. Just move around between the Cookie Company, Coffee Catz, Village Bakery, or a park bench in the square when it's warm enough.

And hardly a diplomat; I'd keep my mouth shut if I was. By profession a playwright, so I'm fascinated by the way people think & how that interfaces with who they are. I never intend to stir up drama in real life, cause you don't get paid for it there. But it happens.

Cheers—
Conrad

[toddwquigley]

I believe local solutions are best and am equally opposed to giant governments and giant corporations. Public transit in Delaware is pretty awful. Every time a bus fails to show up, or fails to stop, I wish I could take that other bus service, and there is none. If the managers were elected officials, that might serve the same purpose as competition.

I do not think single payer health care in the tiny state of Delaware is a good idea, but I am not automatically opposed to it assuming that we get open and accountable government first. I am open to even socialism at the local level, but in order to allow each locality the freedom to find its own solutions, the national government has to be as libertarian as possible, its role limited to limiting tyranny, (which includes limiting the power of the largest corporations.) Don't get me started on world government.

This is a little rushed, but my theory on free markets is akin to Newtonian physics. It works most of the time, but not at the extremes. I believe people should be able to provide their own food, housing, and healthcare without government assistance, and want to see a living wage that covers all three even if it has to be mandated. At the other end of the spectrum, I think higher taxes and more regulation on companies large enough to be threatening America with economic armageddon if they don't get our money is appropriate. In between those extremes is where I believe markets should be as free as possible.

Regulations and litigation tend to disproportionately affect small businesses. The largest businesses stay a step ahead of the regulations with the help of vast legal teams and creativity, e.g., "credit default swaps" instead of insurance so that they don't have to follow insurance regulations. Regulations can also have unintended consequences. Regulations need to be crafted carefully and used as a last resort.

Not only will growing government across the board put us in danger of losing control of it (as though we have not already,) we simply no longer have the resources to grow it any further without cutting somewhere. Obama will get more support for some of his programs if he is willing to relinquish government control over others.

Progressives and libertarians agree that most of us are getting shut out of decisions that affect our lives, our finances, and our futures. More voter participation is one approach. Greater separation of powers and restoring economic power to the working class is another.

~ Neshamah

Good stuff!

[toddwquigley]

I have several friends who live on disability. One of them works part time. None of them have family they can count on. I find that all of these people come from exceedingly dysfunctional families. Their families didn't take good care of them when they were children, which contributes to their physical and emotional health problems. Their families have no interest in taking care of them as adults. In fact the relationship towards family members is mutual hostility and always was since early childhood. (I have seen so much bad parenting in my life I'd support forced birth control for all until they can pass a sanity test and exhibit the ability to raise reasonably healthy children, but that's another subject.)

Dysfunctional families are nothing new, this is where local community come in, but to relegate it to a nation only makes the community weaker in more ways than one, the first one being that without close oversight the system gets abused more than used.

You mention that the world worked well for a long time without all the social programs, but this was also a world in which people were left to die if they had no social support. The cliche´of the old or crippled beggar was common. People who were unemployable were left to the mercies of individual charity. And to quote Hobbes, who noted that life was a war of every man against every man, "the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." There has been much literature devoted to the nastiness of life in the days before government began to actually look to the welfare of the people as a whole. The rich have always done well. It is the rest of society that suffers.

Go to any socialist country, and you see the same problems, but you also have rampant abuse of the system, and an insular society that doesn't care about each other, and thus really doesn't care about themselves.

There will always be people at the bottom, because:

A) There will always be people who refuse to do what is necessary to rise above it. (the largest portion of them)

B) There will always be people who want to be there because they like being the victim (lots and lots of them).

C) there will always be a few honest and true victims (not very many).

The only one you can actually help is C, as A and B are a complete waste of time.

In biblical times people were expected to tithe, and that money often went to support the poor. Those who did well were expected to offer some support those who did less well.

Yes, and it worked. It worked right up until FDR, whereupon people stopped helping on an individual basis, because the State supposedly did it for them. Look at European socialist countries where on the whole, the people don't give a ____ about each other.

If you really want to make people give up part of their income to help other people, then at least give them a voice in the matter and make them give it to an accepted non-profit institution of their choice, instead of deciding for them.

If everyone was forced to give 10% to a "church" of their choice (even if it's a church of atheists), the country wouldn't need any other form of social programs, because people would be sure to give their hard earned money to the institutions that they found to do the most good, most efficiently with their money.

Prior to state social services when people lived in clans and tribes, those in need were taken care of by the rest of the clan or tribe, depending on the philosophy of the clan or tribe, of course. There have been some notoriously brutal tribes where all but the strongest were likely to suffer. Aside from those, one could look upon these groups as socialistic. A family is a socialistic unit. We don't expect small children to bring home the bacon. They are an investment in the future when they will bring home the bacon for those who can't. Till then they are material parasites. If someone is disabled they may never contribute materially to the group which is why in most primitive tribal societies sickly or deformed babies were allowed to die or were killed. This also happened to healthy babies in times when food supplies were short, and the tradition of putting grandma out on the ice for the polar bears when her teeth were worn completely away by chewing leather to soften it for clothing rendered her a burden to the family is another example. We are talking about group survival in a rather brutal world here.

Yes, and the World is no less brutal, which is why we need local community more than ever, because as you point out below, large groups don't function very effectively.

Once a group grows beyond a population of around 300 individuals, anonymity begins to arise and it becomes easier to ignore the needy. One of the major changers in society was the harnessing of energy from sources other than human and animal muscle for production and transportation. It led to the industrial revolution, a decrease in the agrarian population, which had been the majority till then, and the dissolution of close-knit, family oriented groups.

The move to industry and cities and the development of cheap transportation destroyed the clan structures and created the nuclear family, a notoriously fragile social structure. Now we are seeing a move from industry to a knowledge based culture that is even more mobile and fractured than an industrial one. The family and tribal social safety nets have largely been shredded and the state is left to become the clan and tribe. The question is, what services are necessary for the state to provide to maintain a healthy, productive society? Where is the balance point between being overburdened with caring for the sick and being overburdened with uncared for people? One of the reasons that Africa is so poor is the wide spread diseases and malnutrition that reduce the productivity of the citizens.

I think we are in agreement here, the only question is at what point should the state step in, and I believe that should be when all other avenues have been explored, otherwise you will have abuse of the system.

The current situation is that health insurance is available to those who's employers provide it and those who can afford private health insurance who have no pre-existing conditions that disqualify them. I know self employed people who cannot get health insurance because they are diabetic or have had cancer. No company will sell them a policy. If they have a catastrophic health crisis they must spend themselves into debt and possibly poverty, at which point the state will pick up the tab, not to help the individual, but to support the health care industry. Much of what looks to be social services to the individual actually supports the business community. If the government didn't cover these unpaid bills the hospitals would be in worse shape than they already are, just as grocery stores in poor neighborhoods are dependent on food stamps for a good chunk of their revenue.

MLK said with good reason, that welfare was the bane of black society, because it kept them enslaved.

Of course that brings up the question about where the responsibility lies when wages do not cover the actual cost of living, and who is the government really subsidizing when they make up the difference? Are you saving money buying stuff from companies that keep costs low by paying low wages only to pay it out in taxes to support those people through government programs? This became apparent enough to some local governments that they passed what is called WalMart legislation, requiring health insurance and living wages for WalMart employees to relieve the counties of the burden of caring for WalMart's staff. This led WalMart to call for national health insurance. WalMart is now the world's largest employer and grocer. They get a lot of food stamp money.

Hey, you will not find any argument from me when it comes to mandating that employers provide health insurance to their employees and pass the cost on in reduced wages, because as a former insurance broker, I know all to well how insurance companies decline to cover pre-existing conditions on individual policies, but the better option would be to mandate that the insurance companies not be allowed exempt any pre-existing condition, or decline anybody coverage, but be allowed to charge what they find appropriate for the condition (remember, by law in California they can't make more than 5% profit). This would pass the cost directly to the individual, and not make others share in the cost of someone else's problems. Except in very rare circumstances, Diabetes is not something you are born with, it comes from bad diet and lack of exercise. In other words, why should the other group members have to pay for your bad life decisions?

Health care is expensive for several reasons, but I'll list just a few:

1) Malpractice insurance - Blame human greed and the lawyers
2) Doctors who spent 12 years in school, and feel they should be recompenced for that time and effort.
3) Corporate greed
4) Overpaid administrators and managers
5) Expensive new drugs and procedures

Now, I ask you, do you really think these things are going to lessen with social medicine? If you really think so, just remember the last time you visited the DMV, and all the waste you paid for just to get your car registered: The State employees at the DMV, the smog tech, the State guy that inspects the smog tech, the smog testing machine etc, etc.

The larger the system, the more protocols that must be met, the more it costs.

Now we get to the root of the problem: All the protocols that must be met so that every i is dotted and every t is crossed in case of a lawsuit. The bigger the entity, the bigger the target. The problem comes down to human greed, and the fact that it is far too easy to to file and win frivolous lawsuits.

But I digress, the topic was medical care, and the answer is the individual is responsible for themselves, and if they really, really can't handle it, then it goes to their family, friends, immediate local community and eventually, at the very last, when every other option has been explored and used, then, yes, it becomes the responsibility of the State, but that's a long, long way down the road, and is the very last source of responsibility. In a healthy (psychologically) and responsible society, the State, as a means of last resort, should only be needed a very small percentage of the time.

Here's the flow chart:

You>Family>Friends>Neighborhood>Local Community>City>State/Nation

That's a lot of people before you get to State/Nation...

People always want somebody else to be responsible, but every decision you make is your responsibility. There seem to be two schools of thought: One says that if you walk across the road and get hit by a car, it's their fault because they hit you, but the other view is that you know that there are cars on the road, and nobody forced you to cross the road, and and you could have used better judgement.

If you have made a life full of bad and selfish decisions, why is it the states responsibility to bail you out?

It's late and I have to go to bed, but I hope that you people are at least starting to think beyond putting all the responsibility on the ever growing government. As the government get bigger and bigger and has yet more and more responsibilities, it gets more more and more inefficient and abused, and you lose more and more of your freedoms.

Personally, the trade-off is not enough for the very small increase of potential good. When you add it all up, I see that the government socialism that we have has caused more bad by a good measure then good to our society as a whole.

In the 1930's, we were a nation of great people with a few basic problems, and although times were tough, most of the people were fairly happy.

In 2008 we are a nation of mediocre people with a lot, lot more problems, times are not that tough and most people are unhappy.

What's the big difference? Big government...

[MsTerry]

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7762492.stm




Dysfunctional families are nothing new, this is where local community come in, but to relegate it to a nation only makes the community weaker in more ways than one, the first one being that without close oversight the system gets abused more than used.

[MsTerry]

What I'm walking away with is that you want others to go through the same kind of suffering and sacrifice as you have gone through.
For why?
Why not look for a better solution?
Is the only thing you learned from your experience that, if I can do it the hard way, everybody else should too?
Do you really want to turn back the clock?
And are you willing to do that with everything?


Hello MsTerry,
That is how the World worked effectively for thousands of years, and it worked just fine, in fact it made America the greatest place in the World. But when people could go lie to a faceless government agency and have it solve their problems, instead of relying on honesty in close interpersonal relationships, we started to slide, and it keeps getting worse.

People complain about how bad it is, and it seems the only thing they can come up with is not to turn back to what was sometimes uncomfortable, but worked well, but to go with more of the easy thing, the thing that caused the problem in the first place. To me it makes as much sense as putting your fingers in the fire, and saying: Wow, that really hurts, I think I'll put some more wood on the fire, and put the rest of my hand in the flames.

Are you getting it?

[MsTerry]

Frankly, I think the only way Bi-sexual people are going to be able to have their civil rights, is by leaving it the way it is right now.
That way they can get a civil union AND they can get married!
Ever thought about that?





Proposition 8 was an initiative based on bigotry from the Bible.
Franklin

[toddwquigley]

Hello MsTerry, in response to your question:

<SCRIPT defer type=text/javascript>if (typeof YAHOO == "undefined") { var YAHOO = {};}YAHOO.Shortcuts = YAHOO.Shortcuts || {};YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true;YAHOO.Shortcuts.sensitivityType = ["sensitive_news_terms", "adult"];YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false;YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = 0;YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = "Re: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled with bigotry";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author = "[email protected]";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_url = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_tags = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_language = "english";YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = {"lw_1228682866_0": {"text": "Europe","extended": 0,"startchar": 409,"endchar": 414,"start": 409,"end": 414,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.588758","weight": 0.356082,"relScore": 1.42093,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/zz/continent"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Europe","relatedWikiIds": ["Australia", "Canada", "China", "France", "Germany", "Italy", "Japan", "London", "Russia", "Switzerland"],"relatedEntities": ["australia", "beijing", "brussels", "canada", "china", "france", "germany", "japan", "new york", "russia"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_2", "lw_1228682866_3"],"context": "Socialism produces mediocrity, do you really want to be like Europe, and I don\u0027t mean the Europe you see on TV","metaData": {"geoIsoCountryCode": "ZZ","geoLocation": "(7.8578401, 52.976181)","geoName": "Europe","geoPlaceType": "Continent","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/zz/continent","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_1": {"text": "England","extended": 0,"startchar": 494,"endchar": 500,"start": 494,"end": 500,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.993187","weight": 0.278389,"relScore": 0.829585,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/gb/country"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "England","relatedWikiIds": ["Australia", "Europe", "France", "Italy", "Liverpool", "London", "Scotland", "Spain", "United_Kingdom", "Wales"],"relatedEntities": ["britain", "croatia", "france", "liverpool", "london", "scotland", "switzerland", "wales", "wembley", "wigan"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_0"],"context": "see on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their","metaData": {"geoArea": "133300","geoCountry": "United Kingdom","geoIsoCountryCode": "GB","geoLocation": "(-1.97685, 52.883289)","geoName": "England","geoPlaceType": "Country","geoState": "England","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/gb/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_2": {"text": "Russia","extended": 0,"startchar": 503,"endchar": 508,"start": 503,"end": 508,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.947836","weight": 0.308105,"relScore": 1.0755,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/ru/country"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Russia","relatedWikiIds": ["Canada", "China", "France", "Germany", "Iran", "Moscow", "Poland", "Serbia", "Switzerland", "Ukraine"],"relatedEntities": ["abkhazia", "canada", "china", "czech republic", "georgia", "germany", "iran", "kremlin", "moscow", "ukraine"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_3"],"context": "on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism","metaData": {"geoArea": "1.66189e+07","geoCountry": "Russia","geoIsoCountryCode": "RU","geoLocation": "(108.83178, 59.461479)","geoName": "Russia","geoPlaceType": "Country","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/ru/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_3": {"text": "Germany","extended": 0,"startchar": 514,"endchar": 520,"start": 514,"end": 520,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.96964","weight": 0.317124,"relScore": 0.685993,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/de/country", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Germany","relatedWikiIds": ["Austria", "Berlin", "Canada", "China", "Europe", "France", "Iran", "Italy", "Russia", "Switzerland"],"relatedEntities": ["austria", "berlin", "britain", "canada", "china", "europe", "france", "italy", "russia", "switzerland"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_0", "lw_1228682866_2"],"context": "or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism produces for","metaData": {"geoArea": "356281","geoCountry": "Germany","geoIsoCountryCode": "DE","geoLocation": "(10.45424, 51.090839)","geoName": "Germany","geoPlaceType": "Country","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/de/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_4": {"text": "Social medicine","extended": 0,"startchar": 2529,"endchar": 2543,"start": 2529,"end": 2543,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 0.667281,"relScore": 3.94545,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/tag/other/wiki"],"category": ["WIKI"],"wikiId": "Social_medicine","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "great majority of people just plod along, punching the clock. Social medicine is even worse, as soon as you make something free","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_5": {"text": "state socialism","extended": 0,"startchar": 9215,"endchar": 9229,"start": 9215,"end": 9229,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 0.607197,"relScore": 3.09528,"type": ["shortcuts:/concept"],"category": ["CONCEPT"],"wikiId": "State_socialism","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "you can do for them against the horrible effects that state socialism brings to bear against the much greater majority of society","metaData": {"visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_6": {"text": "[email protected]","extended": 0,"startchar": 10035,"endchar": 10050,"start": 10035,"end": 10050,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "and the smallest possible government. --- On Sat, 12/6/08, MsTerry @ WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e wrote: From: MsTerry @ WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e Subject: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_7": {"text": "[email protected]","extended": 0,"startchar": 10273,"endchar": 10294,"start": 10273,"end": 10294,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e Subject: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled with bigotry To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 10:13 PM From: MsTerry Category","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_8": {"text": "Waccobb.net","extended": 0,"startchar": 13622,"endchar": 13632,"start": 13622,"end": 13632,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "can reply privately by just clicking \u0022Reply\u0022 to this email. Waccobb.net - Connecting Conscious Community in the North Bay","metaData": {"linkHref": "https://www.waccobb.net/forums","linkProtocol": "http","linkRel": "nofollow","linkTarget": "_blank","visible": "true"} }};YAHOO.Shortcuts.headerID = "bf92756bed7ad5b84768c8868be6b812";</SCRIPT><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>I haven't seen anything on the table that can really be considered progress, socialism comes with too many strings, and IT is the one that I believe turns back the clock.

Socialism produces mediocrity, do you really want to be like Europe, and I don't mean the Europe you see on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism produces for what we have.

The other things people don't take into consideration when they talk about how great Europe is, is that because of the roughly 50% tax rate, the majority of the people don't own a car, because they can't afford one, gas costs too much, and unlike us, they are willing to walk, ride a bike, or share a ride, and they all invested in excellent public transportation 50+ years ago when it was still cheap to build the infrastructure. They can't afford to buy a house, and because of that, they wind up waiting for their parents to die, so they can move out of their apartment, and into the inherited family house.

What makes people stronger and better is adversity, not having an easy life. France is the most socialized (may as well call them communists) European country, and they are also the most go-nowhere country: The people don't work hard, they don't innovate, and they don't care, because there is no incentive. When you get a guaranteed salary just for showing up, why try harder? Not only is there no incentive, but if you do try harder, your co-workers are going to make life real hard on you for making them look bad. This is the same mentality where on union work sites, people get assulted for working too hard, or working during a break period.

There are only three ways to get ahead in socialism, time in position, certificates (education), and cronyism, none of which mean anything as far as actually being worthy of advancement. You can work your butt off in a socialistic workplace, best the best, most innovative and efficient employee, and you will still get passed over in favor of some lazy person that has more time in, more pieces of papaer, or knows the right people (corruption). Knowing this, the great majority of people just plod along, punching the clock.

Social medicine is even worse, as soon as you make something free to all, it just gets incredibly abused. Nobody appreciates something that is free and takes no effort for very long. Appreciation quickly turns to contempt for even the most strong willed and moral people. Then you wind up like England and France, where the majority of doctor visits are people trying to turn a headache or stomache ache into a bottle of Vicodin and a week off from work. Where the smallest bit of strees is worked to produce free drugs, massages and yet more time off from work. We all know about the famous paid vacations, but what you don't hear about is that the average amount of time off of work for some imagined sickness averages out to around 2 months a year. The majority of Europeans only work about 9 months a year, and because there is no incenmtive to do anything during that time but punch a clock, Europe as a whole hasn't produced anything of note in the last 50 years.

All the recent (since WWII) advances in science (medicine included) have come from America, where there is an incentive to create and be innovative, and to start new ventures against long odds, in the hope of some form of success. Given the option of venturing out simply to better mankind, it is a sad fact that the great majority of people show no interest in it unless there is the possibility of riches. There has to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to get people motivated. This is just a sad fact of human nature, and it's not something you are going to change.

Socialism is supposed to cure society of it's problems, but intead, it not only doesn't cure the problems, it creates much bigger and more firmly embedded problems that are incredibly destructive to society in the long run. Go to any socialistic country, and you will find all the problem that we have here, that socialism is supposed to solve. There are still just as many poor, homeless, sick and dysfunctional people, but you have the additional burdens and problems I have expounded upon above. These people are always going to be there in any society, but in addition, you have stupifying mediocrity, and rampant corruption and abuse of the system.

Socialism is an incredibly short sighted way of thinking, all it does is look at the current problems, and never thinks of all the much greater problems it soon creates. Socialism is instant gratification, it's like doing heroine to feel better right now without thinking of what the addiction will do to you in a year. The next thing you know, you are sick and broke, and everything you worked and saved for has been squandered, and the only thing that will make it better for a little while is more of the drug. I find socialism to be an incredibly short-sighted and selfish way of thinking.

People say that they want to help those that need help, but the only actual help most want to invest, is to vote for a social program. I guess this makes them feel better about themselves, but they sure are not playing the tape through to the end when they think this way, otherwise they wouldn't consider socialism.

"Gve a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for a lifetime" That's over 3,000 years old, and even back then, they understood the dangers of socialism.

Anytime you bail somebody out, you simply prolong the inevitable, and when the boat does finally sink, they are so far from shore that they drown.

People don't generally learn very many of life's important lessons unless they hurt a little bit, and socialism numbs the pain. If it didn't hurt when you put your hand in the fire, you would only draw it out when it smelled too bad. Likewise, if something is free, people have no respect for it. Newspapers don't make squat on the price of buying it, that 50 cents doesn't begin to cover the cost to get it into your hands, they make all the money on advertising, the 50 cents helps a little bit, but it's main reason is to give the paper value so that by association, whatever is being advertised and said has value. The word "free" will get them in the door, but they won't hand around unless they know that to leave is to waste their money.

This leads me into: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". "free" medical care is not free, it actually costs you more in taxes than if you were to buy it outright. Because everybody with a third grade education can do this math, the only way to make what you pay in taxes if you don't have an honest need for the system, is to abuse the system. Conciously, or unconciously, that's what happens, driving the cost up yet more. If my neighbor is 400 pounds, diabetic and lives on anti-depressants and counseling, and I live a healthy life, it's obvious that I am paying more than I should because I have to shoulder his expenses too. The only way to get my money's worth out of the system is to go to the doctor just as much as he does, even if I don't need it. Given this, it's no suprise that Europe is a continent of hypochrondriacs.

Socialism looks like a good thing, but it's straight out evil. In the end, when you add it up, it makes a society weaker, and less healthy. It's end result is the anthesis of it's promises. It is only when socialism is on a small, local scale and merit based does it work, we call that capitalism.

No, it's socialism that is a big step backwards, capitalism works just fine. When it costs you every time you go to the doctor's either directly or in the form of higher insurance premiums, you will find that you only go when you really need to. It's a simple fact that people on medi-Cal, and Medi-care go to the doctor's far more often that the equivalent person that has a private medical policy, or whom pays out of their pocket.

Going back to my earlier letters: There is only a very small percentage of people that really, truly have used up every other option and have made every sacrifice reasonably possible, and have no other option but to appeal to the State for help. These people are the only conceivable reason to have any sort of state run social program, and when you weigh the good you can do for them against the horrible effects that state socialism brings to bear against the much greater majority of society, it is the greater good of society that MUST take precedence over these few unfortunates.

If your arm has cancer, you must cut it off to save the body, because if you try to save it out of principal, the whole body will soon die. This is why we must not allow any more State socialism than we already have, and in fact we must make drastic cuts to the existing systems so that they exist only to serve those who really, truly have no other options. This is why we must go back to what has worked for untold generations, the concept of the smallest communities possible taking care of each other, and the smallest possible government.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


I will add that while I have seen a lot of posts where people express why they would like things to be different, I have yet to see anyone put forth a realistic plan for doing so.

What I offer is a plan, and I have enumerated it several times above, but it can be parsed down to: Take responsibility for self, family, friends and neighbors, (IE; on the scale of the smallest social group possible), and only turn to a larger group (IE: The State) when all else has failed, because the evils of State socialism far outweight the good.

In other words: Stop being selfish and care for each other instead of putting off onto a faceless State agency. Government by numbers is evil.

[Franklin Johnson]

Not a bad idea. This way, if I'm understanding you correctly, everyone (LBGT & straight) have the choice of either a union or a marriage, whichever suits their needs.

Franklin


Frankly, I think the only way Bi-sexual people are going to be able to have their civil rights, is by leaving it the way it is right now.
That way they can get a civil union AND they can get married!
Ever thought about that?

[MsTerry]

Hello MsTerry, in response to your question:

<script defer="defer" type="text/javascript">if (typeof YAHOO == "undefined") { var YAHOO = {};}YAHOO.Shortcuts = YAHOO.Shortcuts || {};YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true;YAHOO.Shortcuts.sensitivityType = ["sensitive_news_terms", "adult"];YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false;YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = 0;YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = "Re: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled with bigotry";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author = "[email protected]";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_url = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_tags = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_language = "english";YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = {"lw_1228682866_0": {"text": "Europe","extended": 0,"startchar": 409,"endchar": 414,"start": 409,"end": 414,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.588758","weight": 0.356082,"relScore": 1.42093,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/zz/continent"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Europe","relatedWikiIds": ["Australia", "Canada", "China", "France", "Germany", "Italy", "Japan", "London", "Russia", "Switzerland"],"relatedEntities": ["australia", "beijing", "brussels", "canada", "china", "france", "germany", "japan", "new york", "russia"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_2", "lw_1228682866_3"],"context": "Socialism produces mediocrity, do you really want to be like Europe, and I don\u0027t mean the Europe you see on TV","metaData": {"geoIsoCountryCode": "ZZ","geoLocation": "(7.8578401, 52.976181)","geoName": "Europe","geoPlaceType": "Continent","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/zz/continent","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_1": {"text": "England","extended": 0,"startchar": 494,"endchar": 500,"start": 494,"end": 500,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.993187","weight": 0.278389,"relScore": 0.829585,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/gb/country"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "England","relatedWikiIds": ["Australia", "Europe", "France", "Italy", "Liverpool", "London", "Scotland", "Spain", "United_Kingdom", "Wales"],"relatedEntities": ["britain", "croatia", "france", "liverpool", "london", "scotland", "switzerland", "wales", "wembley", "wigan"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_0"],"context": "see on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their","metaData": {"geoArea": "133300","geoCountry": "United Kingdom","geoIsoCountryCode": "GB","geoLocation": "(-1.97685, 52.883289)","geoName": "England","geoPlaceType": "Country","geoState": "England","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/gb/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_2": {"text": "Russia","extended": 0,"startchar": 503,"endchar": 508,"start": 503,"end": 508,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.947836","weight": 0.308105,"relScore": 1.0755,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/ru/country"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Russia","relatedWikiIds": ["Canada", "China", "France", "Germany", "Iran", "Moscow", "Poland", "Serbia", "Switzerland", "Ukraine"],"relatedEntities": ["abkhazia", "canada", "china", "czech republic", "georgia", "germany", "iran", "kremlin", "moscow", "ukraine"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_3"],"context": "on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism","metaData": {"geoArea": "1.66189e+07","geoCountry": "Russia","geoIsoCountryCode": "RU","geoLocation": "(108.83178, 59.461479)","geoName": "Russia","geoPlaceType": "Country","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/ru/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_3": {"text": "Germany","extended": 0,"startchar": 514,"endchar": 520,"start": 514,"end": 520,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.96964","weight": 0.317124,"relScore": 0.685993,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/de/country", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Germany","relatedWikiIds": ["Austria", "Berlin", "Canada", "China", "Europe", "France", "Iran", "Italy", "Russia", "Switzerland"],"relatedEntities": ["austria", "berlin", "britain", "canada", "china", "europe", "france", "italy", "russia", "switzerland"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_0", "lw_1228682866_2"],"context": "or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism produces for","metaData": {"geoArea": "356281","geoCountry": "Germany","geoIsoCountryCode": "DE","geoLocation": "(10.45424, 51.090839)","geoName": "Germany","geoPlaceType": "Country","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/de/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_4": {"text": "Social medicine","extended": 0,"startchar": 2529,"endchar": 2543,"start": 2529,"end": 2543,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 0.667281,"relScore": 3.94545,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/tag/other/wiki"],"category": ["WIKI"],"wikiId": "Social_medicine","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "great majority of people just plod along, punching the clock. Social medicine is even worse, as soon as you make something free","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_5": {"text": "state socialism","extended": 0,"startchar": 9215,"endchar": 9229,"start": 9215,"end": 9229,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 0.607197,"relScore": 3.09528,"type": ["shortcuts:/concept"],"category": ["CONCEPT"],"wikiId": "State_socialism","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "you can do for them against the horrible effects that state socialism brings to bear against the much greater majority of society","metaData": {"visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_6": {"text": "[email protected]","extended": 0,"startchar": 10035,"endchar": 10050,"start": 10035,"end": 10050,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "and the smallest possible government. --- On Sat, 12/6/08, MsTerry @ WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e wrote: From: MsTerry @ WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e Subject: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_7": {"text": "[email protected]","extended": 0,"startchar": 10273,"endchar": 10294,"start": 10273,"end": 10294,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e Subject: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled with bigotry To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 10:13 PM From: MsTerry Category","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_8": {"text": "Waccobb.net","extended": 0,"startchar": 13622,"endchar": 13632,"start": 13622,"end": 13632,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "can reply privately by just clicking \u0022Reply\u0022 to this email. Waccobb.net - Connecting Conscious Community in the North Bay","metaData": {"linkHref": "https://www.waccobb.net/forums","linkProtocol": "http","linkRel": "nofollow","linkTarget": "_blank","visible": "true"} }};YAHOO.Shortcuts.headerID = "bf92756bed7ad5b84768c8868be6b812";</script><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top">Socialism produces mediocrity, do you really want to be like Europe, and I don't mean the Europe you see on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism produces for what we have.

</td></tr></tbody></table>
I too have lived in Europe, and besides less space, I haven't seen the excesses, that you are referring to, that are crippling their economy or lifestyle.



The other things people don't take into consideration when they talk about how great Europe is, is that because of the roughly 50% tax rate, the majority of the people don't own a car, because they can't afford one, gas costs too much, and unlike us, they are willing to walk, ride a bike, or share a ride, and they all invested in excellent public transportation 50+ years ago when it was still cheap to build the infrastructure.The reason people don't need cars, besides public transportation, is because of the close proximity of other family members. It makes it easy to see and care for one another. This is one of your basic rules, I believe.


They can't afford to buy a house, and because of that, they wind up waiting for their parents to die, so they can move out of their apartment, and into the inherited family house.This is simply not true!
Their parents never owned the house either, except for the wealthy ones. In Europe it was/is cheaper to rent than to own.
BTW that trend is happening here too.


What makes people stronger and better is adversity, not having an easy life. France is the most socialized (may as well call them communists) European country, and they are also the most go-nowhere country: The people don't work hard, they don't innovate, and they don't care, because there is no incentive. When you get a guaranteed salary just for showing up, why try harder?Here are some French communist inventions;
https://inventors.about.com/od/frenchinventors/Inventions_of_France_French_Inventors.htm
BTW did you know that denim comes France, de Nimes. Color photography, another American staple was also invented by those darn commies.



There are only three ways to get ahead in socialism, time in position, certificates (education), and cronyism, none of which mean anything as far as actually being worthy of advancement. You can work your butt off in a socialistic workplace, best the best, most innovative and efficient employee, and you will still get passed over in favor of some lazy person that has more time in, more pieces of papaer, or knows the right people (corruption). Knowing this, the great majority of people just plod along, punching the clock.This doesn't happen in the US?


Social medicine is even worse, as soon as you make something free to all, it just gets incredibly abused. Nobody appreciates something that is free and takes no effort for very long. Appreciation quickly turns to contempt for even the most strong willed and moral people. Then you wind up like England and France, where the majority of doctor visits are people trying to turn a headache or stomache ache into a bottle of Vicodin and a week off from work. Where the smallest bit of strees is worked to produce free drugs, massages and yet more time off from work. We all know about the famous paid vacations, but what you don't hear about is that the average amount of time off of work for some imagined sickness averages out to around 2 months a year. The majority of Europeans only work about 9 months a year, and because there is no incenmtive to do anything during that time but punch a clock, Europe as a whole hasn't produced anything of note in the last 50 years.Let's go back a 1000 year like you liked to.
Those darn Natives wouldn't even work!
Some of them did live in those tents you mentioned before.


All the recent (since WWII) advances in science (medicine included) have come from America, where there is an incentive to create and be innovative, and to start new ventures against long odds, in the hope of some form of success. Now it takes some balls or stupidity to make a statement like that.
What's your proof?

Given the option of venturing out simply to better mankind, it is a sad fact that the great majority of people show no interest in it unless there is the possibility of riches. There has to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to get people motivated. This is just a sad fact of human nature, and it's not something you are going to change.
That is in direct conflict of your theory that we should help each other.

Socialism is supposed to cure society of it's problems, but intead, it not only doesn't cure the problems, it creates much bigger and more firmly embedded problems that are incredibly destructive to society in the long run. Go to any socialistic country, and you will find all the problem that we have here, that socialism is supposed to solve. There are still just as many poor, homeless, sick and dysfunctional people, but you have the additional burdens and problems I have expounded upon above. These people are always going to be there in any society, but in addition, you have stupifying mediocrity, and rampant corruption and abuse of the system.
Any time you have a system, you have abuse

Socialism is an incredibly short sighted way of thinking, all it does is look at the current problems, and never thinks of all the much greater problems it soon creates. Socialism is instant gratification, it's like doing heroine to feel better right now without thinking of what the addiction will do to you in a year. The next thing you know, you are sick and broke, and everything you worked and saved for has been squandered, and the only thing that will make it better for a little while is more of the drug. I find socialism to be an incredibly short-sighted and selfish way of thinking.
Others will make the same argument for capitalism.



People don't generally learn very many of life's important lessons unless they hurt a little bit,I understand that this is your theme song
Don't you think if that was true, there would never be any progress?


This leads me into: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". "free" medical care is not free, it actually costs you more in taxes than if you were to buy it outright. Because everybody with a third grade education can do this math, the only way to make what you pay in taxes if you don't have an honest need for the system, is to abuse the system. Conciously, or unconciously, that's what happens, driving the cost up yet more. If my neighbor is 400 pounds, diabetic and lives on anti-depressants and counseling, and I live a healthy life, it's obvious that I am paying more than I should because I have to shoulder his expenses too. The only way to get my money's worth out of the system is to go to the doctor just as much as he does, even if I don't need it. Given this, it's no suprise that Europe is a continent of hypochrondriacs.The Euro is doing pretty good despite your assessment.


Socialism looks like a good thing, but it's straight out evil. In the end, when you add it up, it makes a society weaker, and less healthy. It's end result is the anthesis of it's promises. It is only when socialism is on a small, local scale and merit based does it work, we call that capitalism.You lost me here Todd, Capitalism only thrives when the markets can expand, and the workforce is kept at low wages with unemployment rate of about 5%.


No, it's socialism that is a big step backwards, capitalism works just fine. When it costs you every time you go to the doctor's either directly or in the form of higher insurance premiums, you will find that you only go when you really need to. It's a simple fact that people on medi-Cal, and Medi-care go to the doctor's far more often that the equivalent person that has a private medical policy, or whom pays out of their pocket.Those people end upin the ER, at a higher cost to society.




.

What I offer is a plan, and I have enumerated it several times above, but it can be parsed down to: Take responsibility for self, family, friends and neighbors, (IE; on the scale of the smallest social group possible), and only turn to a larger group (IE: The State) when all else has failed, because the evils of State socialism far outweight the good.This is not a bad plan, except that, where would do this? In the US?


In other words: Stop being selfish and care for each other instead of putting off onto a faceless State agency. Todd, you have great intentions, and as you told us, you lived up to them. What I am worried about is when people fall out of your graces for one or another reason.
For instance how does your ex-wife fit in to your scheme?
Would you still help her or is she out of luck?

[MsTerry]

NONONO
I meant the Bi's can have a union and a marriage at the same time to fulfill both their needs!


Not a bad idea. This way, if I'm understanding you correctly, everyone (LBGT & straight) have the choice of either a union or a marriage, whichever suits their needs.

Franklin

[Hot Compost]

In the Bible, the King James Version, Leviticus 18:22 reads: "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."
...
Proposition 8 was an initiative based on bigotry from the Bible. Period.

Hi ! This is my first post.

I lived in San Diego for about 9 years & was immersed in the culture. I accepted invitations to churches, I worked at a defense contractor (they made radios for military aircraft), I got asked if I wanted to "accept Jesus Christ as my Savior" - more than once.

I would say the problem is not so much the Bible, as the people who believe that it is the Word of God. If you remind them that it was written by mortal men, who, according to their own theology, are imperfect sinners ... well, such conversation is VERY unwelcome in most Christian groups.

People go to church on Sunday to make themselves feel good. It is a social gathering. They usually don't go to think too hard, or to be challenged on their beliefs. They want their faiths/ delusions re-affirmed, and that is one of the purposes of the pastor.

Normally, I wouldn't worry about somebody who believes what Fundies believe, any more than I would feel worried when some stranger at a bus stop in San Francisco told me he had visited some of the other planets in our solar system.

But, since the Fundies have Power, true political power, one of their own in the White House, what Fundies believe does matter.

I was invited by a guy at the gym to go with him & his wife to a large church in Rancho Santa Fe, one of the wealthiest communities in San Diego. To summarize Pastor Bob's lectures on "Prophecy" -
* Russia is bad
* yoga is bad
* Iran is bad
* secular European humanists are bad

AND, in order to "be right with Jesus" you ABSOLUTELY MUST
* support Israel.

To quote Pastor Bob, the 2-state solution for Israel is BAD BAD BAD.

Their sermons are online at
Link (https://www.horizon.org/archive/results.asp)

If you were to go into this group and talk about, for example, American use of Depleted Uranium in Iraq & other countries - the seriousness of which can be understood by looking at a Google image search of the subject -
Link (https://images.google.com/images?q=depleted%20uranium)

... you would not get far. You would be allowed to stay & continue hearing about their version of Jesus.

What I observed, or, to use their own language, "witnessed", was that Fundamentalist Christians do not want to hear about the realities of their actions, e.g. putting George Bush in office. They believe George Bush is pro-life, and if you present information that suggests otherwise, well ... "everyone's entitled to their opinion."

It was very odd to see this unique combination of health-orientatedness ("I'm working to diversify my cardio routine"), religious beliefs ("Jesus Christ is my Savior"), and militarism ("Kill, Kill, Kill. Muslims, that is.") <== THEIR WORDS, not mine.

However, I don't feel that the Bible itself is the problem. It is the meaning attached to it by American Christians, e.g. Sarah Palin. The American version of Christianity, & treatment of the Bible, the odd fusion of politics & pseudo-religion that you see at evangelical Christian churches ... I was going to say "these are recent developments." But, the treatment of earth-oriented, the banishment of gay people - these are not new.

I guess you could say that American Christians are finding new ways to twist the words in the Bible.

My grandmother on my mother's side was Catholic, and she was certainly one of the most anti-war people in the family. My grandfather was the son & grandson of Lutheran ministers. They never said anything to me about religion, until I got older, when my grandmother gave me a book entitled, "Life on Two Levels", which was basically an acknowledgment that I had some awareness, but without any mention of Christianity.

Obviously, the Bible is a chief element of the bigotry practiced by so many American Christians, but I think the problem is more with the culture. If you talked with the Amish (as one example) (sidestepping the issue of their traditional roles for men & women), they would be horrified at much of what gets preached, and what is forbidden to talk about.

To me the Bible is part history book, part fairy tale.

[toddwquigley]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76712#post76712)
Hello MsTerry, in response to your question:

<SCRIPT defer type=text/javascript>if (typeof YAHOO == "undefined") { var YAHOO = {};}YAHOO.Shortcuts = YAHOO.Shortcuts || {};YAHOO.Shortcuts.hasSensitiveText = true;YAHOO.Shortcuts.sensitivityType = ["sensitive_news_terms", "adult"];YAHOO.Shortcuts.doUlt = false;YAHOO.Shortcuts.location = "us";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_id = 0;YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_type = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_title = "Re: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled with bigotry";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_publish_date = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_author = "[email protected]";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_url = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_tags = "";YAHOO.Shortcuts.document_language = "english";YAHOO.Shortcuts.annotationSet = {"lw_1228682866_0": {"text": "Europe","extended": 0,"startchar": 409,"endchar": 414,"start": 409,"end": 414,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.588758","weight": 0.356082,"relScore": 1.42093,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/zz/continent"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Europe","relatedWikiIds": ["Australia", "Canada", "China", "France", "Germany", "Italy", "Japan", "London", "Russia", "Switzerland"],"relatedEntities": ["australia", "beijing", "brussels", "canada", "china", "france", "germany", "japan", "new york", "russia"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_2", "lw_1228682866_3"],"context": "Socialism produces mediocrity, do you really want to be like Europe, and I don\u0027t mean the Europe you see on TV","metaData": {"geoIsoCountryCode": "ZZ","geoLocation": "(7.8578401, 52.976181)","geoName": "Europe","geoPlaceType": "Continent","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/zz/continent","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_1": {"text": "England","extended": 0,"startchar": 494,"endchar": 500,"start": 494,"end": 500,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.993187","weight": 0.278389,"relScore": 0.829585,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/gb/country"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "England","relatedWikiIds": ["Australia", "Europe", "France", "Italy", "Liverpool", "London", "Scotland", "Spain", "United_Kingdom", "Wales"],"relatedEntities": ["britain", "croatia", "france", "liverpool", "london", "scotland", "switzerland", "wales", "wembley", "wigan"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_0"],"context": "see on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their","metaData": {"geoArea": "133300","geoCountry": "United Kingdom","geoIsoCountryCode": "GB","geoLocation": "(-1.97685, 52.883289)","geoName": "England","geoPlaceType": "Country","geoState": "England","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/gb/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_2": {"text": "Russia","extended": 0,"startchar": 503,"endchar": 508,"start": 503,"end": 508,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.947836","weight": 0.308105,"relScore": 1.0755,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/ru/country"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Russia","relatedWikiIds": ["Canada", "China", "France", "Germany", "Iran", "Moscow", "Poland", "Serbia", "Switzerland", "Ukraine"],"relatedEntities": ["abkhazia", "canada", "china", "czech republic", "georgia", "germany", "iran", "kremlin", "moscow", "ukraine"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_3"],"context": "on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism","metaData": {"geoArea": "1.66189e+07","geoCountry": "Russia","geoIsoCountryCode": "RU","geoLocation": "(108.83178, 59.461479)","geoName": "Russia","geoPlaceType": "Country","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/ru/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_3": {"text": "Germany","extended": 0,"startchar": 514,"endchar": 520,"start": 514,"end": 520,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "PLACE","predictionProbability": "0.96964","weight": 0.317124,"relScore": 0.685993,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/place/de/country", "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/destination"],"category": ["PLACE"],"wikiId": "Germany","relatedWikiIds": ["Austria", "Berlin", "Canada", "China", "Europe", "France", "Iran", "Italy", "Russia", "Switzerland"],"relatedEntities": ["austria", "berlin", "britain", "canada", "china", "europe", "france", "italy", "russia", "switzerland"],"showOnClick": ["lw_1228682866_0", "lw_1228682866_2"],"context": "or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism produces for","metaData": {"geoArea": "356281","geoCountry": "Germany","geoIsoCountryCode": "DE","geoLocation": "(10.45424, 51.090839)","geoName": "Germany","geoPlaceType": "Country","type": "shortcuts:/us/instance/place/de/country","visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_4": {"text": "Social medicine","extended": 0,"startchar": 2529,"endchar": 2543,"start": 2529,"end": 2543,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 0.667281,"relScore": 3.94545,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/tag/other/wiki"],"category": ["WIKI"],"wikiId": "Social_medicine","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "great majority of people just plod along, punching the clock. Social medicine is even worse, as soon as you make something free","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_5": {"text": "state socialism","extended": 0,"startchar": 9215,"endchar": 9229,"start": 9215,"end": 9229,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 0.607197,"relScore": 3.09528,"type": ["shortcuts:/concept"],"category": ["CONCEPT"],"wikiId": "State_socialism","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "you can do for them against the horrible effects that state socialism brings to bear against the much greater majority of society","metaData": {"visible": "false"} },"lw_1228682866_6": {"text": "[email protected]","extended": 0,"startchar": 10035,"endchar": 10050,"start": 10035,"end": 10050,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "and the smallest possible government. --- On Sat, 12/6/08, MsTerry @ WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e wrote: From: MsTerry @ WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e Subject: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_7": {"text": "[email protected]","extended": 0,"startchar": 10273,"endchar": 10294,"start": 10273,"end": 10294,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/email_address"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "WaccoBB \[email protected]\u003e Subject: [WaccoBB] Bible is filled with bigotry To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, December 6, 2008, 10:13 PM From: MsTerry Category","metaData": {"visible": "true"} },"lw_1228682866_8": {"text": "Waccobb.net","extended": 0,"startchar": 13622,"endchar": 13632,"start": 13622,"end": 13632,"extendedFrom": "","predictedCategory": "","predictionProbability": "0","weight": 1,"relScore": 0,"type": ["shortcuts:/us/instance/identifier/hyperlink/http"],"category": ["IDENTIFIER"],"wikiId": "","relatedWikiIds": [],"relatedEntities": [],"showOnClick": [],"context": "can reply privately by just clicking \u0022Reply\u0022 to this email. Waccobb.net - Connecting Conscious Community in the North Bay","metaData": {"linkHref": "https://www.waccobb.net/forums","linkProtocol": "http","linkRel": "nofollow","linkTarget": "_blank","visible": "true"} }};YAHOO.Shortcuts.headerID = "bf92756bed7ad5b84768c8868be6b812";</SCRIPT><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>Socialism produces mediocrity, do you really want to be like Europe, and I don't mean the Europe you see on TV or a vacation? I have lived in England, Russia and Germany, and I would not trade what their socialism produces for what we have.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I too have lived in Europe, and besides less space, I haven't seen the excesses, that you are referring to, that are crippling their economy or lifestyle.

I don't know what to say to that except we must have been in two different Europes, My girlfriend is French and I'll use France as an example: They have a 50%+ tax rate, they haven't produced much of anything in the last 70 years, their healthcare system is falling apart because of cost over runs because the people use the doctor as a way to get out of work.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">The other things people don't take into consideration when they talk about how great Europe is, is that because of the roughly 50% tax rate, the majority of the people don't own a car, because they can't afford one, gas costs too much, and unlike us, they are willing to walk, ride a bike, or share a ride, and they all invested in excellent public transportation 50+ years ago when it was still cheap to build the infrastructure. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->The reason people don't need cars, besides public transportation, is because of the close proximity of other family members. It makes it easy to see and care for one another. This is one of your basic rules, I believe.

Yes, it is!!!

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">They can't afford to buy a house, and because of that, they wind up waiting for their parents to die, so they can move out of their apartment, and into the inherited family house. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->This is simply not true!
Their parents never owned the house either, except for the wealthy ones. In Europe it was/is cheaper to rent than to own.
BTW that trend is happening here too.

Again, I don't know where you lived over there, but there are certainly a lot of houses, and what makes them cheap to rent or own is that they were all paid for generations ago, there is very little new construction, because people can't afford to buy. The majority enherit or rent.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">What makes people stronger and better is adversity, not having an easy life. France is the most socialized (may as well call them communists) European country, and they are also the most go-nowhere country: The people don't work hard, they don't innovate, and they don't care, because there is no incentive. When you get a guaranteed salary just for showing up, why try harder? </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Here are some French communist inventions;
https://inventors.about.com/od/french..._Inventors.htm (https://inventors.about.com/od/frenchinventors/Inventions_of_France_French_Inventors.htm)
BTW did you know that denim comes France, de Nimes. Color photography, another American staple was also invented by those darn commies.

I do know, they were also all invented before WWII, before the country became totally socialist, since then what? High speed trains (German and Japanese designed) the supercollider (American designed), etc, etc. Germany is the one stand out, and that's because they still love capitalism more than socialism, although how long this will last I don't know.



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">There are only three ways to get ahead in socialism, time in position, certificates (education), and cronyism, none of which mean anything as far as actually being worthy of advancement. You can work your butt off in a socialistic workplace, best the best, most innovative and efficient employee, and you will still get passed over in favor of some lazy person that has more time in, more pieces of papaer, or knows the right people (corruption). Knowing this, the great majority of people just plod along, punching the clock. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->This doesn't happen in the US?

It sure does, but not as bad as in a socialist state.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Social medicine is even worse, as soon as you make something free to all, it just gets incredibly abused. Nobody appreciates something that is free and takes no effort for very long. Appreciation quickly turns to contempt for even the most strong willed and moral people. Then you wind up like England and France, where the majority of doctor visits are people trying to turn a headache or stomache ache into a bottle of Vicodin and a week off from work. Where the smallest bit of strees is worked to produce free drugs, massages and yet more time off from work. We all know about the famous paid vacations, but what you don't hear about is that the average amount of time off of work for some imagined sickness averages out to around 2 months a year. The majority of Europeans only work about 9 months a year, and because there is no incenmtive to do anything during that time but punch a clock, Europe as a whole hasn't produced anything of note in the last 50 years. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Let's go back a 1000 year like you liked to.
Those darn Natives wouldn't even work!
Some of them did live in those tents you mentioned before.

I just want a return to the values of the 193o's to 1950's, and no, I'm not talking about bringing back descrimination against minorities and women...

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">All the recent (since WWII) advances in science (medicine included) have come from America, where there is an incentive to create and be innovative, and to start new ventures against long odds, in the hope of some form of success. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Now it takes some balls or stupidity to make a statement like that.
What's your proof?
Proof? look at the patents filed and granted, the American TMPO (Trade Mark and Patent Office) grants more patents for new and original concepts annually than the rest of the World combined, and has for the last 100 years. Go to the International Patent Office, and look at the country of origin for patents for NEW ideas (not slight changes to existing concepts). America comes up with the ideas, and other people implement them.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Given the option of venturing out simply to better mankind, it is a sad fact that the great majority of people show no interest in it unless there is the possibility of riches. There has to be a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to get people motivated. This is just a sad fact of human nature, and it's not something you are going to change. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->That is in direct conflict of your theory that we should help each other.

I should have been more specific, I meant as a business venture, I was not referring to people helping each other on an individual basis.

Most of us have no problem helping our freinds, but when it comes to community volunteering, we as a people often fall short.

When it comes to spending your life savings and all your time, and living on Ramen for something, people are much more inclined to do so if there is a financial reward, than simply knowing that they did the right thing for humanity. I can give hundreds of examples to back this up, but I'm hoping that you understand what I mean.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Socialism is supposed to cure society of it's problems, but intead, it not only doesn't cure the problems, it creates much bigger and more firmly embedded problems that are incredibly destructive to society in the long run. Go to any socialistic country, and you will find all the problem that we have here, that socialism is supposed to solve. There are still just as many poor, homeless, sick and dysfunctional people, but you have the additional burdens and problems I have expounded upon above. These people are always going to be there in any society, but in addition, you have stupifying mediocrity, and rampant corruption and abuse of the system. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Any time you have a system, you have abuse

No doubt, so let's make the system less like a system. This is the premise of anarchary, although it does need to have limits. My point is that one should have the most uncomplicated system possible that still functions, and the same with government.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Socialism is an incredibly short sighted way of thinking, all it does is look at the current problems, and never thinks of all the much greater problems it soon creates. Socialism is instant gratification, it's like doing heroine to feel better right now without thinking of what the addiction will do to you in a year. The next thing you know, you are sick and broke, and everything you worked and saved for has been squandered, and the only thing that will make it better for a little while is more of the drug. I find socialism to be an incredibly short-sighted and selfish way of thinking. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Others will make the same argument for capitalism.

It can be made, but it can't be very well supported unless one tries to make emotions into facts.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
People don't generally learn very many of life's important lessons unless they hurt a little bit, </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I understand that this is your theme song
Don't you think if that was true, there would never be any progress?<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Well life does hurt, and we do have progress, what's your point?<!-- using waccobburl -->
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
This leads me into: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". "free" medical care is not free, it actually costs you more in taxes than if you were to buy it outright. Because everybody with a third grade education can do this math, the only way to make what you pay in taxes if you don't have an honest need for the system, is to abuse the system. Conciously, or unconciously, that's what happens, driving the cost up yet more. If my neighbor is 400 pounds, diabetic and lives on anti-depressants and counseling, and I live a healthy life, it's obvious that I am paying more than I should because I have to shoulder his expenses too. The only way to get my money's worth out of the system is to go to the doctor just as much as he does, even if I don't need it. Given this, it's no suprise that Europe is a continent of hypochrondriacs. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->The Euro is doing pretty good despite your assessment.

The Euro is only doing well for now because it is not tied directly to the dollar, and in fact is in "opposition" to it as it was designed to be. The EU was formed to compete against the US, but at the same time it is dependent upon the US (that is very simplified of course).

However this isn't going to last for long, and Europe is very worried that it is all going to crashing down (as it will) because it has risen artificially high.

We are the trend setter, but they will follow, that's guaranteed.



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Socialism looks like a good thing, but it's straight out evil. In the end, when you add it up, it makes a society weaker, and less healthy. It's end result is the anthesis of it's promises. It is only when socialism is on a small, local scale and merit based does it work, we call that capitalism. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->You lost me here Todd, Capitalism only thrives when the markets can expand, and the workforce is kept at low wages with unemployment rate of about 5%.

Sorry, let me explain better: I am referring to people helping other people instead of the state helping them. That's what happenss in a capitalistic society because there theoretically is no direct help from the government. IE: Capitalism leaves the general welfare of the people to the people.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">No, it's socialism that is a big step backwards, capitalism works just fine. When it costs you every time you go to the doctor's either directly or in the form of higher insurance premiums, you will find that you only go when you really need to. It's a simple fact that people on medi-Cal, and Medi-care go to the doctor's far more often that the equivalent person that has a private medical policy, or whom pays out of their pocket. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Those people end upin the ER, at a higher cost to society.

Sometimes yes, but it is not as big of a cost as the constant office visits for petty problems. Again, there is no perfect solution, just one that in the end works out better than it's rivals.



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">.

What I offer is a plan, and I have enumerated it several times above, but it can be parsed down to: Take responsibility for self, family, friends and neighbors, (IE; on the scale of the smallest social group possible), and only turn to a larger group (IE: The State) when all else has failed, because the evils of State socialism far outweight the good. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->This is not a bad plan, except that, where would do this? In the US?<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Uhhh, why yes.

That in theory basically the plan we have have now, and perpetual whining aside, it works pretty good and would work a lot better if the rules were better enforced. As I have pointed out, it worked fine for quite some time.

There will always be those that slip through the cracks in any system, some by design, and some by chance, but I'm not willing to trade the inevitable long term severe damage that socialism brings to a society, just in oder to pick up a couple of percentage points. The needs of the whole outweigh the few.<!-- using waccobburl -->
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">
In other words: Stop being selfish and care for each other instead of putting off onto a faceless State agency. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Todd, you have great intentions, and as you told us, you lived up to them. What I am worried about is when people fall out of your graces for one or another reason.
For instance how does your ex-wife fit in to your scheme?
Would you still help her or is she out of luck?

Well, that's a good question, and funny that you ask. She made a bit of a mess of her life, and it got to the point where I was not helping her anymore (this after our seperation), and was just enabling her to exist which really means that she was slipping backwards, and so I sadly had to cut her off.

About a year ago, she started to get her life together, and she is now planning on moving to Idaho in a couple of weeks to be near her son during his last year in school. She has funded the trip by signing up for online classes and taking out a student loan so that she would have enough extra money to get into a place and have acushion to get started on. When I was on Thanksgiving vacation I hit up some of the sale and bought her some warm dress clothes which she does not have, and last night I went to Best Buy (forgot my wallet and had to run back at the last minute) and bought her a laptop, and MFD so that she doesn't have to spend all of her free time at the local library. I think it's also going to cost me a new set of snow tires too, but I see that she is really trying hard, and that the money I spend on her will not be squandered, and will help her progress foward to get to the point where she is not only independent, but can help other people without trashing her own life in the process, and that's what I want to see for everyone.

(She should be pretty happy, I found a Toshiba with an AMD Turino 2.0, 3gig RAM, a 250gig HD and a 17" screen for $499 (Owned by the Japanese, designed in the USA and made in China). I think they have a few left, and you can probably get the same price if you ask).

So yes, I still care for her (not romantically, but as a person) even though she did some very hurtfull things to me, because I know that under it all she is still a pretty good person, and although not always succeeding, she tries to be a good person.

A better question would be what about my ex-stepfather, who was abusive to me as a child. While I may not buy him a computer, if he came to my door hungry, he would not go away hungry. On the other hand, I would immediately start calling his family to see who could come pick him up and be responsible for him.

Come on MsTerry, join the revolution: let's take the day to day welfare of the people, and put it back into the people's hands where it belongs, and leave the (downsized) government to dealing with the essential basics like minting the money, carrying the mail, building the infrastructure and the dealing with the military.

The system works, it just needs some attention to the details and some streamlining.

[MsTerry]

Todd, you come across as a kind and considerate fellow, well, that is as long as people will do what you preach.
If they cross you, you'll pull out the whip, like a little dictator and decide who deserves your compassion.
It is for this exact reason that a non-involved, impersonal government can be a bridge for those who have nowhere to go, even the ones who have been abusive and have past some of their behavior on to their offspring.



A better question would be what about my ex-stepfather, who was abusive to me as a child. While I may not buy him a computer, if he came to my door hungry, he would not go away hungry. On the other hand, I would immediately start calling his family to see who could come pick him up and be responsible for him.

[MsTerry]

France's 2008 Nobel prize for Literature, Medicine come tomind on top of my head.



Proof? look at the patents filed and granted, the American TMPO (Trade Mark and Patent Office) grants more patents for new and original concepts annually than the rest of the World combined, and has for the last 100 years. Go to the International Patent Office, and look at the country of origin for patents for NEW ideas (not slight changes to existing concepts). America comes up with the ideas, and other people implement them.
.

[phooph]

Dysfunctional families are nothing new, this is where local community come in, but to relegate it to a nation only makes the community weaker in more ways than one, the first one being that without close oversight the system gets abused more than used.

Just how is the local community to "come in?" We have child protective services that will remove children from homes, but only under the most dire of circumstances, (evidence or threat of physical harm) and only if they know what is happening. We have the police who will intervene in extreme cases and, again, only if it comes to their attention. Anyone who has observed either of those two interventions understands how dysfunctional those systems are and how they are sometimes as abusive as the abuses they purport to address. Seldom do these institutions provide a healthy living environment for those removed from apparent danger.



Go to any socialist country, and you see the same problems, but you also have rampant abuse of the system, and an insular society that doesn't care about each other, and thus really doesn't care about themselves.

There will always be people at the bottom, because:

A) There will always be people who refuse to do what is necessary to rise above it. (the largest portion of them)

B) There will always be people who want to be there because they like being the victim (lots and lots of them).

C) there will always be a few honest and true victims (not very many).

The only one you can actually help is C, as A and B are a complete waste of time.

This is applicable to a rather small portion of the populace. That the poor are poor because they deserve it due to their own choices is a common myth promoted by the monied class to absolve themselves of responsibility or guilt. Academia has done extensive research on the causes of poverty. One of the chief causes of poverty is under capitalization, in other words, a sizable portion of the workforce is paid at rates below poverty. There are many low income workers who work two jobs just to scrape by so the laziness moniker doesn't apply to them either.

Poverty, which had been on the decline for decades after WWII, began to rise in 1980 and has continued its upward growth. The reasons? Job flight, atomization, and inflation that has eroded the buying power of vast sectors of the workforce. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living. We are now seeing some of the results of that as our consumer driven economy has reached an apex of indebtedness and lack of savings, and a decline in consumption leading to a recession that will soon become a depression.

In biblical times people were expected to tithe, and that money often went to support the poor. Those who did well were expected to offer some support those who did less well.


Yes, and it worked. It worked right up until FDR, whereupon people stopped helping on an individual basis, because the State supposedly did it for them. Look at European socialist countries where on the whole, the people don't give a ____ about each other.

The US and the world were in the grip of a deep depression at the time that FDR created the New Deal. Millions were out of work and charities were overwhelmed with people in need. People were starving in large numbers and there were food riots in many cities. The power elite in the US had already observed what had happened in Russia a couple decades earlier and were aware of the growing popularity of the communist party in the US. Either the government would take action to placate the angry mobs or the wealthy would find themselves in the same plight as those in Czarist Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. Thus the welfare state was created to ameliorate the situation, and the WPA and the CCC were created to put the jobless to work and keep them out of mischief. Then WWII came along and everyone was too busy with outside enemies to think about revolution.


If you really want to make people give up part of their income to help other people, then at least give them a voice in the matter and make them give it to an accepted non-profit institution of their choice, instead of deciding for them.

Ideally people should not have to give up a portion of their income to the government to help other people. Under the current system, the income tax goes to pay for the interest on the debt borrowed from the Federal reserve and for Treasury bonds borrowed by other entities. We currently operate on a debt issued currency. That means that the government "borrows" money and then prints the money either on paper or electronically to pay its obligations. With the Federal Reserve, no money is issued, only an IOU to be paid by the government to the Fed for which only the interest is required by the Fed to make income. By eliminating the borrowing portion of this equation, it would eliminate the need to collect taxes for interest and the populace would go unmollested. This system was created to generate an income stream for the banks, not as a necessity for currency issuance. It is no coincidence that the 16th Ammendment and the Federal Reserve Act were both passed in 1913. The first supports the second. By issuing currency to pay its obligations without going through the motion of "borrowing" it first, there would be no need to impose an income tax. Currency issuance is one of the tasks assigned to the federal government, not to the banks.


If everyone was forced to give 10% to a "church" of their choice (even if it's a church of atheists), the country wouldn't need any other form of social programs, because people would be sure to give their hard earned money to the institutions that they found to do the most good, most efficiently with their money.

There are many non-profit organizations that do good work. It would not have to be a church. Poverty rates are determined by the cost of food, a system set up in the early 60s when food was more expensive than housing. Now housing and health care are the most expensive. The government has not amended its system as to do so would make obvious that the so called richest country in the world has a very high poverty rate.



. . . which is why we need local community more than ever, because as you point out below, large groups don't function very effectively.

I think we are in agreement here, the only question is at what point should the state step in, and I believe that should be when all other avenues have been explored, otherwise you will have abuse of the system.

Determination needs to be made about what is best for the society as a whole. What is the impact of increasing numbers of uncared for sick people?

The system is already massively abused, and the worst abuses are not on the level of individuals receiving assistance. That's nickle and dime stuff compared to the abuses higher up in the system. A system for transparency needs to be created wherein citizens can watch what happens to the money. This is actually the law on the federal level but there is no mechanism to facilitate it. You or I can legally walk into any federal agency and ask to see the books. Just try to do it and see what walls you run into. There is a website dedicated to missing money https://whereisthemoney.org/ but there is little public awareness of the issue.



MLK said with good reason, that welfare was the bane of black society, because it kept them enslaved.

Yes, because it's been structured to create dependence and not to support people becoming self supporting. It was also structured to break up families by requiring there to be no father in the home, the assumption being that if there is a father there is enough money for the whole family. So poor families, to save mom and kids from poverty would be abandon by fathers so that they could get assistance. A bad system. There were training and education services for welfare recipients for a while, but those were eliminated in the Clinton Welfare Reform bill which also limits people to two years now so they just kick people out as opposed to helping them learn their way out.



Diabetes is not something you are born with, it comes from bad diet and lack of exercise. In other words, why should the other group members have to pay for your bad life decisions?

Type one diabetes is one you are born with. Type two is acquired. My friend has been diabetic all his life. He has type one. He also exercises regularly and eats right. He has finally become old enough to get Medicare so he has insurance for the first time since he retired from work. He still struggles with paying for his medicine, though, as he is one of the 5% that hits the doughnut hole in the drug plan.



Health care is expensive for several reasons, but I'll list just a few:

1) Malpractice insurance - Blame human greed and the lawyers
2) Doctors who spent 12 years in school, and feel they should be recompenced for that time and effort.
3) Corporate greed
4) Overpaid administrators and managers
5) Expensive new drugs and procedures

We also live in a world that is increasingly mobile and polluted which is creating and spreading any number of diseases. There are a whole host of emerging viruses, for instance, that are beginning to spread through the US population which are persistent and debilitating. Then there are all the mysterious diseases that are as yet unidentified that are debilitating increasing numbers of people. These don't get much press so most are unaware of them.


Now, I ask you, do you really think these things are going to lessen with social medicine? If you really think so, just remember the last time you visited the DMV, and all the waste you paid for just to get your car registered: The State employees at the DMV, the smog tech, the State guy that inspects the smog tech, the smog testing machine etc, etc.

The larger the system, the more protocols that must be met, the more it costs.

I assume any system that is set up will be designed to support the plutocracy/kleptocracy as is the current protocol. That means it will be designed to put money in the bank accounts of the medical industrial complex and ways will be found to siphon off some for individual enrichment. The Part D Medicare drug bill was designed for the pharmafia and they raised their prices as soon as it was passed. They have also been vigilant in preventing people from going to Canadian on-line pharmacies to purchase their drugs at the cheaper Canadian prices. Canada sets drug price caps.


Now we get to the root of the problem: All the protocols that must be met so that every i is dotted and every t is crossed in case of a lawsuit. The bigger the entity, the bigger the target. The problem comes down to human greed, and the fact that it is far too easy to to file and win frivolous lawsuits.

The rise in malpractice suits has more to do with how people feel about their medical system than greed. Patients who feel their medical caretakers are responsive to their needs are much less likely to initiate law suits. Not my opinion, but the result of studies.
https://ajm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/153
https://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm

Never-the-less, malpractice lawsuits are one of the few ways to police a system that according to the National Accademy of Sciences: Institue of Medicine is the number one cause of preventable death in the US. The statement has been made by many in the medical world, including the president of Kaiser, that our medical system is broken. It is too expensive, inefficient, and ineffective and rates below that of some less developed countries. We have the most costly health care system in the world and it does a lousy job of delivering bang for the buck. I remember when I used to be able to pay out of pocket to go to the doctor. That's no longer true. I do most of my own doctoring, making sure I have a healthy lifestyle and learning what I can about natural ways to heal myself. There are some things for which medical care is a requrement, however.



But I digress, the topic was medical care, and the answer is the individual is responsible for themselves, and if they really, really can't handle it, then it goes to their family, friends, immediate local community and eventually, at the very last, when every other option has been explored and used, then, yes, it becomes the responsibility of the State, but that's a long, long way down the road, and is the very last source of responsibility. In a healthy (psychologically) and responsible society, the State, as a means of last resort, should only be needed a very small percentage of the time.

Here's the flow chart:

You>Family>Friends>Neighborhood>Local Community>City>State/Nation

That's a lot of people before you get to State/Nation...

I think we should do a lot of things bottom up instead of top down. If taxes were only collected on a local level it would change things greatly. If the states contracted with the federal government and paid them for services out of taxes collected locally it would change the system greatly.
If you have made a life full of bad and selfish decisions, why is it the states responsibility to bail you out?

What this has to do with the working poor and not so poor who can't afford health care I don't know. Not all health problems are caused by bad choices.

As the government get bigger and bigger and has yet more and more responsibilities, it gets more more and more inefficient and abused, and you lose more and more of your freedoms.

No argument there.

Personally, the trade-off is not enough for the very small increase of potential good. When you add it all up, I see that the government socialism that we have has caused more bad by a good measure then good to our society as a whole.

In the 1930's, we were a nation of great people with a few basic problems, and although times were tough, most of the people were fairly happy.

In 2008 we are a nation of mediocre people with a lot, lot more problems, times are not that tough and most people are unhappy.

What's the big difference? Big government...
[/quote]

Your assertion that people were fairly happy in the 30s during the Great Depression goes along with your assertion that people were happier in the dark ages. I think you suffer from "the good ole' days" syndrome. I hear from people who lived through it that it was rather grim for a lot of folks. Maybe you need to read The Grapes of Wrath, or watch the old film. There was a shortage of money. A lot of people were going hungry. Many were homeless and became rootless wanderers looking for a little work any where they could find it. In New York City, Central Park became a campground for the homeless. I'm sure they were very happy in Feruary in their tents in the cold. Especially the moms with their little kids and babies.

Unfortunately the ever growing government is a product of the corporations, which pretty much own it at this point.

Here's (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/reinhardt.html) an interview with two researchers on healthcare around the world. It's long but enlightening.

[toddwquigley]

France's 2008 Nobel prize for Literature, Medicine come tomind on top of my head.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76726#post76726)
Proof? look at the patents filed and granted, the American TMPO (Trade Mark and Patent Office) grants more patents for new and original concepts annually than the rest of the World combined, and has for the last 100 years. Go to the International Patent Office, and look at the country of origin for patents for NEW ideas (not slight changes to existing concepts). America comes up with the ideas, and other people implement them.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Yes, there are always exceptions, but it doesn't change the big picture.

Using this line of reasoning, I can prove that Hitler was a great guy: He was a vegetarian, he loved animals, he was an artist, he wanted women to have more responsibility and more say-so, he was against smoking, drugs and alcohol, he wanted to advance medicine and the sciences for the betterment of people, he wanted medical care for all and he wanted to stamp out poverty, and mental sickness and actually quite a bit more.

Gosh, I guess he was quite the humanitarian, just like France must be the land of innovative geniuses...

[toddwquigley]

<TABLE class=tborder id=post76736 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><TABLE cellSpacing=6 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap>MsTerry (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/member.php?u=3727) <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus -->https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/statusicon/user_offline.gif <!-- END TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_76736", true); </SCRIPT>

</TD><TD width="100%"> </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>Join Date: Nov 30, 2006
<!-- Wacco - Make posts a link -->Posts: 1,398 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/search.php?do=finduser&userid=3727)
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: post_thanks_postbit_info --><!-- Wacco - Customized to supress zero lines and make counts links --><!-- Base version -->Expressed Gratitude: 464 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/post_thanks.php?do=findexpressedthanks&u=3727)
Received gratitude 232 times for 180 posts (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/post_thanks.php?do=findthanks&u=3727)
<!-- END TEMPLATE: post_thanks_postbit_info -->

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / user info --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_76736><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- icon and title -->https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Bible is filled with bigotry <!-- Wacco - display repostinfo --><!-- /Wacco - display repostinfo --><!-- Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --><!-- /Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin -->
<HR style="COLOR: #a6a852" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message -->Todd, you come across as a kind and considerate fellow, well, that is as long as people will do what you preach.
If they cross you, you'll pull out the whip, like a little dictator and decide who deserves your compassion.
It is for this exact reason that a non-involved, impersonal government can be a bridge for those who have nowhere to go, even the ones who have been abusive and have past some of their behavior on to their offspring.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76726#post76726)
A better question would be what about my ex-stepfather, who was abusive to me as a child. While I may not buy him a computer, if he came to my door hungry, he would not go away hungry. On the other hand, I would immediately start calling his family to see who could come pick him up and be responsible for him.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Hardly so, the fact that I would even invite the man in for a meal is pretty amazing considering that he repeatedly beat me as a child, and was eventually jailed for it.

To say that I am a "little dictator" for showing compassion for one who never showed me any is just ridiculous. I simply said that my compassion does have limits, as it should have for my own health and safety.

How many people do you know that would just slam the door in the person's face? How many would open their home and heart to a person who had physically abused them?

I take the middle road, as I said, he's not going to go hungry, but he's not going to move in permently as long as there are other options.

Exactly how much forgiveness and compassion am I supposed to have for this type of behavior? I think I'm pretty darn reasonable, certainly much more so than average. To call me dictator because I don't treat people who have abused me as I would a best friend is unreasonable.

Non-involved, impersonal government, is the very reason we have our problems, and is the whole point of what I am talking about. There are certain people that have behaved so badly, that they simply don't deserve help or passion (and this has nothing to do with the above), while some will be cut off at an arbitrary point, because they have reached a certain number, and all they need is a little more help to be self sufficient.

This is the problem with what you propose, it lacks the human element that I believe to be necessary. You want government by the numbers, and I want government by the people.

Come on Terry, think this stuff through before you so quickly comment on it, I know you can do better than this.

[toddwquigley]

<TABLE class=tborder id=post76738 cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=6 width="100%" align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; PADDING-TOP: 0px"><TABLE cellSpacing=6 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD noWrap>phooph (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/member.php?u=215) <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus -->https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/statusicon/user_offline.gif <!-- END TEMPLATE: postbit_onlinestatus --><SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_76738", true); </SCRIPT>

</TD><TD width="100%"> </TD><TD vAlign=top noWrap>Join Date: Jun 7, 2005
Location: Santa Rosa
<!-- Wacco - Make posts a link -->Posts: 287 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/search.php?do=finduser&userid=215)
<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: post_thanks_postbit_info --><!-- Wacco - Customized to supress zero lines and make counts links --><!-- Base version -->Expressed Gratitude: 7 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/post_thanks.php?do=findexpressedthanks&u=215)
Received gratitude 80 times for 49 posts (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/post_thanks.php?do=findthanks&u=215)
<!-- END TEMPLATE: post_thanks_postbit_info --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: im_yahoo -->https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/misc/im_yahoo.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76743#) <!-- END TEMPLATE: im_yahoo -->

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- / user info --></TD></TR><TR><TD class=alt1 id=td_post_76738><!-- message, attachments, sig --><!-- icon and title -->https://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: Bible is filled with bigotry <!-- Wacco - display repostinfo --><!-- /Wacco - display repostinfo --><!-- Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin --><!-- /Wacco - Add Threadfields Pluggin -->
<HR style="COLOR: #a6a852" SIZE=1><!-- / icon and title --><!-- message --><!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Dysfunctional families are nothing new, this is where local community come in, but to relegate it to a nation only makes the community weaker in more ways than one, the first one being that without close oversight the system gets abused more than used.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Just how is the local community to "come in?" We have child protective services that will remove children from homes, but only under the most dire of circumstances, (evidence or threat of physical harm) and only if they know what is happening. We have the police who will intervene in extreme cases and, again, only if it comes to their attention. Anyone who has observed either of those two interventions understands how dysfunctional those systems are and how they are sometimes as abusive as the abuses they purport to address. Seldom do these institutions provide a healthy living environment for those removed from apparent danger.

My point exactly, we used to just go and take their children and put them in with a neighboring family, and then call the police to take care of the parent for the abuse. Now we call the cops, and the child goes to some impersonal foster home. Before that the people just went in, grabbed the kids, and beat the tar out of the male parent. I'm not advocating that, although it might not be a bad idea in some cases, but I am saying that when the neighbor or teacher notices it, they shouldn't be penalized for reporting it and seeing that there is follow through.



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Go to any socialist country, and you see the same problems, but you also have rampant abuse of the system, and an insular society that doesn't care about each other, and thus really doesn't care about themselves.

There will always be people at the bottom, because:

A) There will always be people who refuse to do what is necessary to rise above it. (the largest portion of them)

B) There will always be people who want to be there because they like being the victim (lots and lots of them).

C) there will always be a few honest and true victims (not very many).

The only one you can actually help is C, as A and B are a complete waste of time.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->This is applicable to a rather small portion of the populace. That the poor are poor because they deserve it due to their own choices is a common myth promoted by the monied class to absolve themselves of responsibility or guilt. Academia has done extensive research on the causes of poverty. One of the chief causes of poverty is under capitalization, in other words, a sizable portion of the workforce is paid at rates below poverty. There are many low income workers who work two jobs just to scrape by so the laziness moniker doesn't apply to them either.

Yes and no, there are as I said, some honest victims, and there are a lot more that are victims of themselves. People figure: "why save, I'll never have enough, because I can't spare enough", and they get comfortable in their lifestyle, instead of saving, they wind up buying a new cell phone to show off, or a new whatever, and their thinking defeats them.

Poverty, which had been on the decline for decades after WWII, began to rise in 1980 and has continued its upward growth. The reasons? Job flight, atomization, and inflation that has eroded the buying power of vast sectors of the workforce. Wages have not kept up with the cost of living. We are now seeing some of the results of that as our consumer driven economy has reached an apex of indebtedness and lack of savings, and a decline in consumption leading to a recession that will soon become a depression.

You think?... Make no mistake, we are going into a depression that will be just as bad as the 1930's, and the main reason is because people of all walks of life have been spending too much, and not saving.

They have also been willing to sit in a crappy job, because they don't want to go through the inconvenience of getting a new one. There is also too much competition from illegals, which are the darlings of the left.


In biblical times people were expected to tithe, and that money often went to support the poor. Those who did well were expected to offer some support those who did less well.

So right you are, and it worked.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Yes, and it worked. It worked right up until FDR, whereupon people stopped helping on an individual basis, because the State supposedly did it for them. Look at European socialist countries where on the whole, the people don't give a ____ about each other.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->The US and the world were in the grip of a deep depression at the time that FDR created the New Deal. Millions were out of work and charities were overwhelmed with people in need. People were starving in large numbers and there were food riots in many cities. The power elite in the US had already observed what had happened in Russia a couple decades earlier and were aware of the growing popularity of the communist party in the US. Either the government would take action to placate the angry mobs or the wealthy would find themselves in the same plight as those in Czarist Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. Thus the welfare state was created to ameliorate the situation, and the WPA and the CCC were created to put the jobless to work and keep them out of mischief. Then WWII came along and everyone was too busy with outside enemies to think about revolution.

There is truth to that, but going into the history of it doesn't change the fact that all it did was prolong the agony until we could get into a nice distracting war that was just wonderfull for the economy. The bill bill for the "New Deal' is finally coming due, and of course, nobody wants to pay it. Now Obama want to try a "New, New Deal" and put it off for another generation yet again.

We are going right back to 1936, and we starting over where we left off, and this time, the "New Deal" isn't going to save our bacon. We have 72 years of spending to pay for.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
If you really want to make people give up part of their income to help other people, then at least give them a voice in the matter and make them give it to an accepted non-profit institution of their choice, instead of deciding for them.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Ideally people should not have to give up a portion of their income to the government to help other people. Under the current system, the income tax goes to pay for the interest on the debt borrowed from the Federal reserve and for Treasury bonds borrowed by other entities. We currently operate on a debt issued currency. That means that the government "borrows" money and then prints the money either on paper or electronically to pay its obligations. With the Federal Reserve, no money is issued, only an IOU to be paid by the government to the Fed for which only the interest is required by the Fed to make income. By eliminating the borrowing portion of this equation, it would eliminate the need to collect taxes for interest and the populace would go unmollested. This system was created to generate an income stream for the banks, not as a necessity for currency issuance. It is no coincidence that the 16th Ammendment and the Federal Reserve Act were both passed in 1913. The first supports the second. By issuing currency to pay its obligations without going through the motion of "borrowing" it first, there would be no need to impose an income tax. Currency issuance is one of the tasks assigned to the federal government, not to the banks.

Yes, you are correct, I see that you understand your history and economics, good! Too bad the rest of the populace isn't so enlightened.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
If everyone was forced to give 10% to a "church" of their choice (even if it's a church of atheists), the country wouldn't need any other form of social programs, because people would be sure to give their hard earned money to the institutions that they found to do the most good, most efficiently with their money.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->There are many non-profit organizations that do good work. It would not have to be a church. Poverty rates are determined by the cost of food, a system set up in the early 60s when food was more expensive than housing. Now housing and health care are the most expensive. The government has not amended its system as to do so would make obvious that the so called richest country in the world has a very high poverty rate.

Right again!



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
. . . which is why we need local community more than ever, because as you point out below, large groups don't function very effectively.

I think we are in agreement here, the only question is at what point should the state step in, and I believe that should be when all other avenues have been explored, otherwise you will have abuse of the system.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Determination needs to be made about what is best for the society as a whole. What is the impact of increasing numbers of uncared for sick people?

That's why we need goverment by the people and not by the numbers, as crazy as it sounds, each case must be examined by people who have some understanding of the players and factors involved, this means not the Government, but the community needs to be making these decisions.

The system is already massively abused, and the worst abuses are not on the level of individuals receiving assistance. That's nickle and dime stuff compared to the abuses higher up in the system. A system for transparency needs to be created wherein citizens can watch what happens to the money. This is actually the law on the federal level but there is no mechanism to facilitate it. You or I can legally walk into any federal agency and ask to see the books. Just try to do it and see what walls you run into. There is a website dedicated to missing money https://whereisthemoney.org/ (https://whereisthemoney.org/) but there is little public awareness of the issue.

I agree again, it's also a great site, but do give more credit where it's do, the people will naturally abuse the system for the reasons I have enumerated, it's just human nature to grab all you can if it's free, and then to become apathetic about anything that doesn't cost you something.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
MLK said with good reason, that welfare was the bane of black society, because it kept them enslaved.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Yes, because it's been structured to create dependence and not to support people becoming self supporting. It was also structured to break up families by requiring there to be no father in the home, the assumption being that if there is a father there is enough money for the whole family. So poor families, to save mom and kids from poverty would be abandon by fathers so that they could get assistance. A bad system. There were training and education services for welfare recipients for a while, but those were eliminated in the Clinton Welfare Reform bill which also limits people to two years now so they just kick people out as opposed to helping them learn their way out.

"Teach a man to fish"...



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Diabetes is not something you are born with, it comes from bad diet and lack of exercise. In other words, why should the other group members have to pay for your bad life decisions?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Type one diabetes is one you are born with. Type two is acquired. My friend has been diabetic all his life. He has type one. He also exercises regularly and eats right. He has finally become old enough to get Medicare so he has insurance for the first time since he retired from work. He still struggles with paying for his medicine, though, as he is one of the 5% that hits the doughnut hole in the drug plan.

Pretty much my point, some people are really truly victims, and they are the ones that really, truly need the help first. If you ate yourself into horrible health, I have less compassion for you than the person who has genetic problems, and you are therefore further down the list for any help.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Health care is expensive for several reasons, but I'll list just a few:

1) Malpractice insurance - Blame human greed and the lawyers
2) Doctors who spent 12 years in school, and feel they should be recompenced for that time and effort.
3) Corporate greed
4) Overpaid administrators and managers
5) Expensive new drugs and procedures
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->We also live in a world that is increasingly mobile and polluted which is creating and spreading any number of diseases. There are a whole host of emerging viruses, for instance, that are beginning to spread through the US population which are persistent and debilitating. Then there are all the mysterious diseases that are as yet unidentified that are debilitating increasing numbers of people. These don't get much press so most are unaware of them.

Yes, the superbugs that are developing in hospitals are SCARY, they are basically anti-biotic resistant, and they have developed because American medicine prescribes anti-biotics at the drop of a hat, while other societies believe that they should be used only when they are really needed. This is a ticking time bomb.


<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Now, I ask you, do you really think these things are going to lessen with social medicine? If you really think so, just remember the last time you visited the DMV, and all the waste you paid for just to get your car registered: The State employees at the DMV, the smog tech, the State guy that inspects the smog tech, the smog testing machine etc, etc.

The larger the system, the more protocols that must be met, the more it costs.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I assume any system that is set up will be designed to support the plutocracy/kleptocracy as is the current protocol. That means it will be designed to put money in the bank accounts of the medical industrial complex and ways will be found to siphon off some for individual enrichment. The Part D Medicare drug bill was designed for the pharmafia and they raised their prices as soon as it was passed. They have also been vigilant in preventing people from going to Canadian on-line pharmacies to purchase their drugs at the cheaper Canadian prices. Canada sets drug price caps.

Yep!

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
Now we get to the root of the problem: All the protocols that must be met so that every i is dotted and every t is crossed in case of a lawsuit. The bigger the entity, the bigger the target. The problem comes down to human greed, and the fact that it is far too easy to to file and win frivolous lawsuits.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->The rise in malpractice suits has more to do with how people feel about their medical system than greed. Patients who feel their medical caretakers are responsive to their needs are much less likely to initiate law suits. Not my opinion, but the result of studies.
https://ajm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/153 (https://ajm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/4/153)
https://www.medicalmalpractice.com/Na...tice-Facts.cfm (https://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm)

Never-the-less, malpractice lawsuits are one of the few ways to police a system that according to the National Accademy of Sciences: Institue of Medicine is the number one cause of preventable death in the US. The statement has been made by many in the medical world, including the president of Kaiser, that our medical system is broken. It is too expensive, inefficient, and ineffective and rates below that of some less developed countries. We have the most costly health care system in the world and it does a lousy job of delivering bang for the buck. I remember when I used to be able to pay out of pocket to go to the doctor. That's no longer true. I do most of my own doctoring, making sure I have a healthy lifestyle and learning what I can about natural ways to heal myself. There are some things for which medical care is a requrement, however.

The problem is with the courts, and they way malpractice suits are almost invariably decided in favor of the plaintiff, because the juries are not adequately educated, and are easily confused, besides, who hasn't been angry at a doctor and felt that they were being ignored?



<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
But I digress, the topic was medical care, and the answer is the individual is responsible for themselves, and if they really, really can't handle it, then it goes to their family, friends, immediate local community and eventually, at the very last, when every other option has been explored and used, then, yes, it becomes the responsibility of the State, but that's a long, long way down the road, and is the very last source of responsibility. In a healthy (psychologically) and responsible society, the State, as a means of last resort, should only be needed a very small percentage of the time.

Here's the flow chart:

You>Family>Friends>Neighborhood>Local Community>City>State/Nation

That's a lot of people before you get to State/Nation...
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->I think we should do a lot of things bottom up instead of top down. If taxes were only collected on a local level it would change things greatly. If the states contracted with the federal government and paid them for services out of taxes collected locally it would change the system greatly.

Couldn't agree more.<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->
Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
If you have made a life full of bad and selfish decisions, why is it the states responsibility to bail you out?
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->What this has to do with the working poor and not so poor who can't afford health care I don't know. Not all health problems are caused by bad
choices.

Very true, but I wasn't talking about them, I was referring to those who who knew better and did it anyway, knowing that the State would bail them out, or just ignored it because they didn't want to be bothered.

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --><!-- using waccobburl -->Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">toddwquigley wrote: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/orangebuttons/viewpost.gif (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?p=76633#post76633)
As the government get bigger and bigger and has yet more and more responsibilities, it gets more more and more inefficient and abused, and you lose more and more of your freedoms.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->No argument there.

Personally, the trade-off is not enough for the very small increase of potential good. When you add it all up, I see that the government socialism that we have has caused more bad by a good measure then good to our society as a whole.

In the 1930's, we were a nation of great people with a few basic problems, and although times were tough, most of the people were fairly happy.

In 2008 we are a nation of mediocre people with a lot, lot more problems, times are not that tough and most people are unhappy.

What's the big difference? Big government...
[/quote]

Your assertion that people were fairly happy in the 30s during the Great Depression goes along with your assertion that people were happier in the dark ages. I think you suffer from "the good ole' days" syndrome. I hear from people who lived through it that it was rather grim for a lot of folks. Maybe you need to read The Grapes of Wrath, or watch the old film. There was a shortage of money. A lot of people were going hungry. Many were homeless and became rootless wanderers looking for a little work any where they could find it. In New York City, Central Park became a campground for the homeless. I'm sure they were very happy in Feruary in their tents in the cold. Especially the moms with their little kids and babies.

I was talking about the mindset of the people back then, not the actual condidtions. It was, as you point out, pretty bad, but the people didn't let it get them down. Now everybody whines at the drop of a hat, and expects the government to wipe their butt.

It will be interesting to see how this generation handles the coming "Greater Depression", personally I think many will just give up, because they don't have the backbone to deal with it as they have been so coddled. The generation that went through the Great Depression had just been through the Great Flu, and the Great War, they were pretty tough people, most of this generation has never experienced anything worse than a blister from playing too many video games

Unfortunately the ever growing government is a product of the corporations, which pretty much own it at this point.

They have owned it for a long time, it was all wrapped up during the 1930's, which is why we had WWII.

Here's (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/interviews/reinhardt.html) an interview with two researchers on healthcare around the world. It's long but enlightening.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[MsTerry]

Todd, I can see how you misinterpreted my words.
No, I don't think you are a dictator when you give your step-father a meal. I think that shows your compassionate side.
I was referring to your idea that should be left to their own devices if they made a mistake.
That people should suffer and scarifies as much as you have, for the only reason that it is the right thing to do.


<table style="width: 20px; height: 48px;" class="tborder" id="post76736" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr><td class="alt2" style="padding: 0px;"><table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="6"><tbody><tr><td nowrap="nowrap">
</td><td width="100%"> </td><td valign="top" nowrap="nowrap">

</td></tr></tbody></table><!-- / user info --></td></tr><tr><td class="alt1" id="td_post_76736">
</td></tr></tbody></table>Hardly so, the fact that I would even invite the man in for a meal is pretty amazing considering that he repeatedly beat me as a child, and was eventually jailed for it.

To say that I am a "little dictator" for showing compassion for one who never showed me any is just ridiculous. I simply said that my compassion does have limits, as it should have for my own health and safety.

How many people do you know that would just slam the door in the person's face? How many would open their home and heart to a person who had physically abused them?

I take the middle road, as I said, he's not going to go hungry, but he's not going to move in permently as long as there are other options.

Exactly how much forgiveness and compassion am I supposed to have for this type of behavior? I think I'm pretty darn reasonable, certainly much more so than average. To call me dictator because I don't treat people who have abused me as I would a best friend is unreasonable.

Non-involved, impersonal government, is the very reason we have our problems, and is the whole point of what I am talking about. There are certain people that have behaved so badly, that they simply don't deserve help or passion (and this has nothing to do with the above), while some will be cut off at an arbitrary point, because they have reached a certain number, and all they need is a little more help to be self sufficient.

This is the problem with what you propose, it lacks the human element that I believe to be necessary. You want government by the numbers, and I want government by the people.

Come on Terry, think this stuff through before you so quickly comment on it, I know you can do better than this.

[MsTerry]

Todd,
I was only proving that your blanket statements are false.
Because the US does not invent everything and Europe is not falling apart even though they pay higher taxes.
And as far as Hitler goes, yes people do tend to focus on the negative aspects. (You forgot to mention that the trains ran on time) The reason Hitler came to power had to do with how Germany was pilferaged by Allied Forces and the National-Socialism offered people a way out. It improved their life tangibly.



Yes, there are always exceptions, but it doesn't change the big picture.

Using this line of reasoning, I can prove that Hitler was a great guy: He was a vegetarian, he loved animals, he was an artist, he wanted women to have more responsibility and more say-so, he was against smoking, drugs and alcohol, he wanted to advance medicine and the sciences for the betterment of people, he wanted medical care for all and he wanted to stamp out poverty, and mental sickness and actually quite a bit more.

Gosh, I guess he was quite the humanitarian, just like France must be the land of innovative geniuses...

[MsTerry]

Frankly, I think you two have a lot in common.
Why don't you two get together for coffee?
May I suggest Whole Foods ..................................


Why waste your time arguing with a delusional liar and a coward?

Franklin

[theindependenteye]

>> a delusional liar and a coward?

Personally, having been the target of similar abuse (as have you), I wish we could refrain from this kind of language in this forum. Better it stays on the playground. It makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion, unless you're accustomed to swimming in it.

Peace--
Conrad

[Franklin Johnson]

Agreed.

Nonetheless, a person who exploits sending insults privately in order to hide their dirty deeds from public scrutiny lacks integrity. Such is the case with Todd.

Franklin


>> a delusional liar and a coward?

Personally, having been the target of similar abuse (as have you), I wish we could refrain from this kind of language in this forum. Better it stays on the playground. It makes it pretty difficult to have a discussion, unless you're accustomed to swimming in it.

Peace--
Conrad

[phooph]

My point exactly, we used to just go and take their children and put them in with a neighboring family, and then call the police to take care of the parent for the abuse. Now we call the cops, and the child goes to some impersonal foster home. Before that the people just went in, grabbed the kids, and beat the tar out of the male parent. I'm not advocating that, although it might not be a bad idea in some cases, but I am saying that when the neighbor or teacher notices it, they shouldn't be penalized for reporting it and seeing that there is follow through.

When you look at the history of child protection in the US, it did not exist for a very long time. How people treated their kids was nobody's business short of murder. (The first child protection case was prosecuted using laws against cruelty to animals in the late 1800s against parents who kept a little girl chained for years to her bedpost.) What is alarming is that there are still many who feel that way. James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization found a follower in the Colorado state legislature to sponsor a bill that would hold parents free from prosecution for harming their children in the process of imposing discipline, including the accidental death as a result of this discipline. It went on the ballot as a referendum and was defeated by the people of Colorado. James Dobson is a child psychologist.

Individuals who attempt to intervene may find themselves in danger. The idea that the neighbors are going to step in to save a child without some legal backup is rather fanciful. The idea that these neighbors would then take in the child or children and do battle with the partents is also fanciful. Then there is the issue of one person's idea of the proper way to raise children being seen as abuse by someone else. Who sets the guidlines? Is whacking a kid's bottom with a belt for every infraction abuse or not? Does raising children on a diet of junk food and spending their at home time in front of the TV while breathing passive tobacco smoke pass as abuse and should those children be removed from the home?

Who's going to provide the money to cover the cost of the support of these kids who have been removed from one home and imposed on another? How much will is cost for their upkeep, medical care, and therapy to undo the damage done by the biological parents? Will they be dealing with the court system when these kids who've been so emotionaly damaged get into trouble? What will be the legal fees? How will they protect themselves from the angry biological parents who think they should have their kids back? How many kids are you willing to shelter and raise under these circumstance?


Yes and no, there are as I said, some honest victims, and there are a lot more that are victims of themselves. People figure: "why save, I'll never have enough, because I can't spare enough", and they get comfortable in their lifestyle, instead of saving, they wind up buying a new cell phone to show off, or a new whatever, and their thinking defeats them.

Most of the victims are "honest victims." A great deal of reseach has gone into this, and the vast majority of the working poor are just so because their jobs do not pay well. Very few of them will be able to move into better paying jobs because those jobs are limited. The fastest growing job sector is low paid service work. The well paying manufacturing jobs that many depended upon are now gone and more are leaving. The world is becoming flat. US workers are now competing with second and third world workers who are paid a few dollars a day without benefits, and that's the simple reality. College grads are finding this out. Best Buy offered 20,000 holiday job openings and got over a million applications. This will only get worse as the economy collapses. Your insistence that most people are poor because they are lazy or stupid is not borne out by decades of research. People are poor because they aren't paid more. This is a growing problem as US businesses attempt to compete with second and third world producers.

I don't know if you are familiar with The Middle Way, but they are a business that trains and employs developmentally disabled adults. They used to do the assembly for Flowmaster mufflers. They recently lost that contract after many years because they could not compete at minimum wage with China, and the company, in order to stay in business now has the assmebly done in China. The company was very apologetic but their survival was on the line.

This is the real world, not your theoretical world where everyone can get ahead if they just try hard enough.

Entrepreneurially inclined young people in the poor inner city are able to make a nice living dealing drugs as they see that to make money that's the way to go. Studies of these people find that they are just a good at business as other successful entrepreneurs, but are limited in their options and access to capital.



... Make no mistake, we are going into a depression that will be just as bad as the 1930's, and the main reason is because people of all walks of life have been spending too much, and not saving.

It may actually be worse as fewer people owned homes and were so in debt during the depression of the 30s.



They have also been willing to sit in a crappy job, because they don't want to go through the inconvenience of getting a new one. There is also too much competition from illegals, which are the darlings of the left.

There are fewer and fewer non-crappy jobs available. The crappy jobs are where the growth is.

NAFTA put around two million farms out of business in Latin America when it allowed those countries to be flooded with heavily subsidized US agricultural products. The people who worked those farms have come to the US so they can send money home to their families to buy the US food in their stores. This has been a great boon for US farmers who now have another market for their under priced food for which they recieve socialistic support and which they can hire Latino illegals to grow at bottom of the barrel wages and for whom they provide no benefits forcing them to use social services for their health care. But we all get cheap food so what's the beef?



In biblical times people were expected to tithe, and that money often went to support the poor. Those who did well were expected to offer some support those who did less well.

So right you are, and it worked.

This won't work in a full scale depression.


Thus the welfare state was created to ameliorate the situation, and the WPA and the CCC were created to put the jobless to work and keep them out of mischief. Then WWII came along and everyone was too busy with outside enemies to think about revolution.

There is truth to that, but going into the history of it doesn't change the fact that all it did was prolong the agony until we could get into a nice distracting war that was just wonderfull for the economy. The bill bill for the "New Deal' is finally coming due, and of course, nobody wants to pay it. Now Obama want to try a "New, New Deal" and put it off for another generation yet again.

We are going right back to 1936, and we starting over where we left off, and this time, the "New Deal" isn't going to save our bacon. We have 72 years of spending to pay for.

So you would have supported mass starvation and the overthrow of the government by a communist revolution?

We have a lot of bills coming due. You need to go back to 1913 and the Federal Reserve Act to begin placing blame.

The banking collapse that percipitated the Great Depression, was begun with a run on one bank when a rumor circulated that it was insolvent, a rumor said to have originated with JP Morgan. (JP Morgan Chase is said to be the instigator in the current meltdown along with the NY Fed.) This caused a cascade much like the one we are observing now. President Hoover refused to issue more money into the system saying, as you propose, that it would be better to just let it work itself out. This worsened the situation and more and more banks collapsed. The depression was caused by a currency shortage originating with the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury. There was not enough currency in the system cover the daily transactions needed for the system. The reason the government is throwing money at the problem is an attempt to prevent a similar situation. I doubt it will succeed.

When the big players want to acquire assets at fire sale prices they are not above instigating a collapse. JP Morgan Chase has swallowed up WaMu and licked its lips. Trillions will be handed out to Wall Street with little if any accountability. The bailout bill recently passed prohibits investigation and prosecution of the guilty. What we are observing is a heist, as one financial analyst has called it. The result will be more and more people out of work and without health care. Who should see to the well being of all these folks with no jobs and no health care and no social supports.

The local food banks are reporting record demand and falling donations. Some are reporting that their former donors are now in line to pick up food. What's the fix?




That's why we need government by the people and not by the numbers, as crazy as it sounds, each case must be examined by people who have some understanding of the players and factors involved, this means not the Government, but the community needs to be making these decisions.

How do you propose we set this up?



"Teach a man to fish"...

Our educational system does a bad job of this.



I have less compassion for you than the person who has genetic problems, and you are therefore further down the list for any help.

I suppose I could point out that if we were not using medical intervention to save the genetically impaired, there would be fewer of them in the gene pool to pass their impaired genes along to their offspring.




Yes, the superbugs that are developing in hospitals are SCARY, they are basically anti-biotic resistant, and they have developed because American medicine prescribes anti-biotics at the drop of a hat, while other societies believe that they should be used only when they are really needed. This is a ticking time bomb.

Scary superbugs are a drop in the bucket compared to the emerging viruses and chemically induced diseases which are world wide. The emasculation of males of all species in all areas of the world has been observed by scientists with a drop in reproduction. Many man made chemicals are hormone disruptors. Over population may become a thing of the past.


The problem is with the courts, and they way malpractice suits are almost invariably decided in favor of the plaintiff, because the juries are not adequately educated, and are easily confused, besides, who hasn't been angry at a doctor and felt that they were being ignored?

A few years ago the state supreme court found in favor of Kaiser in the case of a woman who died because they refused life saving treatment. The lower courts had decided in favor of the family of the deceased. The higher court decided in favor of Kaiser, because Kaiser argued that it was part of their containment of costs.

Of people injured by products and services, including medical products and services about 4% actually initiate a lawsuit. Of those who do initiate a lawsuit about 4% win. I don't think there is a problem with the courts. I think there is a problem with medical care.


I was talking about the mindset of the people back then, not the actual condidtions. It was, as you point out, pretty bad, but the people didn't let it get them down. Now everybody whines at the drop of a hat, and expects the government to wipe their butt.

People didn't "buck up" until FDR came in to save them from starving to death in large numbers.

https://www.nps.gov/archive/elro/glossary/great-depression.htm

[Franklin Johnson]

Phooph, this was another one of your outstanding posts. Thank you.

I have a question about farm subsidies, if you know the answer. For starters, I'm against such strong agricultural subsidies from government, especially in the wealthy nations such as the US, France, etc. They really mess up any chance of farmers in third world countries to sell their foods in the international market place. This is not only because these farmers are poor to begin with and don't have the same resources but also because their impoverished governments cannot afford to subsidize them, certainly not to the tune that the rich countries do. This is one of the biggest international 'beefs' between rich and poor nations.

My question is the following: Do federal farm subsidies go only to corporate farms in the US or does any of that government money find its way to small family farms? If so, what is the proportion?

Thank you again,

Franklin


When you look at the history of child protection in the US, it did not exist for a very long time. How people treated their kids was nobody's business short of murder. (The first child protection case was prosecuted using laws against cruelty to animals in the late 1800s against parents who kept a little girl chained for years to her bedpost.) What is alarming is that there are still many who feel that way. James Dobson's Focus on the Family organization found a follower in the Colorado state legislature to sponsor a bill that would hold parents free from prosecution for harming their children in the process of imposing discipline, including the accidental death as a result of this discipline. It went on the ballot as a referendum and was defeated by the people of Colorado. James Dobson is a child psychologist...

[phooph]

Phooph, this was another one of your outstanding posts. Thank you.

I have a question about farm subsidies, if you know the answer. For starters, I'm against such strong agricultural subsidies from government, especially in the wealthy nations such as the US, France, etc. They really mess up any chance of farmers in third world countries to sell their foods in the international market place. This is not only because these farmers are poor to begin with and don't have the same resources but also because their impoverished governments cannot afford to subsidize them, certainly not to the tune that the rich countries do. This is one of the biggest international 'beefs' between rich and poor nations.

My question is the following: Do federal farm subsidies go only to corporate farms in the US or does any of that government money find its way to small family farms? If so, what is the proportion?

Thank you again,

Franklin

Franklin,

Your conclusions are correct. First world subsidization has destroyed many third world farming bases. US cotton is cheaper on the market due to both subsidization and mechanization. Millions of African cotton farmers were put out of business. In Africa, an American grown chicken is cheaper than an African grown chicken.

Do you remember the WTO conference in Mexico City where a 54 year old Korean farmer committed suicide on the steps of the building where it was being held to protest the bankrupting of his farm by first world subsidized imports? Chinese, Japanese and Korean tofu is made from American soybeans.

Europe and North America subsidize. Second and third world countries do not. France attempted to cut farm subsidies and had a farmers' revolt on their hands. Anyone who attempted to end US farm subsidies would find themselves in a pitched battle with the countries farmers. Maybe going broke will fix it. Probably not.

My brother has two high school classmates. One plays the subsidy game and is a millionaire. The other does not and struggles to make ends meet. There has to be a balance somewhere.

Phooph

The film Life and Debt deals with the destruction of Jamaica's agricultural base by first forcing it to take first world corporate imports making it a target for sweat shop industries.

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="https://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5277094596195828118&hl=en&fs=true" style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

[Braggi]

Franklin Johnson wrote:
Not a bad idea. This way, if I'm understanding you correctly, everyone (LBGT & straight) have the choice of either a union or a marriage, whichever suits their needs.


NONONO
I meant the Bi's can have a union and a marriage at the same time to fulfill both their needs!

Can't do both. A group marriage can receive a number of marriage style benefits by creating a corporation (LLC) to hold property as a group and provide death benefits. This approach doesn't help for Social Security benefits, hospital visitation etc.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Health care is expensive for several reasons, but I'll list just a few:

1) Malpractice insurance - Blame human greed and the lawyers
2) Doctors who spent 12 years in school, and feel they should be recompenced for that time and effort.
3) Corporate greed
4) Overpaid administrators and managers
5) Expensive new drugs and procedures

Now, I ask you, do you really think these things are going to lessen with social medicine? If you really think so, just remember the last time you visited the DMV, and all the waste you paid for just to get your car registered: The State employees at the DMV, the smog tech, the State guy that inspects the smog tech, the smog testing machine etc, etc.

The larger the system, the more protocols that must be met, the more it costs.

Todd, sorry I'm way behind in this discussion, but you make some points here that are just way off base. And for purposes of clarity and ease of reading, will you please stop using colors to identify who is saying what. It gives me a headache and I really can't figure out who's saying what. Learn to use the quote features which work quite well.

When was the last time you were in the DMV? They function better than any doctor's office or hospital I've ever been in. They are fast, efficient, multilingual, and effectivly handle masses of people, most of whom don't know what they're doing. The current DMV system is government at its best: delivering a service with accuracy, speed, and usually with a smile. Wouldn't it be great if insurance companies worked that way?

The insurance companies in this country have been screwing the people they are supposed to serve for several decades now. They build marble skyscrapers and pay their CEOs tens of millions of dollars a year (or in at least one case, a billion dollars a year). They have discovered they can increase profits by refusing to cover valid medical issues and by failing to pay (or grossly delaying payment) to doctors and other providers for services rendered even if those services were approved in advance. I used to work in medical billing so I know something about all this.

The main problem is that businesses began to provide health coverage as a benefit of employment which took the health insurance business out of the free market by breaking the link between the service provider (the insurance company) and the customer (the patient). Deals are now cut between the employer and the insurance company that make a good deal for those two entities while cutting services and increasing costs for the patient. Kaiser is to blame for starting the nation down this path. HMOs are the worst case scenario in free market health care.

At this point the corruption and abuse is all about insurance companies that are "too big to fail" and the tons of money they pay politicians to pass laws entrenching their methods. It's time to break these chains of corruption and single payer is the only reasonable way to do that.

No DMV is covered in marble and gold. Most insurance company executive suites are. It's time to throw those particular bums out and let them get a productive job. Single payer will accomplish that. No DMV executive earns a billion dollars a year on taxpayer backs.

Todd, I'm a person who has been against single payer until very recently. The waste in our current system has pushed me over the edge. Our system is too corrupt to fix. It's time to end the waste. We have the opportunity to create a payment system that is fair to taxpayers, health care providers, and patients receiving services. It's time to provide health care for everyone. Ending executive salaries, marble and gold castles, corrupt legislation and the link between insurance companies and employers will do that.

Barring the radical move to single payer, at the least, a law should be passed making health insurance as a benefit of employment illegal. That would be a good start. Health insurance either needs to be returned to the free market or scrapped.

-Jeff

PS. Two of most efficient health care delivery systems in the world are Medicare and the VA, both "socialized."

[MsTerry]

You can't do both legally?
Is there a stipulation in the civil union that says you can't be married at the same time?
You're right that it would create a mess with benefits.
That leaves the Bi's as the last group to fight for the right to marry/union the people they love.


Can't do both.
-Jeff

[MsTerry]

Hear, Hear.
It has been a pleasure going to DMV, and that includes taking a driving test with a foreign-born cousin.



When was the last time you were in the DMV? They function better than any doctor's office or hospital I've ever been in. They are fast, efficient, multilingual, and effectivly handle masses of people, most of whom don't know what they're doing. The current DMV system is government at its best: delivering a service with accuracy, speed, and usually with a smile. Wouldn't it be great if insurance companies worked that way?

[Franklin Johnson]

So if I form a legal union with 3 or 4 or 5 or however many people through an LLC, I can have all the love I can possibly handle, with a variety of wives and husbands? Endless fun or endless responsibilities?

I'm assuming, of course, that no one is the sheik, that everyone is an equal partner, right?

What about children and how is that sorted out? Is there not a need to keep track of whose children are whose and which combinations of parents are the biological ones?

Would the same religious community that passed Prop 8 object to a new arrangement like this?

Do you know of any arrangements like this or is this just a lot of philosophizing?

Thank you, sincerely,

Franklin


Can't do both. A group marriage can receive a number of marriage style benefits by creating a corporation (LLC) to hold property as a group and provide death benefits. This approach doesn't help for Social Security benefits, hospital visitation etc.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

So if I form a legal union with 3 or 4 or 5 or however many people through an LLC, I can have all the love I can possibly handle, with a variety of wives and husbands? Endless fun or endless responsibilities?

I'm assuming, of course, that no one is the sheik, that everyone is an equal partner, right?

What about children and how is that sorted out? Is there not a need to keep track of whose children are whose and which combinations of parents are the biological ones?

Would the same religious community that passed Prop 8 object to a new arrangement like this?

Do you know of any arrangements like this or is this just a lot of philosophizing?

Yes, I know two such families. One is comprised of two men and two women. They have one child. Her school district understands she has two moms and two dads. Everything is shared pretty equally as far as I know. The other is a bit less formal with a core set of five family members coming and going from time to time with a few others hanging around.

At least a part of the religious community that passed Prop 8 would like to see them all burned at the stake for various imagined crimes.

-Jeff

[Franklin Johnson]

Is there an organization or some kind of an association that promulgates this lifestyle? Is it very extended? Is there a name for it? Where can someone get more information. I don't think that these two families would appreciate people dropping in on them as if they were a museum.

This is great that there is this much progress in parting ways with the traditional form of marriage and the nuclear family. As a matter of fact, there really hasn't been an alternative to the one-size-fits-all institution of marriage, which is very repressive and grossly confines everyone to a very specific lifestyle. Traditional marriage is probably very damaging to most people who are swindled out of a very fulfilling life experience. Traditional marriage is probably only appropriate for a minority of people.

Thanks,

Franklin



Yes, I know two such families. One is comprised of two men and two women. They have one child. Her school district understands she has two moms and two dads. Everything is shared pretty equally as far as I know. The other is a bit less formal with a core set of five family members coming and going from time to time with a few others hanging around.

At least a part of the religious community that passed Prop 8 would like to see them all burned at the stake for various imagined crimes.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

... Traditional marriage is probably only appropriate for a minority of people.

"Traditional marriage" is one man married to multiple women. Check out any of the "traditions" that claim marriage as a sacrament and look at their earliest teachings.

The "nuclear family" was really promoted heavily (in the sense there is no alternative) post WWI and even more so post WWII. The individual nuclear family buys homes, appliances, "utilities," tools, toys etc. in far greater quantities than the larger "farm house" style, somewhat more extended families that were popular before the World Wars. The nuclear family has lead to consumerist Hel.

More about "group marriage" : https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=group+marriages&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

-Jeff

[Franklin Johnson]

This is fascinating! I wish I had known earlier.

Would you be interested in starting a local group (unless there is one already) to meet together to talk about this? Different people could come and speak in the informal setting of a small group, sitting in a circle. I don't think many people would show up at first but I don't think that matters. This is for the few people for whom it DOES matter to get together. Part of this would also be for raising the public's consciousness. Maybe there is a little video or movie out there that talks about this and people can comment on it or talk about their personal experiences, if they wish, and share this information with one another.

Or something. But this shouldn't be left alone. I'm sure that there are probably many people who would eventually come around. It just has to be made public. Although christian groups might present a problem.

Thank you again,

Franklin


"Traditional marriage" is one man married to multiple women. Check out any of the "traditions" that claim marriage as a sacrament and look at their earliest teachings.

The "nuclear family" was really promoted heavily (in the sense there is no alternative) post WWI and even more so post WWII. The individual nuclear family buys homes, appliances, "utilities," tools, toys etc. in far greater quantities than the larger "farm house" style, somewhat more extended families that were popular before the World Wars. The nuclear family has lead to consumerist Hel.

More about "group marriage" : https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en-us&q=group+marriages&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

-Jeff

[Braggi]

This is fascinating! I wish I had known earlier.

Would you be interested in starting a local group (unless there is one already) to meet together to talk about this? ...

Well, you could look into North Bay Poly Chat which is a local mail list on polyamory. There's not much activity there but you could start some.

You would be surprised how many poly Christians there are out there. Do a google search on christian polyamory and start reading.

-Jeff

[Franklin Johnson]

Amazing. The christian community is so large that you can find just about any subgroup that your wildest imagination can conjure up, no matter how contradictory.

Here is some other good stuff that I ran into. Below, is the verbal modification of biblical scripture to contemporary law. This is what millions of americans would like to see legislated into the laws that govern everyone:

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one
man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin.
If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen
24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the
constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed
to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not
give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut
25:5-10)


Well, you could look into North Bay Poly Chat which is a local mail list on polyamory. There's not much activity there but you could start some.

You would be surprised how many poly Christians there are out there. Do a google search on christian polyamory and start reading.

-Jeff

[MsTerry]

https://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site568/2008/1214/20081214__ssjm1214bushiraq%7E1_Gallery.JPG


In this image from APTN video, a man, centre throws a shoe at US President George W. Bush, background left, during a news conference with Iraq Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Sunday, Dec. 14, 2008, in Baghdad, Iraq. On an Iraq trip shrouded in secrecy and marred by dissent, President George W. Bush on Sunday hailed progress in the war that defines his presidency and got a size-10 reminder of his unpopularity when a man hurled two shoes at him during a news conference. (AP Photo)



F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the
widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not
give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut
25:5-10)

[Franklin Johnson]

The religious right is probably feeling real good about themselves this christmas because they pushed through their bigoted Prop 8. What they won't like so much is when their discriminatory text is tossed out by the courts next year in 2009.

Franklin

[Gary Jensen]

Yes, all in due time. Although I certainly prefer that the California Supreme Court throw out that fascist diatribe of a "law" in time for the holidays. That would make it extra sweet for good people and extra bitter for the religious bigots.

Gary



The religious right is probably feeling real good about themselves this christmas because they pushed through their bigoted Prop 8. What they won't like so much is when their discriminatory text is tossed out by the courts next year in 2009.

Franklin