Re: Memorial Day (OT)

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

> As for Micheal
>Moore, or any of the others, right or left, don't twist the facts.
>Have enough respect for me, and your case to present it cleanly and
>let me decide on it.

> I'm still wondering how health care is better in
>a country where the average person has a hard time even getting
>aspirin.

What are you talking about? Oh yeah, you're responding to
Limbaugh-style critique of the Moore health care film by putting an
extreme statement out there and knocknig it down. Great.

That's my fundamental point. There are all these buzzwords/bogeymen
out there and you totally fall for them to avoid voting for people
that are actually doing better against most of the stuff you *****
about.

That's all it takes to make you poltically impotent as a voter:
PCness at UMass, disrespect for vets in the 70s, Jane Fonda, George
Soros, etc. Michael Moore. Now Rev. Wright. And the true kryptonite -
"liberal." Excuses for inaction.

 

[William Asher]

Donald Munro wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
>> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>
> Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.

Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet. It's a specific humidity
thing. Don't get me started.

--
Bill Asher

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 4:35 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>
> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.
>
> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet.  It's a specific humidity
> thing.  Don't get me started.

If we get you started, then sacrifices must be made. Afternoon
training rides will have to end.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 3:13 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> ... if you're not willing to
> take action to remove him from office by, at a minimum voting for
> someone who might beat him.  You started a thread about how you think
> the president is committing treason and you vote libertarian or
> republican?  

lol

Like its Bill's fault that there is no conceivable way to vote for a
democrat and yet be either awake or honest. Democrat politicians need
to change from their anti-constitutional and statist ways if they want
an honest and awake vote. They are their own problem.

"Minimum voting" is a problem. You are a problem.

It is people like you who provoke the question: Does democracy work?

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 16:25:05 -0700 (PDT), SLAVE of THE STATE
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Like its Bill's fault that there is no conceivable way to vote for a
>democrat and yet be either awake or honest. Democrat politicians need
>to change from their anti-constitutional and statist ways if they want
>an honest and awake vote. They are their own problem.

Your fault is that that small state you want is an (evil) pipe dream.
So for you voting pointless.

Bill's fault is that he lets bogeymen prevent him from voting for
politicians that will actually do a better job than what we have on
issues he claims to care about.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 6:46 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Your fault is that that small state you want is an (evil) pipe dream.

Why do you hate America?

 

[William Asher]

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> On May 28, 4:35 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>> > Bill C wrote:
>> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>>
>> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.
>>
>> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet.  It's a specific
>> humidity thing.  Don't get me started.
>
> If we get you started, then sacrifices must be made. Afternoon
> training rides will have to end.

I would hate to have to make any sacrifices personally. Couldn't you just
work harder to make up the difference?

--
Bill Asher

 

[Bill C]

On May 28, 5:12 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
> Your political views are a jumble and your political actions, at least
> in terms of national voting, haven't help your principles.

Yep, my views are pretty complex. I don't live in a simple world. My
vote says that neither party, at that point currently was worth my
vote. I voted for change, just the thing Obama's asking people to do.
Except I voted to let them know I wanted another choice, or better
choices. Given what I know now I may well ahve done something
different.
More personal attacks and comparisons to Limbaugh on the helath care.
I seem to remember, thoug I could be mistaken, Ben and others
questioning that health care, and Moores statements on it in Cuba as
compared toi the US were questionable also. My research and reading,
including stuff from the Guardian tells me that there are two health
care systems in Cuba, one for the elite, and foreign visitors, and the
one the vast majority of the people there are forced to use that has
limited, at best supplies, antiquated equipment, and is basically at
the third world level. Even the elite system is not comparable to most
of Europe, Canada, or the US. I read through tons of stuff on this
because I was discussing it with you, and that's why I was so
conscientous, and slow in making my conclusions.
I'd be happy to look at reading and information that could change my
viewpoint on this. I do object to you telling me that my basic
Constitutional concerns are invalid. Different people develop
different priorities and concerns, and I'm not going to be telling
anyone theirs aren't valid. I may say that I disagree, and this is
why, but I haven't lived their lives, so I'm in no position to be
prioritizing their lives, and beliefs for them, and telling them what
they should be concerned with.
Live and let live.
Bill C

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 7:33 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> > On May 28, 4:35 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> > Bill C wrote:
> >> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>
> >> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.
>
> >> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet.  It's a specific
> >> humidity thing.  Don't get me started.
>
> > If we get you started, then sacrifices must be made.  Afternoon
> > training rides will have to end.
>
> I would hate to have to make any sacrifices personally.  Couldn't you just
> work harder to make up the difference?  

Nice bite. That has always been my working assumption when the line
"sacrifices must be made" is bellowed.

You must work for the Bush Admin, or vote democrat.

 

[Bill C]

On May 28, 5:31 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 13:57:20 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As for Micheal
> >Moore, or any of the others, right or left, don't twist the facts.
> >Have enough respect for me, and your case to present it cleanly and
> >let me decide on it.
> > I'm still wondering how health care is better in
> >a country where the average person has a hard time even getting
> >aspirin.
>
> What are you talking about? Oh yeah, you're responding to
> Limbaugh-style critique of the Moore health care film by putting an
> extreme statement out there and knocknig it down.  Great.  
>
> That's my fundamental point.  There are all these buzzwords/bogeymen
> out there and you totally fall for them to avoid voting for people
> that are actually doing better against most of the stuff you *****
> about.
>
> That's all it takes to make you poltically impotent as a voter:
> PCness at UMass, disrespect for vets in the 70s, Jane Fonda, George
> Soros, etc. Michael Moore. Now Rev. Wright.  And the true kryptonite -
> "liberal."  Excuses for inaction.

Here's a good piece from The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health
How many doctors do you think we'd have in the US at $20, a month?
They make it quite clear that the primary reason behind the success is
the cultural focus on prevention. Got a magic wand here to change the
basic culture? The Guardian has always bent over backwards in support
of Cuba, and this is the most positive they could come up with.
Moore's claims don't hold up, and are a distorted image no matter who
looks at it even vaguely objectively.
The basic philosophy of prevention, and care for all is a great one,
and the most cost effective IMO, but that's not his argument. The
Guardian also makes the point that it's hard to know the real story
since people who complain are likely to end up in prison as political
prisoners, and this isn't exactly coming from Fox news.
If you interpret the information differently then we are going to
disagree. I don't like it, but I'm comfortable with my evaluation,and
the breadth of my sources until you or others can provide me with
other information to evaluate.
Bill C

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 8:15 pm, Bill C <[email protected]> wrote:

> I do object to you telling me that my basic
> Constitutional concerns are invalid.

They are invalid in the sense the constitution really is dead and
buried.

He doesn't give a **** about the constitution -- it is a barrier to
overcome to him. He is a leftist and thus a statist. He spoke with
more candor than most when said that "Your fault is that that small
state you want is an (evil) pipe dream." He's saying a strict
enumerated powers guvmint -- necessarily small guvmint -- is evil. He
wants an unconstitutional large guvmint. He could not care less that
a national health care program would be flatly illegal. You don't see
him saying SS, Welfare, DeptOfEd, Ag subsidies, Fema, and on and on
and on and on ought to be immediately abolished as they are all
illegal (unconstitutional). He hates the constitution for the same
reason that all statists do, and that is exactly why it had to go. It
is a barrier.

Anytime a statist whines about constitutional violations, it is mere
power politics. _Always_. Whether the complaint happens to be true or
not is merely incidental. When a leftist complains about
unconstitutional acts of George Bush, you must know it is not out of
concern for general lawful conduct of the guvmint, it is rather
politicization, regardless of whether the complaint is in fact true.

The statists will "win" in the end, although I'll say it is more
hollow than a Giro stage win.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:15:54 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I seem to remember, thoug I could be mistaken, Ben and others
>questioning that health care, and Moores statements on it in Cuba as
>compared toi the US were questionable also. My research and reading,
>including stuff from the Guardian tells me that there are two health
>care systems in Cuba, one for the elite, and foreign visitors,

If Moore didn't say what you think he did, that doesn't matter. See,
you think you're being thoughtful but in reallity you're just knocking
down a straw man. The "Michael Moore" as bogeyman tactic has worked on
you!

And you read the Guardian so you feel open-minded. Great.

> I do object to you telling me that my basic
> Constitutional concerns are invalid.

No, I said you're not taking action in ways that support your
concerns. Biggest threat to free speech today is media consolidation
and re-alignment of many forms of intellectual property in favor of a
handful of corporations. But excess PC-ness on college campuses gets
your attention. I'm not saying that's not an issue, but it's a drop in
the bucket compared to the massive disinformation and disempowerment.

And what good is the 2nd amendment if the government can just grab
*you* (not your guns - *you*) anyway and put you away. Like gun
control is really going to make it any easier for them to declare
people enemy combatants. Ha.

You may *think* your'e working toward your principles, but you've
bought a load of right-wing talking points that lead to inaction in
protecting them.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Here's a good piece from The Guardian:
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health
> How many doctors do you think we'd have in the US at $20, a month?

That's not the pont. Michael Moore says US healthcare is in shambles,
which it is, and could be better, which it could, if less money was
spent on profit and on different components of the system fighting
each other overf who pays.

He never said US healthcare should be replaced by Cuba's or that
Cuba's is better overall. I believe his point is that for the
ridiculously low expenditures on health care, the results there are
surprisingly good. Not that is is better than the US.

So fixate on that baloney anti-Moore arugment all you want. You've
been played. You've been distracted. At best. At worse, you're
using those things consciously to pretend to be open-minded.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 8:49 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:

>  Biggest threat to free speech today is media consolidation
> and re-alignment of many forms of intellectual property in favor of a
> handful of corporations.  
> ...it's a drop in
> the bucket compared to the massive disinformation and disempowerment.

Marxist claptrap.

> And what good is the 2nd amendment if the government can just grab
> *you* (not your guns - *you*) anyway and put you away.  Like gun
> control is really going to make it any easier for them to declare
> people enemy combatants. Ha.

You are one scary dude. You think the second was put there so
rednecks could go sport hunting? You think the revolution (a revolt
against the legal authority) was won against a "tyrannical government"
without weapons? So mere insults did the trick?

One of the purposes of the second was that a tyrannical government
might think twice about the costs of tyrannical behavior if they could
get a bullet between the eyes when they "just grab *you*," as you
say. "What would have happened" after arrest is why the armed
resistance would have occurred in the first place.

I don't recommend that you try this at home.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 1:00 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
> On May 27, 6:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Re "treason"
>
> > Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> > here.
>
> By saying that, you imply there is such a thing as a constitution.
> Curious.

No, I just imply that there is such a thing
as Con Law.

The Supreme Court makes rulings about what is
or is not Con Law, for example. They may be
contradictory, or whimsically interpreting a
200-year-old document written in semi-archaic
English, or reading tea leaves or pulling it
out of their collective bungholes. It doesn't
really matter unless you're trying to to
deduce an entire civil structure from first
principles. Just because they may be making
Con Law up as they go along does not mean
there is no Con Law.

> I hope your search for tenure proves less difficult than your search
> for the constitution.

If the institutions of our civil society are
in any worse shape than my sordid career in
our educational institutions, we're really
up **** creek.

Ben
They always said I belonged in an institution.

 

[SLAVE of THE STATE]

On May 28, 10:06 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On May 28, 1:00 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 27, 6:59 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > Re "treason"
>
> > > Anyway, I think there is an interesting Con Law question
> > > here.
>
> > By saying that, you imply there is such a thing as a constitution.
> > Curious.
>
> No, I just imply that there is such a thing
> as Con Law.

I was reading a book by a law prof and he seemed sorta ****** that Con
Law had little or nothing to do with the constitution.

> > I hope your search for tenure proves less difficult than your search
> > for the constitution.
>
> If the institutions of our civil society are
> in any worse shape than my sordid career in
> our educational institutions, we're really
> up **** creek.

If you would make some "sacrifices" for solving global warming, you
could quit that dead end. You could do something like help develop
wind gens, or something else useful. Just remember your ideological
roots if you sell to me: profits are evil.

> They always said I belonged in an institution.

Okay. Then can you get old articles from The Journal of Math and
Physics?

 

[William Asher]

SLAVE of THE STATE <[email protected]> wrote in news:2a927437-2846-4255-83fe-
[email protected]:

<snip>
> You must work for the Bush Admin, or vote democrat.

Why can't I do both? That would make me complicated. Chicks dig
complicated probably as much as they dig a shaved nutsack and I'm just not
ready to commit to the latter.

--
Bill Asher

 

[Donald Munro]

William Asher wrote:
> Why can't I do both? That would make me complicated. Chicks dig
> complicated probably as much as they dig a shaved nutsack and I'm just not
> ready to commit to the latter.

Close your eyes and think of the flag. If it will make it any easier
it could be arranged for Tammy Thomas to do the shaving.

 

[[email protected]]

On May 28, 2:35 pm, William Asher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> >> You can hate on us out here in the rain, but we were pushed out.
>
> > Don't worry, with global warming the rain might stop.
>
> Total precipitation increases in a warmer planet.  It's a specific humidity
> thing.  Don't get me started.

Yeah, but you'll get more water and we'll get less,
so the Arizona Territory is just going to have to
come up there and take its rightful share.

On the bright side, think of the increased market
for Assos raingear.

Ben

 

[Bill C]

On May 28, 9:54 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Wed, 28 May 2008 18:30:32 -0700 (PDT), Bill C
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Here's a good piece from The Guardian:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health
> > How many doctors do you think we'd have in the US at $20, a month?
>
> That's not the pont.  Michael Moore says US healthcare is in shambles,
> which it is, and could be better, which it could, if less money was
> spent on profit and on different components of the system fighting
> each other overf who pays.
>
JT we agree that the system here has problems. If that was Moore's
whole argument I'd support it wholeheartedly. It's not. The US was
built to be a capitalist country, our founding folks were VERY
concious of that. Profit is NOT evil, and is allowed. Unless you plan
to make this into a different country, or use what's left after FDR
and Bush used the Constitution for toilet paper you can't just
"nationalize" all the insurance and healthcare providers. Two ways to
go about this in a vaguely American way. Since we've already decided
to do medicare/medicaid expand that to cover those who arent,t covered
and put teeth into making people accept it, beef up the care review
panels so people aren't screwed over and denied care they need. Or how
about this really twisted concept, someone sets up a non-profit
insurance plan that removes that evil profit motive, and gives better
service at lower rates and buries the big evil insurance companies?
That'd be too capitalist I guess.

> He never said US healthcare should be replaced by Cuba's or that
> Cuba's is better overall. I believe his point is that for the
> ridiculously low expenditures on health care, the results there are
> surprisingly good. Not that is is better than the US.
>
Wow does the target keep moving here.

> So fixate on that baloney anti-Moore arugment all you want.  You've
> been played.  You've been distracted.   At best.  At worse, you're
> using those things consciously to pretend to be open-minded.

I'm not fixated on Moore the people who believe him are. I dismissed
him long ago as a propagandist, and nothing I've seen changes that,
and noone is pointing me at source documents that would change that.
I suppose that I really need to stop reading everything available on
the net, and go into the head shops, and book stores to find folks
handing out broadsheets to understand what the real news is.
It amazes me that we can agree on SO much, but since I actually
question some things and disagree with some that I'm a brainwashed by
the right wing corporate media, and am not aloowed under the tent. You
complain about the right wing nutjobs labeling the folks on the left
elitists and intolerant but this makes their argument for them, and
this is what I and others have repeatedly run into from activists. If
you aren't unquestioningly of the collectivist mind then you are an
ignorant, brain washed enemy, or have evil motives.
Reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and can come to different
interpretations just isn't part of the collective is it? I finally
will admit that I'm more reactionary than you are, because I do change
what I think based on what's going on in the world, not try to force
the world into what I think it should be.
I guess in that sense I'm proud to be reactionary.
Bill C