Idaho Will Sue

[Diogenes]

You must not read everything I write. I recall no sympathy from you whatsoever concerning how the States prevent the poor from driving on the public roads.
THAT is a REAL right. We must first protect our real Rights before we concern ourselves with made up rights.

You can always drive a carriage, just not a car...
Right retained, just not the way you want it.

And I suppose we are restricted to flintlocks for our "Right to Bear Arms" and restricted to Orating for our "Freedom of Speech" and we can chose either Catholic or Protestant for our "Freedom of Religion" ? No need for Internet or Television for our "Freedom of the Press". We can just drag out an old printing press.

Following the logic YOU ASSERT is mine, "Right retained, just not the way you want it."

You want people to drive arround like crazy, injuring others, then leaving the innocently injured with the medical bills that they wont be able to pay because you dont want them to have insurance!

Please stop attributing to me your perverse interpretation of my ideas. I do not WANT people to "drive around like crazy, injuring others", and if the injured incur medical bills, it is inadvertent, and I don't object whatsoever to the innocent having insurance.

My issue is putting onerous restrictions on a fundamental right. The right to travel the public ways.

Well you are not cut out to be an American I would respect. I have never in my life done any such thing and have quit or gotten fired from more jobs than I can count because I would not do any such thing.

First, I learned that the hard way from a republican, mormon, CEO. "There is no friendship in business". I will remember that for the rest of my life. Second, I still wont do that (yeah I am that kind of fool), but I had to learn to expect that when I do business with an american, republican, religious businesspartner.
So maybe I am not cut out to be an american because I refuse to betray people and I believe in friendship. If these things are a requirement, I dont want to be one anyway.

Did you think the Democrats had a corner on dastardly conduct? Much of the misery that I and others complain about is partially the result of Republicans Back Stabbing other Republicans. (Thank you George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Peggy, Noonan, Arlen Specter, Kathleen Parker)

Grown ups realize that you have to watch everybody with an eye to treachery.

My wife thinks the same way, I do btw and she is an american citizen (5th generation or so). But maybe she is not cut out to be an american either?
Hmm, I gotta tell her that, she sure would love it.

I have asked before. What part of the country is your wife from? I have always assumed it was the North Eastern part. (New England area.)

Did you just say the Devil has to be a Christian? Tell me you didn't just say that!

Well, he would kinda have to believe in his own existance, doesnt he?

Do you have to believe in your existence ? If he exists, what he believes is immaterial to the fact.

[Skipjack]

And I suppose we are restricted to flintlocks for our "Right to Bear Arms"

I do actually think that there is some merrit to taking this into consideration. They sure did not think of automatic weapons when they wrote the constitution. They might have worded it differently.

and if the injured incur medical bills, it is inadvertent, and I don't object whatsoever to the innocent having insurance.

Yes, you are. You are against Obamas healthcare plan. That means that there woluld be people who would not get insurance due to "preexisting conditions". So if they get injured by some idiot on the road who is not insured and who cant pay for their medical bills, their life will be ruined.
To give you an example: I had a heart attack at the age of 33. Before Obamas plan, I was not able to get health insurance in the US, or if, then only at the most ridiculous terms and prices. That would result in me not being insured. Then- knowing my luck- some uninsured, poor republican hits me with his car and I get to pay for it for the rest of my life?!
All that because he did not have the 40 bucks to pay for the fracking insurance (but probably drives a fracking truck that eats 200 USD in gasoline a week) and still has the "right to drive a car on the road?
That would be fair?
That would be a desireable outcome in your opinion? You are always dragging out "rights" rights here, rights there. What about the rights of the innocent? The rights of the victims?
I have said that before and I will say that again. People that have their lives ruined are dangerous. If they cant get justice, they will seek it on their own. Combine that with the right to bear arms and you can visualize the outcome.

My wife is from Pa, but also spent part of her life in Florida.

[Diogenes]

And I suppose we are restricted to flintlocks for our "Right to Bear Arms"

I do actually think that there is some merrit to taking this into consideration. They sure did not think of automatic weapons when they wrote the constitution. They might have worded it differently.

They meant for it to be a means of ATTACKING the Federal government if the need should arise. This intent is made clear by the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, as well as the notes on the Convention.

That being the case, presumably to apply it according to the original meaning and intent, people should have Tanks, Howitzers and Fighter Jets, as well as every other version of available military weapon.

and if the injured incur medical bills, it is inadvertent, and I don't object whatsoever to the innocent having insurance.

Yes, you are. You are against Obamas healthcare plan.

A Non-Sequitur.

That means that there woluld be people who would not get insurance due to "preexisting conditions". So if they get injured by some idiot on the road who is not insured and who cant pay for their medical bills, their life will be ruined.

If they get KILLED their life would be ruined, yet they take the chance?

To give you an example: I had a heart attack at the age of 33. Before Obamas plan, I was not able to get health insurance in the US, or if, then only at the most ridiculous terms and prices. That would result in me not being insured. Then- knowing my luck- some uninsured, poor republican hits me with his car and I get to pay for it for the rest of my life?!
All that because he did not have the 40 bucks to pay for the fracking insurance (but probably drives a fracking truck that eats 200 USD in gasoline a week) and still has the "right to drive a car on the road?
That would be fair?

Here's an example for you. During a LeftWing Rally, someone asserts that a particular individual is a Normal American. The individual is beaten and nearly killed. Why shouldn't people be required to have insurance to cover the cost of their freedom to speak?

Because it ceases to be a freedom.

That would be a desireable outcome in your opinion? You are always dragging out "rights" rights here, rights there. What about the rights of the innocent? The rights of the victims?

Their rights do not interfere with, nor trump the rights of others.
Being able to make other people pay for the injuries they cause is not an issue of rights, it is an issue of Justice, but only after the fact of an injury.

I have said that before and I will say that again. People that have their lives ruined are dangerous. If they cant get justice, they will seek it on their own. Combine that with the right to bear arms and you can visualize the outcome.

It is odd that you can see someone going postal over economic reasons, and you seem to miss the possibility that a whole LOT of people might very well go postal over the Government imposing economic penalties on us. If you are concerned about one, you should be more concerned about millions.

My wife is from Pa, but also spent part of her life in Florida.

It is as I surmised. The North East is Extremely Liberal. If she grew up in a city, there is a very high probability that she is a Democrat by indoctrination if not in fact. She is as unfamiliar with Republican Ideas as you are.

The rest of the Nation is not like this. Your experience in Texas was probably in one of the Large Cities like Austin, or Dallas/Ft.Worth. Islands of Liberalism in Seas of Conservatism. To feel the sentiment of the heartland, you must go to the heartland. Even so, the Cities of Texas are far more conservative than the Cities of the North East.

[Skipjack]

If they get KILLED their life would be ruined, yet they take the chance?

If they get killed, they wont be there to complain, or to receive money, etc. Also, about 40 times as many people get injured on the roads than get killed. So the injured are the more relevant number.

During a LeftWing Rally, someone asserts that a particular individual is a Normal American. The individual is beaten and nearly killed. Why shouldn't people be required to have insurance to cover the cost of their freedom to speak?

Words dont kill or injure other people, people do, people with guns do, people with cars do.

It is as I surmised. The North East is Extremely Liberal. If she grew up in a city, there is a very high probability that she is a Democrat by indoctrination if not in fact. She is as unfamiliar with Republican Ideas as you are.

You are, once again, wrong. You are making assumptions based on a lack of evidence and based on your limited field of view.

My wife comes out of a small town as a child to a conservative family of mostly republicans. Her father was jewish and quite conservative. Her mother comes from a VERY conservative family. All of them voted for McCain. But again, you already made up your mind, because you obviously know everything.

[Diogenes]

If they get KILLED their life would be ruined, yet they take the chance?

If they get killed, they wont be there to complain, or to receive money, etc. Also, about 40 times as many people get injured on the roads than get killed. So the injured are the more relevant number.

You make getting killed sound like a desirable outcome. Either way, it still ignores the fact that they are taking a chance by getting on the road. Killed or crippled, the risk is the same before the fact. People CHOOSE to take that risk. They are free to do so. They are not free to impose conditions on others regarding a theoretical injury in the future.

During a LeftWing Rally, someone asserts that a particular individual is a Normal American. The individual is beaten and nearly killed. Why shouldn't people be required to have insurance to cover the cost of their freedom to speak?

Words dont kill or injure other people, people do, people with guns do, people with cars do.

Guns are more dangerous than words, unless the words are on the trigger of a Dangerous crowd. A whisper works as well as a shout. A lie works as well as the truth.

It is as I surmised. The North East is Extremely Liberal. If she grew up in a city, there is a very high probability that she is a Democrat by indoctrination if not in fact. She is as unfamiliar with Republican Ideas as you are.

You are, once again, wrong. You are making assumptions based on a lack of evidence and based on your limited field of view.

I make assumptions based on available evidence. When new evidence emerges I reassess my thinking. It is a robust and valuable methodology. You should try it.

My wife comes out of a small town as a child to a conservative family of mostly republicans. Her father was jewish and quite conservative. Her mother comes from a VERY conservative family. All of them voted for McCain. But again, you already made up your mind, because you obviously know everything.

I haven't made up my mind, I made a probable guess. It remains to be seen whether I am wrong about her predisposition. Women are already more than 55% likely to be Liberal, and even more so if they come from a Liberal State. Pennsylvania is a fairly Liberal State. It has two Democrat Senators, and is heavily Unionized. Considering how much of what you say concerning your wife, it sounds improbable that she is a conservative. What her parents are is no guarantee of what she will be. Children often like to rebel.

Apart from where someone is from, it also matters what they've been exposed to. Liberal Colleges have a way of brainwashing otherwise sensible people into believing utter crap. Vocations such as Journalism, Teaching, Lawyering, Government Job, Arts, etc. tend to bend people to the sinister (left) side. The Herd mentality is very prevalent. The people someone is surrounded with affect their mental outlook on things. If their assumptions go unchallenged, people come to believe they are correct.

[Skipjack]

I make assumptions based on available evidence.

You made assumptions based on almost no evidence at all. That is a big mistake. You should first gather the evidence, then make your assumptions.
My wife is a liberal conservative. Take that whichever way you like.

In my experience individuals will usually choose justice over rights. Besides the US has quite willingly sacrificed quite a few rights ever since 9/11. Rights that I find quite a lot more important. They did so "for their own savety" and also to bring justice to those that did you wrong.
Also, there is no "right to drive a car". There is no such thing.
There may be a right to use a road, but that is also very bendable. I have seen way tolls on quite a few US highways. You cant pay for those, you cant use them. I honestly have a bigger problem with those, than I have with the insurance. They can even cost you more than the insurance too.

Liberal Colleges have a way of brainwashing otherwise sensible people into believing utter crap. Vocations such as Journalism, Teaching, Lawyering, Government Job, Arts, etc. tend to bend people to the sinister (left) side.

Once again, I dont agree. I know who runs these places and what they are trying to achieve. Obama stands and falls (as it looks right now) by how willing he is to comply with the interests of the groups behind these "institutions". Of course they are very sublte with their manipulation.

[Diogenes]

I make assumptions based on available evidence.

You made assumptions based on almost no evidence at all. That is a big mistake.

You have to work with what you've got. Not with what you wish you had.

You should first gather the evidence, then make your assumptions.

I did. I used the bits and pieces i've heard from you, and my own knowledge of Demographics to make a probable and apparently fairly accurate prediction.

My wife is a liberal conservative. Take that whichever way you like.

My guess is Socially Liberal, Fiscally concerned. A common enough position.

In my experience individuals will usually choose justice over rights.

Again a non-sequitur. Justice without rights is impossible.

Also, there is no "right to drive a car". There is no such thing.
There may be a right to use a road, but that is also very bendable.

You are Familiar with Newton? Newton's equations can be derived from Einsteins equations. Thusly does the right to drive a car derive from the right to use the Public ways.

I have seen way tolls on quite a few US highways. You cant pay for those, you cant use them. I honestly have a bigger problem with those, than I have with the insurance. They can even cost you more than the insurance too.

This is perhaps an argument against the legitimacy of toll roads, it is not, however an argument against the right to use the public ways.

Liberal Colleges have a way of brainwashing otherwise sensible people into believing utter crap. Vocations such as Journalism, Teaching, Lawyering, Government Job, Arts, etc. tend to bend people to the sinister (left) side.

Once again, I dont agree.

People didn't agree with Galileo. He was correct none the less. This theory fits the evidence.

I know who runs these places and what they are trying to achieve. Obama stands and falls (as it looks right now) by how willing he is to comply with the interests of the groups behind these "institutions". Of course they are very sublte with their manipulation.

They are subtle to the naive. (The bulk of the current pampered world, and the ignorant impoverished world.)

People who's minds have not atrophied because of prosperity and indulgence can see right through them. They are the pied piper of fools, their head in the clouds, completely unaware of the danger they are in. They dismiss the concerns of all those who would warn them of their folly.



The ideas expressed by today's Journalists, Actors, Colleges, and Governmental institutions, were well known to the Romans shortly before they collapsed.

Government Health care? Bread and Circuses. The nation is financially broke.

[MSimon]

D,

The Fool is always portrayed as a youth or as Churchill was supposed to have said (no doubt cribbed from others) approximately:

If in your 20s you are not on the left you have no heart. If by your 40s you are not on the right you have no head.

[mvanwink5]

If in your 20s you are not on the left you have no heart. If by your 40s you are not on the right you have no head.

I read Human Action by von Mises (with a dictionary open) when I was 18. Heart or no heart "left" is bad for everyone and worse for the poor, you don't have to be 40 to know that. I have a brother in law in his 50's who is hard left, smart, thinks he is compassionate but has no clue how economics works, but that is not unusual. I thought we were in trouble back in 1974, then we got a break with Reagan, but it didn't last. I decided not to think about the future too much after we elected O, it's real hard for me, I hate tragedies.

[MSimon]

If in your 20s you are not on the left you have no heart. If by your 40s you are not on the right you have no head.

I read Human Action by von Mises (with a dictionary open) when I was 18. Heart or no heart "left" is bad for everyone and worse for the poor, you don't have to be 40 to know that. I have a brother in law in his 50's who is hard left, smart, thinks he is compassionate but has no clue how economics works, but that is not unusual. I thought we were in trouble back in 1974, then we got a break with Reagan, but it didn't last. I decided not to think about the future too much after we elected O, it's real hard for me, I hate tragedies.

I agree with your point. My point was more a reflection on human nature.

[djolds1]

D,

The Fool is always portrayed as a youth or as Churchill was supposed to have said (no doubt cribbed from others) approximately:

If in your 20s you are not on the left you have no heart. If by your 40s you are not on the right you have no head.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Winston_Ch ... attributed

[Diogenes]

It is good to see that others occasionally take a perusal in the General area. It sometimes seems as if there are only the few of us holding this area down.

[MSimon]

Latest rumor (I haven't verified it) is that 44 States now object to Obama Care.

[choff]

This is probably a bit off topic, but about this health care package, my understanding it that it's supposed to provide coverage for 30 million people who are presently without, and that it's budgeted accordingly.

What happens to the budget projections if say 40 or 50 million people with private coverage decide to switch to the public option. Are there any restrictions/provisions on people switching over, whose eligible and who isn't?

[hanelyp]

As with most leftist programs, the new health care deform assumes negligible change in behavior in response to the new rules. As far as I'm concerned, the only reasonable assumption is that people will change their behavior to avoid adverse impact from the new rules, and in many cases to take best advantage.

The new rules as I've heard them allow people to abuse insurance companies such that offering medical insurance will no longer be a viable business. And medicine will be a far less desirable field of business as regulations pile and payments shrink. So expect to find far fewer insurers and doctors unless this monstrosity is struck down.

If the rules can be abused to personal advantage, many people will.