# Disgusting



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

But not too surprising: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/22/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

I totally agree that is disgusting.

It is absolutely shameful that people feel it is OK to personally attack a politician or really any person in the spotlight. Those people need to a long, hard look at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

It's too bad the fools that initiate such hateful tweets don't have sufficient intellect to realize their racist comments disgrace not only the sender of such filth, but also this great nation. Is this the face we want to share with the world community? We are far better than that...I hope!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Such is the twitter-verse.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Internet anonymity does not bring out the best in some people.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ rather, it brings out the real person.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> It's too bad the fools that initiate such hateful tweets don't have sufficient intellect to realize their racist comments disgrace not only the sender of such filth, but also this great nation. Is this the face we want to share with the world community? We are far better than that...I hope!


I actually feel the exact opposite of this. I think that people being allowed to spew such filth without retribution is one of the best things about our country. There are many - in fact a large majority - of countries in this world where negative comments about the leader can get you imprisoned, killed, or worse.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

^ I am afraid that I must disagree. This is not a worthy example of the expression of negative opinion such as is supported by liberty, rather it is simply bullying - an activity that I am unable to condone. 

Both auto-mobiles and the internet inspire in their users an illusion of safety which bequeaths a hostile demeanour that few are able (or willing) to display when separated from their technology.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> ^ I am afraid that I must disagree. This is not a worthy example of the expression of negative opinion such as is supported by liberty, rather it is simply bullying - an activity that I am unable to condone.
> 
> Both auto-mobiles and the internet inspire in their users an illusion of safety which bequeaths a hostile demeanour that few are able (or willing) to display when separated from their technology.


Very well put, on both counts.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> ^ I am afraid that I must disagree. This is not a worthy example of the expression of negative opinion such as is supported by liberty, rather it is simply bullying - an activity that I am unable to condone.
> 
> Both auto-mobiles and the internet inspire in their users an illusion of safety which bequeaths a hostile demeanour that few are able (or willing) to display when separated from their technology.


Once you start distinguishing between worthy free speech and unworthy free speech, you have already lost the battle.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Once you start distinguishing between worthy free speech and unworthy free speech, you have already lost the battle.


The distinction here is not between worthy and unworthy, it is between free speech and bullying.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> The distinction here is not between worthy and unworthy, it is between free speech and bullying.


Would you consider free speech worthy of defending and bullying not worthy?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Would you consider free speech worthy of defending and bullying not worthy?


Please clarify.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Please clarify.


Is there universal agreement on what would be considered free speech and what would be considered bullying?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Is there universal agreement on what would be considered free speech and what would be considered bullying?


Universal agreement?! C'mon old boy I admire your abilities as a debater but this is a little limp isn't it?

Don't oblige me toward Reductio Ad Absurdum.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Universal agreement?! C'mon old boy I admire your abilities as a debater but this is a little limp isn't it?
> 
> Don't oblige me toward Reductio Ad Absurdum.


No, it is not limp. It is absolutely the core of the issue. Death to America! Bullying or rallying cry?

For Christ's sake, the absurdity that is the American press nowadays just had a weeklong debate over whether calling someone by her first name was sexist. And don't even get me started on the Rolling Stone false attack on the frat at UVA.

The point is that once you start the politically correct BS of good speech vs. bad speech, you have lost. Period.

And did you just curse me with a spell from Hogwarts? :rock:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> No, it is not limp. It is absolutely the core of the issue. Death to America! Bullying or rallying cry?
> 
> For Christ's sake, the absurdity that is the American press nowadays just had a weeklong debate over whether calling someone by her first name was sexist. And don't even get me started on the Rolling Stone false attack on the frat at UVA.
> 
> The point is that once you start the politically correct BS of good speech vs. bad speech, you have lost. Period.


It would be a foolish fellow who accused me of political correctness, for I am not - in either word or deed.

Your last post is both excessively digressive and also a fine example of the Argument from Bad Analogy.

You are able to discern, I trust, the qualitative difference between calling someone by their first name and calling them a 'black monkey'?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> It would be a foolish fellow who accused me of political correctness, for I am not - in either word or deed.


I was not using the specific you as in you, Shaver, but rather as the generic you.



> Your last post is both excessively digressive and also a fine example of the Argument from Bad Analogy.


With all due respect, it is neither. They were not an analogies as I was not comparing the situations. Rather, they are simply examples as to how good vs. bad speech has been abused.



> You are to discern, I trust, the qualitative difference between calling someone by their first name and calling them a 'black monkey'?


Of course, but by adding the qualitative difference, you have already entered the realm of worthy vs. unworthy free speech. Our Founders protected speech precisely because they had been persecuted for their speech and ideas. It is the reason why calling someone a "black monkey" or the Westboro Baptist Church or Letter From a Birmingham jail must all be equally protected. Without that blanket coverage, then agreement is required before protection, and that is worse than any insult that anyone can fling.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I have noticed a theme on this forum - whenever a member dissects another member's post to make their response then they realise that they are on the back foot.

However, I am smoking an obscenely large Cuban whilst sipping a single malt from my favourite Scotch glass so I shall wish you a merry weekend my friend. 



vpkozel said:


> I was not using the specific you as in you, Shaver, but rather as the generic you.
> 
> With all due respect, it is neither. They were not an analogies as I was not comparing the situations. Rather, they are simply examples as to how good vs. bad speech has been abused.
> 
> Of course, but by adding the qualitative difference, you have already entered the realm of worthy vs. unworthy free speech. Our Founders protected speech precisely because they had been persecuted for their speech and ideas. It is the reason why calling someone a "black monkey" or the Westboro Baptist Church or Letter From a Birmingham jail must all be equally protected. Without that blanket coverage, then agreement is required before protection, and that is worse than any insult that anyone can fling.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

vpkozel said:


> I actually feel the exact opposite of this. I think that people being allowed to spew such filth without retribution is one of the best things about our country. There are many - in fact a large majority - of countries in this world where negative comments about the leader can get you imprisoned, killed, or worse.


Having worn a uniform for close to 31 years of my life, being deployed to do the peoples dirty work on a number of occasions, be assured I am a confirmed supporter the constitutional liberties to which you refer, vpkozel. However, you and I have very different perceptions of what those liberties include. Indeed all of us should feel free to express ourselves and speak what may be on our respective minds, but when we choose to use racial slurs and insulting innuendo in reference to another and/or infringe on another's rights through the exercising of our own, that is going well beyond the intent of our founding fathers and can indeed cross the line and become violations of the other guys rights!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> Having worn a uniform for close to 31 years of my life, being deployed to do the peoples dirty work on a number of occasions, be assured I am a confirmed supporter the constitutional liberties to which you refer, vpkozel. However, you and I have very different perceptions of what those liberties include. Indeed all of us should feel free to express ourselves and speak what may be on our respective minds, but when we choose to use racial slurs and insulting innuendo in reference to another and/or infringe on another's rights through the exercising of our own, that is going well beyond the intent of our founding fathers and can indeed cross the line and become violations of the other guys rights!


Well put. Of course we have freedom of speech, just as we have the freedom to burn flags, thanks to folks like Eagle. That does not mean that we cannot, and should not, be judged by what we say say and burn.

Happy Memorial Day, everyone. And here's hoping that we all do what we can to ensure that those who gave their lives did not do so in vain.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

vpkozel said:


> I actually feel the exact opposite of this. I think that people being allowed to spew such filth without retribution is one of the best things about our country. There are many - in fact a large majority - of countries in this world where negative comments about the leader can get you imprisoned, killed, or worse.


I'm not sure that Eagle is suggesting that such "filth" should be criminalized; just that it is odious.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Well put. Of course we have freedom of speech, just as we have the freedom to burn flags, thanks to folks like Eagle. That does not mean that we cannot, and should not, be judged by what we say say and burn.
> 
> Happy Memorial Day, everyone. And here's hoping that we all do what we can to ensure that those who gave their lives did not do so in vain.


Well put. Just because something is obnoxious does not mean it should be illegal, and just because something is legal does not mean it is good.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I think the distinction here should be made between the name calling and the threats. Name calling/racial slurs: fine, that's your right to express your opinion, but it's also my right to think you're a trashy person. The death threats: it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. Making a death threat about or to a politician has been proven by the courts to not be protected speech, so I'm interested to see if they use the same rule of law in the case of Twitter.

also, happy Memorial Day weekend everyone!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

The temptation for some to excuse horrifyingly poor behavior by resorting to a First Amendment defense is historically and politically inaccurate, if not disingenous. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

_*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

*_The original purpose of the that amendment was to prohibit the federal congress from making such laws; States could do as they wish, which would include "abridging the freedom of speech" (assuming that State's constitution did not restrict its power to do so). Slander, libel, and mean-spirited speech are not "first amendment issues"; simply because the federal congress cannot prohibit them doesn't mean they cannot be prohibited/criminalized/reviled on the state, local, institutional, and personal level, i.e., civil society.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Thank you Tiger. Here's the thing: for every man who has an inclination towards vindictive abuse I have a punch in the mouth to deliver. I consider this to be my freedom of expression. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Tiger said:


> The temptation for some to excuse horrifyingly poor behavior by resorting to a First Amendment defense is historically and politically inaccurate, if not disingenous. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
> 
> _*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 
> *_The original purpose of the that amendment was to prohibit the federal congress from making such laws; States could do as they wish, which would include "abridging the freedom of speech" (assuming that State's constitution did not restrict its power to do so). Slander, libel, and mean-spirited speech are not "first amendment issues"; simply because the federal congress cannot prohibit them doesn't mean they cannot be prohibited/criminalized/reviled on the state, local, institutional, and personal level, i.e., civil society.


Fair enough, Tiger, but you are wise to limit your claim of inaccuracy to political and historical orbits, as opposed to legal, given that your First Amendment analysis has long been rejected by Supreme Court. After the Civil War the Constitution was amended to prohibit states from liberty deprivations and the Supreme Court eventually held that First Amendment protections extended to State actions too. Now you are certainly free to take issue with such jurisprudence -- I don't find it entirely convincing either, but forum readers should understand that the application of First Amendment protections against State actions is legally entrenched and not likely to go away any time soon. So while hate-filled speech may well be quite legal, so is ridicule of such speech and its makers.

Not so re punches in the nose, but sometimes one must pay a legal price to do the decent thing.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> Fair enough, Tiger, but you are wise to limit your claim of inaccuracy to political and historical orbits, as opposed to legal, given that your First Amendment analysis has long been rejected by Supreme Court. After the Civil War the Constitution was amended to prohibit states from liberty deprivations and the Supreme Court eventually held that First Amendment protections extended to State actions too. Now you are certainly free to take issue such jurisprudence -- I don't find it entirely convincing either, but forum readers should understand that the application of First Amendment protections against State actions is legally entrenched and not likely to go away any time soon. So while hate-filled speech may well be quite legal, so is ridicule of such speech and its makers.
> 
> Not so re punches in the nose, but sometimes one must pay a legal price to do the decent thing.


You are prescient, Mike - I absolutely take issue with the "innovation" (used here as many of the Founders would have - as a pejorative) of "selective incorporation" that argues that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment somehow applied the Bill of Rights (well, some protections contained therein) to the States. Many Supreme Court justices have disagreed with this jurisprudence, too. If this is indeed what Americans want, then the Constitution should be amended as per Article V, not by judicial fiat.

This illustrates why I've written that we are now much more of a judicial oligarchy than a confederated republic: the incorporation doctrine serves to a) distort the clear purpose of the 14th Amendment, b) twist the Bill of Rights - designed to protect States and their people against federal power - and turn those amendments against the very entities they were structured to protect, and c) obliterate the concept of federalism, especially as described in the 10th Amendment. The Court - nine politically appointed political beings based on their political views - now legislates for over 325 million Americans! It's also why we have so many "constitutional issues" when probably 90% of them would simply be matters for the States to decide.

It's a curse to know what the United States was supposed to be, versus what it has become...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> Of course, but by adding the qualitative difference, you have already entered the realm of worthy vs. unworthy free speech. Our Founders protected speech precisely because they had been persecuted for their speech and ideas. It is the reason why calling someone a "black monkey" or the Westboro Baptist Church or Letter From a Birmingham jail must all be equally protected. Without that blanket coverage, then agreement is required before protection, and that is worse than any insult that anyone can fling.


Hear, hear.

However, we should keep in mind that "free speech" does not mean speech without consequence, though said consequence shall not result from governmental edict.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> You are prescient, Mike - I absolutely take issue with the "innovation" (used here as many of the Founders would have - as a pejorative) of "selective incorporation" that argues that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment somehow applied the Bill of Rights (well, some protections contained therein) to the States. Many Supreme Court justices have disagreed with this jurisprudence, too. If this is indeed what Americans want, then the Constitution should be amended as per Article V, not by judicial fiat.
> 
> This illustrates why I've written that we are now much more of a judicial oligarchy than a confederated republic: the incorporation doctrine serves to a) distort the clear purpose of the 14th Amendment, b) twist the Bill of Rights - designed to protect States and their people against federal power - and turn those amendments against the very entities they were structured to protect, and c) obliterate the concept of federalism, especially as described in the 10th Amendment. The Court - nine politically appointed political beings based on their political views - now legislates for over 325 million Americans! It's also why we have so many "constitutional issues" when probably 90% of them would simply be matters for the States to decide.
> 
> It's a curse to know what the United States was supposed to be, versus what it has become...


What it was supposed to be was a country run by rich white men. That seems to be what it has become.

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Max, I am afraid that I must strongly disagree. Whilst I abhor censorship and value the unfettered promulgation of ideas (a belief which if extended permits much that many vehemently detest) yet still, personal abuse is not "free speech'. I am not prissy regarding racial abuse but by no means can it be considered anyone's right to indulge it.



MaxBuck said:


> Hear, hear.
> 
> However, we should keep in mind that "free speech" does not mean speech without consequence, though said consequence shall not result from governmental edict.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Dear Gurdon - The last line of my post referred to political structure; not sure why you injected racial/gender/affluency elements into it. For the record, I believe there is a staggering amount of corruption in all levels of government, but I do not think any one race or gender has a monopoly on that...


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Dear Gurdon - The last line of my post referred to political structure; not sure why you injected racial/gender/affluency elements into it. For the record, I believe there is a staggering amount of corruption in all levels of government, but I do not think any one race or gender has a monopoly on that...


I meant that the people initially in charge of the country were wealthy white males. By all accounts that is still the case today. My observation was entirely political. The extremely affluent are in charge. They are almost all white males.

Gurdon


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Gurdon said:


> I meant that the people initially in charge of the country were wealthy white males. By all accounts that is still the case to day. My observation was entirely political. The extremely affluent are in charge. They are almost all white males.
> 
> Gurdon


Men and women of limited means and of all races are elected to office all the time. To Tiger's point, while in government all too many become rich.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

The real problem is "career politicians!" I seriously doubt our founding fathers ever envisioned, let alone intended, such. How is a career politician any better than a 'lifelong' monarch, imposing his/her will on the citizen victims over which they preside. Seems that's what we are getting from our elected members of Congress and the Administration these days....they certainly are not performing in ways that serve to improve our lot n life!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Max, I am afraid that I must strongly disagree. Whilst I abhor censorship and value the unfettered promulgation of ideas (a belief which if extended permits much that many vehemently detest) yet still, personal abuse is not "free speech'. I am not prissy regarding racial abuse but by no means can it be considered anyone's right to indulge it.


But there's the rub. One man's personal abuse is another man's valid use of free speech. For instance, I consider the burning of the flag a terrible insult but would never advocate its restriction (except for safety reasons). I also find protesting military funerals with "God hates ****" signs deplorable, but would not prevent that either.

It is clear that some people on this forum have no issues at all with personal attacks - as long as they are the one making them and attacking a person that they disagree with politicallly.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Men and women of limited means and of all races are elected to office all the time. To Tiger's point, while in government all too many become rich.


People who get elected are the means through which power is exercised. It takes a great deal of money to get elected to office in any but the most local of elections. That is what the argument over citizens united is about.

As to people getting wealthy in office, you are, of course, correct. I have known a number of "regular Joes", and "regular Janes," who went down that road.

As to power, I apologize, but I will have to defer a response until I have time to pay proper attention to it.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> I meant that the people initially in charge of the country were wealthy white males. By all accounts that is still the case to day. My observation was entirely political. The extremely affluent are in charge. They are almost all white males.


Your remark wasn't political at all, but rather a comment about the Founders' race, gender, and affluence. If you wish to point out why/how those factors led to the creation of a constitution that is in some way deficient, then _that _would be political. Otherwise, you're pointing out the obvious - the Founders were of the numerically dominant race, part of the gender that traditionally was immersed in politics, and had the wealth, education, and stature to become leaders of their respective communities and thus were selected to travel to Philadelphia for the federal convention in 1787. This was predominantly true of the Continental Congress as well, naturally...

By the way, what does "in charge of the country" mean? If we remained faithful to the "Principles of '76" we wouldn't have a consolidated nation such as France but rather a confederated republic of near-sovereign States, resulting in far more power to those States and their citizens (the loss of which I believe is what you are lamenting).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> But there's the rub. One man's personal abuse is another man's valid use of free speech. For instance, I consider the burning of the flag a terrible insult but would never advocate its restriction (except for safety reasons). I also find protesting military funerals with "God hates ****" signs deplorable, but would not prevent that either.


Why shouldn't States (or cities, or local communities, or churches, or any other entity that isn't federal) have the power to restrict odious or dangerous practices? Under the current "system," there are a bevy of speech/press/actions that are restricted, by none other than the federal government - the one entity that is _not _supposed to be able to do this! Shouldn't the entities that are not supposed to be restricted by the First Amendment have the power to do so?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I am not lamenting the situation. I am merely pointing out the obvious.

The individuals who have most of the power and influence in this country have been and and continue to be a very small number of very rich white men. They pay for elections. They pay for lawyers and lobbyists. The choices available through the political process are meaningless when it comes to the enactment of laws governing property, criminal and civil law, taxation, regulation of business, banking and finance -- virtually everywhere it counts, the country is run fr the benefit of the 1/10 of 1% who own most of the wealth of the country.

In my own experience it is the same at the local level. You have the local and state-level corruption as in Illinois discussed here, which characterizes many places throughout the US, or you have a state like Montna that is small enough in popullation and financial resources to be bought and paid fore by moneyed interests.

We have a much more diverse body of elected officials today than previously. But that matters less than the fact that they all legislate on behalf of the likes of the Koch brothers and George Soros. I provided the anayltical basis for a lawsuit that forced the redistricting of a major jurisdiction to correct racial imbalances that concentrated minority voters in a couple of districts thereby assuring a majority of whites in the legislative body. It didn't change anything as far as governance, and how things work. 

Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Why shouldn't States (or cities, or local communities, or churches, or any other entity that isn't federal) have the power to restrict odious or dangerous practices? Under the current "system," there are a bevy of speech/press/actions that are restricted, by none other than the federal government - the one entity that is _not _supposed to be able to do this! Shouldn't the entities that are not supposed to be restricted by the First Amendment have the power to do so?


NOBODY should have the power to restrict odious (meaning hateful) speech or practices. Dangerous practices are already subject to regulation. This view seems to be largely an American one. We can lie about history, our elected officials have less protection against slander than do private citizens.

In Canada, and elsewhere, it is against the law to deny the the Nazi genocide. In Turkey it is against the law to say that the killing of Armenians during and before WW I was genocide. In the UK, publicizing unpleasant or hurtful, but factual, information about someone is actionable as slander.

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

It seems that we are approaching this subject from parallel, but therefore intrinsically non convergent, paths. Flag burning or idiots choosing to believe that God hates **** can be considered free expression. Tormenting a person by abusing personal physical attributes beyond their control (eg race, disability, height and so on) are not ideas they are simply meaness.

I am unclear if your comment re certain members having no issue with personal attacks is a jibe directed at myself or not. However, am I occasionally guilty of such behaviour? Certainly, for I am no Saint. This said I do not expect such unbecoming acts to be protected by any law relating to free speech.



vpkozel said:


> But there's the rub. One man's personal abuse is another man's valid use of free speech. For instance, I consider the burning of the flag a terrible insult but would never advocate its restriction (except for safety reasons). I also find protesting military funerals with "God hates ****" signs deplorable, but would not prevent that either.
> 
> It is clear that some people on this forum have no issues at all with personal attacks - as long as they are the one making them and attacking a person that they disagree with politicallly.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> I am not lamenting the situation. I am merely pointing out the obvious. The individuals who have most of the power and influence in this country have been and and continue to be a very small number of very rich white men. They pay for elections. They pay for lawyers and lobbyists. The choices available through the political process are meaningless when it comes to the enactment of laws governing property, criminal and civil law, taxation, regulation of business, banking and finance -- virtually everywhere it counts, the country is run fr the benefit of the 1/10 of 1% who own most of the wealth of the country. In my own experience it is the same at the local level. You have the local and state-level corruption as in Illinois discussed here, which characterizes many places throughout the US, or you have a state like Montna that is small enough in popullation and financial resources to be bought and paid fore by moneyed interests. We have a much more diverse body of elected officials today than previously. But that matters less than the fact that they all legislate on behalf of the likes of the Koch brothers and George Soros. I provided the anayltical basis for a lawsuit that forced the redistricting of a major jurisdiction to correct racial imbalances that concentrated minority voters in a couple of districts thereby assuring a majority of whites in the legislative body. It didn't change anything as far as governance, and how things work.


I agree with much of this, but what is the "obvious" that you are stating? Is this situation the fault of "rich white men"? Is it that you believe poor non-white females (or some other grouping) are somehow immune to the corruption of politics?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> NOBODY should have the power to restrict odious (meaning hateful) speech or practices. Dangerous practices are already subject to regulation. This view seems to be largely an American one. We can lie about history, our elected officials have less protection against slander than do private citizens. In Canada, and elsewhere, it is against the law to deny the the Nazi genocide. In Turkey it is against the law to say that the killing of Armenians during and before WW I was genocide. In the UK, publicizing unpleasant or hurtful, but factual, information about someone is actionable as slander.


Yet moderators on this site will often seek to censor certain contributions...

I am not one for censorship or suppression of speech. My point was that if *any *government entity has the power to do so - whether they should or not - it would be non-federal entities. In addition, communities of people should have the right to decide their own customs and mores. If a member of that community disagrees, they are free to find one more hospitable to their views. I believe that is true liberty, as opposed to subjecting everyone to the odious beliefs/practices/speech of an aberrant minority...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Yet moderators on this site will often seek to censor certain contributions...


Well played Sir. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Well played Sir. :thumbs-up:


Thank you, Shaver - always welcome to receive your approbation!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1. Indeed....
but let the record show that we are by nature, omnipotent...and therefore, never wrong. LOL. 

PS: On a more serious note, civility and good manners are not of necessity legal concepts!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1. Indeed....
> but let the record show that we are by nature, omnipotent...and therefore, never wrong. LOL.
> 
> PS: On a more serious note, civility and good manners are not of necessity legal concepts!


Agreed, of course - my "moderator" remark was simply a response to Gurdon's statement that, "NOBODY should have the power to restrict odious (meaning hateful) speech or practices." I took him at his (upper-case) word!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> NOBODY should have the power to restrict odious (meaning hateful) speech or practices. Dangerous practices are already subject to regulation. This view seems to be largely an American one. We can lie about history, our elected officials have less protection against slander than do private citizens.
> 
> In Canada, and elsewhere, it is against the law to deny the the Nazi genocide. In Turkey it is against the law to say that the killing of Armenians during and before WW I was genocide. *In the UK, publicizing unpleasant or hurtful, but factual, information about someone is actionable as slander.*
> 
> Gurdon


But the person bringing about the slander case must prove that the unpleasant or hurtful information isn't true for it to be slander. If, for example, I said that Shaver was an annoying irritant, he, if he were to bring a case of slander against me, would have to prove that what I said wasn't true. That it was unpleasant or hurtful, but true, would mean that his case would fail.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> ...In the UK, publicizing unpleasant or hurtful, but factual, information about someone is actionable as slander.
> 
> Gurdon





Chouan said:


> But the person bringing about the slander case must prove that the unpleasant or hurtful information isn't true for it to be slander. If, for example, I said that Shaver was an annoying irritant, he, if he were to bring a case of slander against me, would have to prove that what I said wasn't true. That it was unpleasant or hurtful, but true, would mean that his case would fail.


Quite so. Gurdon, you appear to have misrepresented the general application of our law.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

I very well may have. I have been under the impression that even truthful statements, if uttered with malicious intent, were actionable. I am delighted to learn that I am wrong.

Thank you
Gurdon


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Agreed, of course - my "moderator" remark was simply a response to Gurdon's statement that, "NOBODY should have the power to restrict odious (meaning hateful) speech or practices." I took him at his (upper-case) word!


The issue of moderation of incivility on Ask Andy has come up previously. Restricting odious utterances here is based on the premise that we are all Andy's guests.

"NOBODY," as I used the word, does not inclued someone in their own home, or moderators on Ask Andy. I realize that I am being inconsistent here.

Gurdon


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

A super injunction has just been breached. :angry:



Chouan said:


> But the person bringing about the slander case must prove that the unpleasant or hurtful information isn't true for it to be slander. If, for example, I said that Shaver was an annoying irritant, he, if he were to bring a case of slander against me, would have to prove that what I said wasn't true. That it was unpleasant or hurtful, but true, would mean that his case would fail.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I believe evidence of your shoe size would disqualify you from being an infant. This is a slam dunk case!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> It seems that we are approaching this subject from parallel, but therefore intrinsically non convergent, paths. Flag burning or idiots choosing to believe that God hates **** can be considered free expression. Tormenting a person by abusing personal physical attributes beyond their control (eg race, disability, height and so on) are not ideas they are simply meaness.


Again, you are classifying the speech as worthy or not worthy of being protected. That simply doesn't work. There is nothing worthy about burning a flag, it is a purely provocative gesture that accomplishes nothing. The same can 100% be said for commenting on a person's race, disability, etc.). Yet both must be protected. If not, it becomes the slippery slope of good vs. bad speech.

Again, out Founders guaranteed these liberties precisely because so many of them had suffered - or seen friends suffer - retribution from the British for voicing opinions. It wasn't an intellectual exercise for them.



> I am unclear if your comment re certain members having no issue with personal attacks is a jibe directed at myself or not. However, am I occasionally guilty of such behaviour? Certainly, for I am no Saint. This said I do not expect such unbecoming acts to be protected by any law relating to free speech.


That comment was not a jibe at you.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Again, you are classifying the speech as worthy or not worthy of being protected. That simply doesn't work. There is nothing worthy about burning a flag, it is a purely provocative gesture that accomplishes nothing. The same can 100% be said for commenting on a person's race, disability, etc.). *Yet both must be protected...*


Protected from whom - the federal government? State government? Corporations? Other people? You characterized yourself as a "libertarian constitutionalist" (if memory serves me), yet you seem to renounce the principles of federalism and the proper role of the Bill of Rights. As a fellow constitutionalist (with a fairly broad libertarian stripe), I'm disappointed, if not puzzled...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Protected from whom - the federal government? State government? Corporations? Other people? You characterized yourself as a "libertarian constitutionalist" (if memory serves me), yet you seem to renounce the principles of federalism and the proper role of the Bill of Rights. As a fellow constitutionalist (with a fairly broad libertarian stripe), I'm disappointed, if not puzzled...


Protected from being restricted by government. How am I renouncing the principles of Federalism?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Protected from being restricted by government. How am I renouncing the principles of Federalism?


My answer depends on what you mean by the term, "government"!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> My answer depends on what you mean by the term, "government"!


All levels of the governments in the US must meet the test of constitutionality.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> All levels of the governments in the US must meet the test of constitutionality.


Since we're discussing, in essence, the scope of the First Amendment, please see my posts (#25 and #28) about this; if you believe your line above, then you have drifted far indeed from the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, and the meaning of federalism (as absolutely implied in the unamended Constitution, but made unequivocal by the ratification of the Tenth Amendment).


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Why should the states be able to curtail an individual's liberties in situations where the federal government cannot?

Moreover, why should non-governmental entities, such as churches and businesses, be able to curtail liberties when governments cannot?

I am not an attorney. I tend to view law as a practical means of codifying society's preferences. 

Gurdon


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> Why should the states be able to curtail an individual's liberties in situations where the federal government cannot? Moreover, why should non-governmental entities, such as churches and businesses, be able to curtail liberties when governments cannot? I am not an attorney. I tend to view law as a practical means of codifying society's preferences. Gurdon


The Bill of Rights was originally designed to restrict federal power, not that of the states. Of course, the states all had their own bills (or "declarations") of rights, too, thus protecting the citizenry, and "codifying society's preferences" in the most efficacious way, without subjecting all to the insanity of the aberrant few. All I'm saying is that we recognize how the concept of federalism was designed, as opposed to the mess we have now, thanks to, among other things, the "incorporation" doctrine.

Of course a non-governmental entity can curtail "liberties." Not criminalize, but restrict. So, if Gurdon jumps up on a desk at his office and screams out to the owners of the business he works for to "go f--- themselves," his "liberty" to do such a thing will get him fired, at the least. If an elementary school teacher strips in front of her third grade students, she'll be fired, too - at least! If at a church a congregant decides to scream out his love of Satan, no doubt he'll be removed, despite his "liberty" to do so.

You do agree that such "liberties" should be curtailed (your word), don't you?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Since we're discussing, in essence, the scope of the First Amendment, please see my posts (#25 and #28) about this; if you believe your line above, then you have drifted far indeed from the original purpose of the Bill of Rights, and the meaning of federalism (as absolutely implied in the unamended Constitution, but made unequivocal by the ratification of the Tenth Amendment).


But you have entered into some sort of tortured hypothetical, so what could have happened didn't, so there is no answer.

It is true that the BOR was held to govern only the federal power until the 14th Amendment came into being (there was only one test case on this I think), but it was always the floor of rights, not the ceiling - meaning that it was the least amount of rights, not the most. So, had a state tried to pass a law that restricted a person from being Jewish or speaking out against the governor, for instance then that state would have been at odds with the Constitution and the state law would have been invalidated.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Again, you are classifying the speech as worthy or not worthy of being protected. That simply doesn't work. There is nothing worthy about burning a flag, it is a purely provocative gesture that accomplishes nothing. The same can 100% be said for commenting on a person's race, disability, etc.). Yet both must be protected. If not, it becomes the slippery slope of good vs. bad speech.
> 
> Again, out Founders guaranteed these liberties precisely because so many of them had suffered - or seen friends suffer - retribution from the British for voicing opinions. It wasn't an intellectual exercise for them.


It is early evening in the vpkozel home and mama vpkozel is weeping softly. "Oh, mother - whatever is the matter?" enquires our hero, young Mr v. "Well son, everywhere I go people scream insults at me. And if I stay indoors they gather in packs around the house and chant harassments at me". "Please mama" consoled Mr v. "do not be alarmed for I believe that it is their right to make your every waking moment a torment of ceaseless personal abuse". Through teary eyes mama vpkozel looked up and sniffed "Are you certain son? Because I do not feel that I am able to endure it any longer". "Hush, mama. We must not infringe the freedoms of others to do whatever they please." Mama vpkozel slumped wearily into her rocking chair, racked by breathless choking sobs.

.....
.
.

.
.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> It is early evening in the vpkozel home and mama vpkozel is weeping softly. "Oh, mother - whatever is the matter?" enquires our hero, young Mr v. "Well son, everywhere I go people scream insults at me. And if I stay indoors they gather in packs around the house and chant harassments at me". "Please mama" consoled Mr v. "do not be alarmed for I believe that it is their right to make your every waking moment a torment of ceaseless personal abuse". Through teary eyes mama vpkozel looked up and sniffed "Are you certain son? Because I do not feel that I am able to endure it any longer". "Hush, mama. We must not infringe the freedoms of others to do whatever they please." Mama vpkozel slumped wearily into her rocking chair, racked by breathless choking sobs.
> 
> .....
> .
> ...


Ah yes, the old mama's right not to be offended. Well, by all means we should legislate out the ability of anyone, anywhere to feel slighted or offended.

Oh, wait, that story offended me! Should I have you arrested, banned, or just be allowed to punch you in the face?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Ah yes, the old mama's right not to be offended. Well, by all means we should legislate out the ability of anyone, anywhere to feel slighted or offended.
> 
> Oh, wait, that story offended me! Should I have you arrested, banned, or just be allowed to punch you in the face?


vpkozel, my friend, I have made my position abundantly clear among several posts within this thread.

If you are unable to (or, more likely I fancy, _choose_ not to) appreciate the difference between abusing concepts, acts or behaviours and the directing of abuse toward a person's physical characteristics then we possess no commonality upon which we may basis a platform to proceed with rational discourse.

*flounces out of thread*


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> vpkozel, my friend, I have made my position abundantly clear among several posts within this thread.
> 
> If you are unable to (or, more likely I fancy, _choose_ not to) appreciate the difference between abusing concepts, acts or behaviours and the directing of abuse toward a person's physical characteristics then we possess no commonality upon which we may basis a platform to proceed with rational discourse.
> 
> *flounces out of thread*


I fully understand what you are saying, and I choose to live my life that way as well. But making those determinations is not a business that the government should be in.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> But you have entered into some sort of tortured hypothetical, so what could have happened didn't, so there is no answer.
> 
> It is true that the BOR was held to govern only the federal power until the 14th Amendment came into being (there was only one test case on this I think), but it was always the floor of rights, not the ceiling - meaning that it was the least amount of rights, not the most. So, had a state tried to pass a law that restricted a person from being Jewish or speaking out against the governor, for instance then that state would have been at odds with the Constitution and the state law would have been invalidated.


You are incorrect about the 14th Amendment, and about "floors and ceilings." You are also wrong about the limitations on States - they certainly could make religious restrictions, or prohibit certain types of speech or press. The Bill of Rights did not apply to them, and the 14th Amendment did not apply in these types of situations, either.

As mentioned previously, States all had their own protections enshrined in their constitutions - this is what was supposed to protect citizens against State encroachment upon their rights, not the federal Bill of Rights!

The doctrine of "incorporation" turned all of this on its ear, not the 14th Amendment...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> You are incorrect about the 14th Amendment, and about "floors and ceilings." You are also wrong about the limitations on States - they certainly could make religious restrictions, or prohibit certain types of speech or press. The Bill of Rights did not apply to them, and the 14th Amendment did not apply in these types of situations, either.
> 
> As mentioned previously, States all had their own protections enshrined in their constitutions - this is what was supposed to protect citizens against State encroachment upon their rights, not the federal Bill of Rights!
> 
> The doctrine of "incorporation" turned all of this on its ear, not the 14th Amendment...


The Supremacy Clause establishes the federal powers over the states - meaning that if a state tries to be more restrictive than the federal government in any area specifically within the Constitution, then the federal reading will be used. If a state wants to grant more liberties then that is perfectly fine - especially if those liberties have not been specifically granted to the feds. That is what I meant by floors and ceilings. And wasn't one of the major rationales of incorporation the 14th?

But since you think that this is so clear cut, could you please give me some links to pre civil war cases where the USSC upheld a state's right to more stringently limit speech than was granted in the 1st Amendment?

Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the matter at hand because anything on the internet would be considered intrastate and therefore governed by the Constitution, even under the strictest of readings. And I am not going to get into a debate on Con Law minutiae as I am not a lawyer.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Tiger said:


> The Bill of Rights was originally designed to restrict federal power, not that of the states. Of course, the states all had their own bills (or "declarations") of rights, too, thus protecting the citizenry, and "codifying society's preferences" in the most efficacious way, without subjecting all to the insanity of the aberrant few. All I'm saying is that we recognize how the concept of federalism was designed, as opposed to the mess we have now, thanks to, among other things, the "incorporation" doctrine.
> 
> Of course a non-governmental entity can curtail "liberties." Not criminalize, but restrict. So, if Gurdon jumps up on a desk at his office and screams out to the owners of the business he works for to "go f--- themselves," his "liberty" to do such a thing will get him fired, at the least. If an elementary school teacher strips in front of her third grade students, she'll be fired, too - at least! If at a church a congregant decides to scream out his love of Satan, no doubt he'll be removed, despite his "liberty" to do so.
> 
> You do agree that such "liberties" should be curtailed (your word), don't you?


Such behavior is unacceptable by any normal standard of behavior. Engaging in it is not an exercise of civil or personal liberties. Moreover, some of the actiions you describe would constitute disorderly conduct or other violations of the law.

I had in mind such things as wearing female Muslim headgear to work, which the supremes apparently yesterday announced could not be prohibited by employers.* I dislike such displays of religiosity but disagree with prohibiting them. Some years ago the supremes upheld the right of the Christian Science Monitor to hire an adherent of that religion** rather than a non-adherent, to work as a reporter. I found this particularly unsettling.

Not surprisingly, I do not agree with the supremes' decision to allow the owners of a corporation to cite religious objections to inclusion of reproductive services (birth control or abortion) in the health care coverage provided to their employees.

As to the discussion of federalism and the problems resulting from "the 'incorporation' doctrine," it seems to me you are saying it would be preferable for the states to be able to restrict some freedoms that the federal government cannot restrict. In other words, rights I have, guaranteed in the federal constitution, could be restricted by a state if their constitution/bill of rights, didn't protect them. I understand that the states can be less restrictive where federal law is silent, but that they can be more restrictive in instances where federal law applies seems contradictory to me.

These conclusions may reside in a close textual reading of the documents under discussion. I wonder, though, to what extent your assertions result from imposing a theoretical political philosophy on the facts. Could your interpretation of the constitution be the result of deductive reasoning based on your political philosophy?

Gurdon
______
* When the French outlawed head scarves that action undid an exception they had made to the official enforcement of secularism which had allowed Sikhs to wear turbans while working as public employees.

** As an aside, Mark Twain's book on Christian Science is worthwhile and entertaining.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I'm no lawyer but this isn't the first time A&F has played fast and loose with hiring practices and federal law. This time it bit them in the butt. 

I realize some may not like such displays but bear in mind we are looking at this through a western mind. I'm fine with people wearing religiously appropriate attire as long as it doesn't threaten another person. 

As religious objection to providing certain benefits under health insurance, I don't believe it places an undue burden on the employee to have to buy her own BC. There are many places and many ways in which a woman, man or couple can practice birth control. 

Personally, I don't see any reason why the Federal Govt. even needs to be involved. It's a private matter between the employer and employee. Perhaps it would just be easier for Hobby Lobby to hire people to work 20 hrs./week and avoid having to pay for healthcare coverage at all. 

Also, how is birth control healthcare at all? It doesn't treat a medical condition (and spare me the bit about painful menses). Not wanting to get pregnant is not an ICD 9 code. It's not a disease, condition or dysfunction of any kind. One could argue on more solid grounds that treating infertility is more appropriate. That's at least a dysfunction of the normal operations of a healthy human being. Getting pregnant is the norm.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> ... how is birth control healthcare at all?


It's healthcare in the same way as smoking cessation aids, opiate addiction treatment drugs, bariatric surgery, and tonsillectomies. All are therapies or medications aimed at removal or avoidance of a potentially health-threatening condition.

Employers who refuse to obey government edicts out of "religious objections" are tolerated because the US treats corporations as "persons" from a legal perspective. Some people think this a good thing, others think it's not. I fall into the latter camp.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> The Supremacy Clause establishes the federal powers over the states - meaning that if a state tries to be more restrictive than the federal government in any area specifically within the Constitution, then the federal reading will be used. If a state wants to grant more liberties then that is perfectly fine - especially if those liberties have not been specifically granted to the feds. That is what I meant by floors and ceilings. And wasn't one of the major rationales of incorporation the 14th?
> 
> But since you think that this is so clear cut, could you please give me some links to pre civil war cases where the USSC upheld a state's right to more stringently limit speech than was granted in the 1st Amendment?
> 
> Of course, none of this has anything at all to do with the matter at hand because anything on the internet would be considered intrastate and therefore governed by the Constitution, even under the strictest of readings. And I am not going to get into a debate on Con Law minutiae as I am not a lawyer.


The Supremacy Clause is not applicable, as there is no federal power over speech, press, worship, et al. So, States could restrict such things, in the absence of state protections of those liberties. Notice that I wrote "protect" and not "grant" as you did - please tell me you don't really believe that? If so, may I recommend a reading of the second part of the Declaration of Independence?

The belief that somehow the Supreme Court is the only opinion that matters displays a preference for judicial oligarchy. States for many years had more restrictive laws than would otherwise be permissible for the federal government, for the reasons mentioned multiple times; it was understood to be an essential part of federalism. But if you insist, _Barron _v. _Baltimore _(1833) is a case where the court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, and not the States.

You mean "interstate" and not "intrastate" I presume? And the Court has made a mess of the "commerce" clause, beginning with _Gibbons _v. _Ogden _(1824), but now we're getting too tangential. One thought, though: the idea that anything that occurs interstate means that the federal government has the power to get involved is simply untrue - it has indeed happened, but there's no constitutional power to do so. But Leviathan seems to always get its way...

For the record, I am not an attorney, but I do know something about American history, and almost every issue brought up here pertains to history, not law, at least initially. At risk of being redundant, it was the Court, in my view, that hopelessly complicated something far more intelligible as originally created.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Gurdon said:


> As to the discussion of federalism and the problems resulting from "the 'incorporation' doctrine," it seems to me you are saying it would be preferable for the states to be able to restrict some freedoms that the federal government cannot restrict. In other words, rights I have, guaranteed in the federal constitution, could be restricted by a state if their constitution/bill of rights, didn't protect them. I understand that the states can be less restrictive where federal law is silent, but that they can be more restrictive in instances where federal law applies seems contradictory to me.
> 
> These conclusions may reside in a close textual reading of the documents under discussion. I wonder, though, to what extent your assertions result from imposing a theoretical political philosophy on the facts. Could your interpretation of the constitution be the result of deductive reasoning based on your political philosophy?


*I didn't say that at all - I have simply said that initially, States possessed powers that the federal government did not - that is the essence of the concept of federalism!* (It is amazing to realize how many intelligent Americans - such as some of the ones on this thread - don't seem to be familiar with the foundation of the American system of government.)

*It is crucial to understand that the State Constitutions protected the liberties that we are discussing long before there was such a thing as the federal government! Please don't invert that chronology, Gurdon!
*
On which documents do you wish to perform "a close textual reading"? I'm relatively certain I've read whichever ones you have in mind, but your remarks in your last paragraph seem to accuse me of "interpreting" based on "political philosophy" when in truth, I am doing the opposite. *You and others have continued to adduce an understanding of the Constitution that simply doesn't square with history.* In fact, writing with incredulity that States "can be more restrictive in instances where federal law applies seems contradictory to me" proves my point - for the items under discussion, *federal power did not apply in the first place!*

I've already posted the First Amendment. Its meaning is very clear, as was the reason for the amendment in the first place (and don't forget that many believed that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, based on the concepts of specified, enumerated, and limited federal powers and the reserved powers of the States). If you're going to accuse me of political bias, by all means please explain how my understanding of the Constitution - as it emerged from the Philadelphia Convention and then ratified by the State conventions (and later amended ten times in 1791, i.e., the Bill of Rights) is incorrect. Go ahead, I've got time! I'll shop for shoes in the interim!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> It's healthcare in the same way as smoking cessation aids, opiate addiction treatment drugs, bariatric surgery, and tonsillectomies. All are therapies or medications aimed at removal or avoidance of a potentially health-threatening condition.
> 
> Employers who refuse to obey government edicts out of "religious objections" are tolerated because the US treats corporations as "persons" from a legal perspective. Some people think this a good thing, others think it's not. I fall into the latter camp.


How is birth control removing a potentially health threatening condition? Pregnancy is health threatening?

As for "obeying government edicts", the Federal Government is not some supra legal entity whose commandments must be obeyed. We have courts and I believe last year the Supreme Court found that employers CAN use religious grounds to restrict access to drugs that would violate their religious conscience and beliefs.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> The Supremacy Clause is not applicable, as there is no federal power over speech, press, worship, et al. So, States could restrict such things, in the absence of state protections of those liberties. Notice that I wrote "protect" and not "grant" as you did - please tell me you don't really believe that? If so, may I recommend a reading of the second part of the Declaration of Independence?


So the clause in the Constitution that says even state constitutions are subordinate to it and also to federal statutes is somehow not applicable to a discussion where someone is claiming that state constitutions trump all? Really?

The DOI does indeed say that certain unalienable rights are granted by the Creator. But it does not specifically name these rights, nor is the Declaration a document that establishes a government.



> The belief that somehow the Supreme Court is the only opinion that matters displays a preference for judicial oligarchy. States for many years had more restrictive laws than would otherwise be permissible for the federal government, for the reasons mentioned multiple times; it was understood to be an essential part of federalism. But if you insist, _Barron _v. _Baltimore _(1833) is a case where the court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government, and not the States.


I did not say that the USSC is the ONLY opinion that matters, but it is most certainly the final opinion on all cases where it has grounds.

And McCulloch v Maryland establishes that the federal law trumps state law, but neither of these are specifically on point as it relates to free speech. You keep trying to argue a hypothetical about history - but if you have precedent for such cases, please post them.



> You mean "interstate" and not "intrastate" I presume? And the Court has made a mess of the "commerce" clause, beginning with _Gibbons _v. _Ogden _(1824), but now we're getting too tangential.


Yep - interstate. My fault.



> One thought, though: the idea that anything that occurs interstate means that the federal government has the power to get involved is simply untrue - it has indeed happened, but there's no constitutional power to do so. But Leviathan seems to always get its way...
> 
> For the record, I am not an attorney, but I do know something about American history, and almost every issue brought up here pertains to history, not law, at least initially. At risk of being redundant, it was the Court, in my view, that hopelessly complicated something far more intelligible as originally created.


It seems as though what you prefer is something much closer to the Articles of Confederation, but that obviously did not work. But as I said, I am not going to debate the minutiae of the Constitution.

Have a nice evening.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I'm no lawyer but this isn't the first time A&F has played fast and loose with hiring practices and federal law. This time it bit them in the butt.
> 
> I realize some may not like such displays but bear in mind we are looking at this through a western mind. I'm fine with people wearing religiously appropriate attire as long as it doesn't threaten another person.
> HOW CAN CLOTHING THREATEN A PERSON?
> ...


I don't see the point in having a standard disagreement over womens' right to reproductive medical care, birth control or abortion. There is a long history in the US of contention over these issues.

Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Sure, but there are ways of doing it other than the pill.

Again, health insurance is for the treatment of illness of disease. It is for the treatment of conditions outside the scope of normal human function and health. Not wanting to become pregnant is not a medical condition. I'm not arguing with a woman's right to space pregnancy and make choices about when and with whom she can do this with. Simply stating that her choice in the matter is not for me to subsidize. 

She can abstain, the man can wear a condom, there are other ways of safely (safe with respect to minimizing pregnancy) that the couple can engage sexually. If she wants the pill, it's relatively affordable and for people who are poor, Medicaid pays for it and there are numerous other ways of obtaining it at a very low cost and sometimes no cost at all.

Again, I'd argue that it is 1) not healthcare and 2) it does not create any undue burden on a woman to seek it elsewhere.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Sure, but there are ways of doing it other than the pill.
> 
> Again, health insurance is for the treatment of illness of disease. It is for the treatment of conditions outside the scope of normal human function and health. Not wanting to become pregnant is not a medical condition. THIS IS NONESENSE. IF GETTING PREGNANT MIGHT ENDANGER THE LIFE OF A WOMAN WHO HAS ALREADY HAD A NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE WITH PREGANACY THAT IS IT IS A MEDICAL CONDITION. I'm not arguing with a woman's right to space pregnancy and make choices about when and with whom she can do this with. ALL OF THESE INVOLVE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN OUR COUNTRY. HOW CAN THAT NOT BE CONSIDERED DEALING WITH A MEDICAL CONDITION? Simply stating that her choice in the matter is not for me to subsidize.
> 
> ...


YOU ARE APPARENTLY IGNORANT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF HEALTH CARE DELIVERY IN THE US.

SG 67, I somehow thought you were a physician. Is this not the case?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> YOU ARE APPARENTLY IGNORANT OF THE CURRENT STATE OF HEALTH CARE DELIVERY IN THE US.
> 
> SG 67, I somehow thought you were a physician. Is this not the case?
> 
> ...


I am, and I'm afraid your characterization is incorrect.

Healthcare delivery in this country is excellent. The cost of something and it's quality are 2 different things.

We've become used to thinking of birth control as healthcare. How so? What disease does preventing a pregnancy relieve?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel:

You do not understand the "supremacy clause." There is no federal power to abridge speech, press, et al., and so the supremacy clause has no application if a State wishes to operate in this sphere. There's no clash of power! *Again, it's how federalism was supposed to work.*

You misunderstood my point about the Declaration. You said that government grants us our rights; you couldn't be more wrong. I referred to the Declaration to support my position. You are either way in over your head here, or purposely obtuse. Believing that government gives us our rights has a whiff of totalitarianism...

The powers you ascribe to the Supreme Court were taken - usurped - by the Court itself. Not exactly an ode to self-government! Too complex to delve into here, although this has been discussed by a few of us previously.

Here's your precedent about States rights/federalism: first, read the Declaration of Independence, and then the Articles of Confederation. Then read the Constitution, and what the proponents stated and what its opponents feared. For good measure, read the Bill of Rights, and why it was added to the Constitution. *Pay special attention to the Tenth Amendment; it will be invaluable. In fact, that amendment neatly sums up everything I've written, and is the simplest statement of federalism one can read.* If you still doubt my historical accuracy, then there's nothing to add.

You seem to want to rely on biased Court rulings created by nationalist judges; I prefer to base my beliefs on the bedrock of the Constitution as understood by its creators and its ratifiers - the (eventually) thirteen sovereign States.

I would rather rely on an accurate understanding of the Articles of Confederation (which served its initial purpose) than a hopelessly faulty view of the Constitution. *My preference is an accurate understanding of the Constitution and the principles of federalism that are enshrined within it.* If you do not understand what the Constitution was supposed to be, then perhaps we should cease this dialogue, but please don't make it sound like you're defending the Constitution - you are in opposition to it! Perhaps you just don't realize that?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

We've had this conversation before, but this resonates a bit with me today. I was chatting with a friend last night who is planning to retire this fall. He has three kids, two through college, one entering college this fall. He has health insurance. But he told me that if he discovered that he had a terminal illness, he'd off himself. Even with health insurance, for most people the out-of-pocket cost is considerable. My friend said he'd take the quick way out rather than prolong his life for a couple years while draining his bank accounts of money that should be going to his heirs. Conversely, if you have no money at all and are faced with huge medical bills, it's all written off. And so the poor, in some regard, have it better than the middle class when it comes to getting sick. If you're poor, you don't have to pay. If you have a job and means, you pay thousands, even with insurance.



SG_67 said:


> I am, and I'm afraid your characterization is incorrect.
> 
> Healthcare delivery in this country is excellent. The cost of something and it's quality are 2 different things.
> 
> We've become used to thinking of birth control as healthcare. How so? What disease does preventing a pregnancy relieve?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> We've had this conversation before, but this resonates a bit with me today. I was chatting with a friend last night who is planning to retire this fall. He has three kids, two through college, one entering college this fall. He has health insurance. But he told me that if he discovered that he had a terminal illness, he'd off himself. Even with health insurance, for most people the out-of-pocket cost is considerable. My friend said he'd take the quick way out rather than prolong his life for a couple years while draining his bank accounts of money that should be going to his heirs. Conversely, if you have no money at all and are faced with huge medical bills, it's all written off. And so the poor, in some regard, have it better than the middle class when it comes to getting sick. If you're poor, you don't have to pay. If you have a job and means, you pay thousands, even with insurance.


Personal anecdotes, particularly those uttered by people who ARE NOT currently facing such problems are hardly the basis for healthcare policy.

Not to sound too insensitive, but let's see what happens to your friend when he is actually confronted with such a problem. Nothing focuses the mind quite like that. Absent such a dilemma, utterances like that are the equivalent of a guy talking about how he would have coached the Bulls to success the day after losing the the Cavs.

I've never known a person who is terminally ill who says, "meh, just off me. I don't want to spend that kind of cash."


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> I am, and I'm afraid your characterization is incorrect.
> 
> Healthcare delivery in this country is excellent. The cost of something and it's quality are 2 different things.
> 
> We've become used to thinking of birth control as healthcare. How so? What disease does preventing a pregnancy relieve?


You say that US healthcare delivery is excellent, and go on to contradict that by questioning its cost and quality is contradictory. Do you really mean to say that we are excellent at delivering very expensive healthcare of dubious quality?

You then ask a multi-part question that doesn't make sense.

You seem to define healthcare as curing disease. My health care provider actively encourages healthful living, sends out colon cancer test kits on a regular basis, and provides other preventive measures. Much of this forstalls or intercepts disease prior to the onset of illness. They also provide reproductive counselling. Am I to understand that you would prefer that none of this preventive activity take place, and instead one is to wait until an actual medical condition is present and then treat it?

As to the last part of your question, perhaps you missed my reference to the not particularly hypothetical example of a woman whom pregnancy and the resulting birth of a child would endanger or kill. Which is better, providing, reproductive counselling and birth control, and abortion as a back-up, or treating the woman should she become pregnant, not an unlikely occurance?

Moreover, your question seems disingenuous. Pregnancy and childbearing are highly mediclized. Out of all the parts of those processes (fertility treatment, pre-natal care, post-natal care, pregnancy-related medical care and much more, all of which you must know about) how does it make sense to single out birth control/abortion as not belonging?

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

We deliver excellent quality healthcare in this country...period! There is nothing dubious about about it's quality. Most people have a hang up about the cost. Fine, I get it. Healthcare is not cheap. 

So how do we make it cheaper. There's only one way so listen carefully. Limiting access is the only way to reduce and contain the cost of healthcare. Look at any country with socialized medicine and with the exception of emergency care (broken femur in a car accident, etc.) there are long waits. Look at studies from the UK's NHS. 

Now when people do get in, the quality is excellent. You live in California? Lets say you're playing tennis or golf. The next day you notice pain in your knee and swelling. That same day (provided you're not in an HMO) you can call an orthopedic specialist, get in that week, have an MRI performed that day and diagnosed with an torn meniscus. That next week you're in surgery, in rehab and 8-10 weeks later (barring complications) you're back to living your life. 

Try doing that in the UK, Germany, Italy, Cuba, China, or any other "industrialized nation" with a socialized healthcare system. Over the past couple of years I've had students from Hong Kong come and intern with me via one of the local medical schools and they marvel at how efficient our healthcare system is and how quickly it moves regarding access. Mind you, Hong Kong is where people from mainland China go for quality healthcare. 

As for wellness programs, preventative healthcare, counseling and all of that other stuff? Great. I'm all for it but study after study has shown that these have little impact. I don't consider the management of a chronic condition as prevention. I'm talking about all of the wellness gobbledygook people go on about. These measures have been repeatedly shown to have little impact. Human nature is such that people don't think of these things until they are ill. I'm not saying that we as healthcare workers shouldn't continue with this, but to think that we need more of it is just throwing money into an endless pit.

As for the birth control issue of course it makes sense to single out birth control. All of those other things you listed are health related. Pre and post natal care are obvious. Pregnancy related medical care and even fertility treatment I'm in favor of as it addresses an actual medical condition. 

Family planning is not a medical condition. Not wanting to get pregnant is not a disease, in fact pregnancy is 100% preventable. I'm not making a value judgement, simply stating that it's not healthcare. Just because it involves a pill? Should insurance cover condoms? Those are birth control as well. 

As for abortion, I'm won't even go there given the political and moral sensitivities involved. I'm not opening that Pandora's Box.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Huh! Any civilised nation offers free at point of use healthcare. You can keep your wallet biopsy system, thank you very much.

As to the much trumpeted NHS waiting lists - everything I have ever required (a deal of it was emergency care and associated after-care, I will admit) has been provided in a timely manner.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Huh! Any civilised nation offers free at point of use healthcare. You can keep your wallet biopsy system, thank you very much.
> 
> As to the much trumpeted NHS waiting lists - everything I have ever required (a deal of it was emergency care and associated after-care, I will admit) has been provided in a timely manner.


As have I, and, if you want to jump the queues you can "go private" and pay. Mind you, our present government has its own agenda regarding the NHS and other services, so it may not last too long in its current form.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ and what does that tell you? You can pay private and jump the line? That strikes me a bit as banana republic. 

As I said, I'm sure emergency care is great. 

Shaver,
In this country should one require emergency care, it is provided. No one is going to deny emergency care based on economics.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Chouan said:


> As have I, and, if you want to jump the queues you can "go private" and pay. Mind you, our present government has its own agenda regarding the NHS and other services, so it may not last too long in its current form.


Ahh brother Chouan, I am opposed to BUPA et al. Slippery slope......


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> ^ and what does that tell you? You can pay private and jump the line? That strikes me a bit as banana republic.
> 
> As I said, I'm sure emergency care is great.
> 
> ...


In which case please accept my apologies, I had been led to believe that this was not the case.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> vpkozel:
> 
> You do not understand the "supremacy clause." There is no federal power to abridge speech, press, et al., and so the supremacy clause has no application if a State wishes to operate in this sphere. There's no clash of power! *Again, it's how federalism was supposed to work.*
> 
> ...


I understand the clause quite well thank you. The fact that you do not agree with my interpretation of it does not mean that I don't understand it. It most certainly does apply because it establishes that the Constitution takes precedence over even state constitutions and laws. This is the central point of setting the floor of rights that will be guaranteed.

And if, as you keep claiming, that states could pass all of these laws restricting free speech, why have you not posted any of them? Have you read the debates House concerning the 1st? If not, I suggest you do, as they would be quite illuminating to you. Madison - who I think knows a little bit about the creation of the document - said this:

"I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not.* I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points;* and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; *because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against*."

As for biased Court rulings and nationalist judges, I think you have reached quite a bit there and it seems clear that you feel your interpretations of the Constitution are the only valid ones and anyone - including me - who does not agree with you is guilty of a flawed opinion. I assure you that is simply not the case.

Have a nice day.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

For what we pay, we should have the best health care on the planet. We do not.

I'm not sure about California, but where I live, it's nigh impossible to just call a doctor and get an appointment within a week. And, really, what's the problem if the golfer or tennis player waits a week or so before seeing a physician? They've got a sore knee. Big freakin' deal. It's not life threatening. And that's part of the problem here, I think. The triage system, as it were, is too-often based on economics. If you have an urgent life-threatening condition, absolutely, you're going to be seen right now, regardless of ability to pay, and you're going to get excellent care. But if it's not acute, that's not going to happen, especially if you're without means and have either lousy insurance or no insurance at all. And so, it seems to me, people who really should be seeing doctors to address health issues before they become acute often do not, and frequently, I think, because of economics. That only adds to the cost as something that might never have happened had there been early intervention happens, and it costs a boatload to fix.

You and I are never, ever going to agree on this, I know, but Medicare for everyone really is the way to go. It works. You can quibble around edges here and there, but the bottom line is, Medicare works for the people who are covered by it, and that is what is important. Now, it may not work as well as other methods for doctors and hospitals, but I don't care about that. Of course, the question is who will pay for it? The answer is, the same people who are paying for health care now, which is to say, everyone. You and me and everyone else ultimately covers the cost for uninsured poor folks who land in the emergency room after auto accidents. It's built into costs. Private insurance companies produce nothing of benefit for anyone. Hospital administrators who make six or even seven figures produce nothing of benefit for anyone. In both cases, insurance companies and hospital executives exist only to maximize profit. In an arena that is supposed to be nonprofit with players--hospitals--that pay no taxes. That's socialized medicine for you--hospitals that have millions of net dollars at the end of each year and pay no income taxes and no property taxes.



SG_67 said:


> We deliver excellent quality healthcare in this country...period! There is nothing dubious about about it's quality. Most people have a hang up about the cost. Fine, I get it. Healthcare is not cheap.
> 
> So how do we make it cheaper. There's only one way so listen carefully. Limiting access is the only way to reduce and contain the cost of healthcare. Look at any country with socialized medicine and with the exception of emergency care (broken femur in a car accident, etc.) there are long waits. Look at studies from the UK's NHS.
> 
> ...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Huh! Any civilised nation offers free at point of use healthcare. You can keep your wallet biopsy system, thank you very much.
> 
> As to the much trumpeted NHS waiting lists - everything I have ever required (a deal of it was emergency care and associated after-care, I will admit) has been provided in a timely manner.





Chouan said:


> As have I, and, if you want to jump the queues you can "go private" and pay. Mind you, our present government has its own agenda regarding the NHS and other services, so it may not last too long in its current form.


Aside from the test tube baby, what was the last great British contribution to medical advancement? And where do most soccer players go to get most of their - especially acl (cruciate) - surgeries?

And wasn't there a study a few years ago that showed dramatically lower survival rates for UK cancer patients? I could be incorrect on that thought....


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Aside from the test tube baby, what was the last great British contribution to medical advancement? And where do most soccer players go to get most of their - especially acl (cruciate) - surgeries?
> 
> And wasn't there a study a few years ago that showed dramatically lower survival rates for UK cancer patients? I could be incorrect on that thought....


I could not give two hoots about advancement.

Indeed I am opposed to it. We already possess sufficient surgical and medical procedures.

Still, since you asked: stem cell applications and cloning for a start.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I could not give two hoots about advancement.
> 
> Indeed I am opposed to it. We already possess sufficient surgical and medical procedures.


Really? So you think we should stop cancer research?



> Still, since you asked: stem cell applications and cloning for a start.


Ah yes, Dolly - I forgot about her.

I was looking for more practical advancements though. The point being that the US medical system produces most of the advancements in the surgical, treatment, and pharmaceutical areas. The incentives for this type of research is not present in government systems, which is why many talented doctors immigrate to the US.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> For what we pay, we should have the best health care on the planet. We do not.
> 
> I'm not sure about California, but where I live, it's nigh impossible to just call a doctor and get an appointment within a week. And, really, what's the problem if the golfer or tennis player waits a week or so before seeing a physician? They've got a sore knee. Big freakin' deal. It's not life threatening. And that's part of the problem here, I think. The triage system, as it were, is too-often based on economics. If you have an urgent life-threatening condition, absolutely, you're going to be seen right now, regardless of ability to pay, and you're going to get excellent care. But if it's not acute, that's not going to happen, especially if you're without means and have either lousy insurance or no insurance at all. And so, it seems to me, people who really should be seeing doctors to address health issues before they become acute often do not, and frequently, I think, because of economics. That only adds to the cost as something that might never have happened had there been early intervention happens, and it costs a boatload to fix.
> 
> You and I are never, ever going to agree on this, I know, but Medicare for everyone really is the way to go. It works. You can quibble around edges here and there, but the bottom line is, Medicare works for the people who are covered by it, and that is what is important. Now, it may not work as well as other methods for doctors and hospitals, but I don't care about that. Of course, the question is who will pay for it? The answer is, the same people who are paying for health care now, which is to say, everyone. You and me and everyone else ultimately covers the cost for uninsured poor folks who land in the emergency room after auto accidents. It's built into costs. Private insurance companies produce nothing of benefit for anyone. Hospital administrators who make six or even seven figures produce nothing of benefit for anyone. In both cases, insurance companies and hospital executives exist only to maximize profit. In an arena that is supposed to be nonprofit with players--hospitals--that pay no taxes. That's socialized medicine for you--hospitals that have millions of net dollars at the end of each year and pay no income taxes and no property taxes.


Medicare works now because it is a relatively small percentage of the population and the loss to the providers is absorbed through the private healthcare system.

We have a system in this country, actually, which is very much like "Medicare for all". It's called the VA. I'll leave it at that.

By the way, you should be ashamed of yourself for judging and considering yourself the arbiter of what qualifies as "a big deal". You say that until it's you that has the sore knee and it keeps you from accessing public transportation, enjoying life, grocery shopping etc.

My job is to help people who are suffering. Not to pass judgment on what qualifies as suffering. In an emergent situation, sure, one must triage. That's not what we're talking about though.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Really? So you think we should stop cancer research?
> 
> Ah yes, Dolly - I forgot about her.
> 
> I was looking for more practical advancements though. The point being that the US medical system produces most of the advancements in the surgical, treatment, and pharmaceutical areas. The incentives for this type of research is not present in government systems, which is why many talented doctors immigrate to the US.


Actually, yes. I realise that this may not be a popular view and that emotive responses are likely to ensue.

"Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling

As to the practicality of cloning? You haven't really thought this through have you?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Actually, yes. I realise that this may not be a popular view and that emotive responses are likely to ensue.
> 
> "Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them." - Linus Pauling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
> 
> As to the practicality of cloning? You haven't really thought this through have you?


So, should we go backwards in treatments, or simply draw a hardline and stop today?

Practicality of cloning? As it exists only today? Not very practical as it relates to humans as far as I am aware.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> So, should we go backwards in treatments, or simply draw a hardline and stop today?
> 
> Practicality of cloning? As it exists only today? Not very practical as it relates to humans as far as I am aware.


It is said that the then British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) after seeing a demonstration of the dynamo effect asked Faraday what use the discovery was. Faraday replied, "I know not, but I wager that one day your government will tax it."


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> It is said that the then British Prime Minister Sir Robert Peel (1788-1850) after seeing a demonstration of the dynamo effect asked Faraday what use the discovery was. Faraday replied, "I know not, but I wager that one day your government will tax it."


So did someone clone Peel, Faraday, or the dynamo?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> So did someone clone Peel, Faraday, or the dynamo?


You are being deliberately obtuse.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> You are being deliberately obtuse.


And you aren't?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> And you aren't?


Am I?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Am I?


What do you think?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> What do you think?


Dunno. What do *you *think?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Dunno. What do *you *think?


Shouldn't we go in order?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Shouldn't we go in order?


No, no. You may go first.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> No, no. You may go first.


I would never want to deprive you of that privilege. Age before beauty and all of that rigmarole.

On a different note - being from Manchester are you on the City or United side of things?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

*vpkozel*:

It is not a question of interpretation, but of understanding - and you simply don't understand the "supremacy clause" in the context of federalism. There is no federal power to abridge speech, press, et al. so there can be no clash of "supremacy" with States operating in that sphere. *The federal government has no power in that realm, so the States do - that is the essence of federalism, and the meaning of the Tenth Amendment.*

Your reasoning about the States is backwards. *States protected individual liberties - including speech - long before there was such a thing as a "federal government."* You act as if it is the federal government that protects speech, etc. when the Bill of Rights was designed to prohibit any federal involvement in that realm. Your "understanding" of the issue is backwards! The Founders/Framers sought to protect States and their citizens from the federal government, yet you seem to think that the federal government is the "grantor of rights." You couldn't be more wrong!

Do you understand the context of Madison's remarks? Do you understand that Madison opposed the Bill of Rights? Do you know why? Are you aware of the Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist clash on this topic (and a plethora of others)? Rather than offer out-of-context quotes whose main thrust was defeated by Congress (as were many of Madison's proposals on related topics during the Philadelphia Convention), you should be studying the completed and ratified Constitution - you know, the thing that counts - not arguments made but not adopted.

My "interpretations of the Constitution"? Everything I've written is historical fact; it is you who habitually invents doctrines that have sprung from either interpretation, unconstitutional behavior, or misunderstanding.

*Ultimately, until you understand the concept of federalism and the paramount importance of the Tenth Amendment, you will continue to write things that are historically inaccurate and illogical.*

I can't continue to write about this any longer; you haven't read my posts clearly or with comprehension, and you certainly haven't read/understood the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. To refer to yourself as a "constitutionalist" is disingenuous.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> To refer to yourself as a "constitutionalist" is disingenuous.


Crap, I just had a bunch of business cards made up, lol.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Crap, I just had a bunch of business cards made up, lol.


That really made me laugh!


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> We deliver excellent quality healthcare in this country...period! There is nothing dubious about about it's quality. Most people have a hang up about the cost. Fine, I get it. Healthcare is not cheap.
> 
> So how do we make it cheaper. There's only one way so listen carefully. Limiting access is the only way to reduce and contain the cost of healthcare. Look at any country with socialized medicine and with the exception of emergency care (broken femur in a car accident, etc.) there are long waits. Look at studies from the UK's NHS.
> 
> ...


Listen carefully -- to what? Your assertion that limiting health care is the only way to reduce costs is incorrect. There doesn't appear to be any point in continuing this discussion so I will excuse myself.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ no please. Do offer some suggestions otherwise.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Remind me, please: What is it, again, that private insurance companies do that contribute value to the health care system?

Meanwhile, we have this: https://thesouthern.com/news/local/...cle_8e1a4714-4bf3-536f-992f-bee021f40196.html

Why on earth would physicians oppose this kind of common-sense move? My guess is economics. The test is cheap, but treatment via the current drug regimen is enormously expensive. We wouldn't want a deluge of folks with no ability to pay flooding the system, demanding that they be cured from this potentially deadly disease, would we? And the doctor-patient relationship, the fig leaf thrown up as an excuse as to why this isn't a good idea, seems to me to be a lot of poppycock.

As for Medicare, you ignore that Medicare recipients receive a disproportionate amount of health care. Old people see doctors a lot more than young people do. As for waiting if you have a sore knee, in my perfect world, you could still see a doctor pronto if you wanted to pay out of pocket. You can't ban boutique practices.



SG_67 said:


> Medicare works now because it is a relatively small percentage of the population and the loss to the providers is absorbed through the private healthcare system.
> 
> We have a system in this country, actually, which is very much like "Medicare for all". It's called the VA. I'll leave it at that.
> 
> ...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ So in your world, with medicare for all, the guy with a sore knee would have to wait longer? He wouldn't have the fast access? 

As for Medicare spending, it is roughly 20% of all healthcare expenditures in the U.S. American >65 years of age is ~15% of the population. It's not quite as disproportionate as you may think.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

No, the guy who hurt his knee playing golf or tennis could get in pronto to a boutique physician if he wants to pay the doctor's asking price--I'm not saying I'd put an end to capitalism. Appreciate that you acknowledge the disproportional spending.

Now, where were we on Hep C testing and the value that private insurance companies add?



SG_67 said:


> ^ So in your world, with medicare for all, the guy with a sore knee would have to wait longer? He wouldn't have the fast access?
> 
> As for Medicare spending, it is roughly 20% of all healthcare expenditures in the U.S. American >65 years of age is ~15% of the population. It's not quite as disproportionate as you may think.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Health care and cost*



SG_67 said:


> ^ no please. Do offer some suggestions otherwise.


OK. A lot of what folows is necessarily generalized; I am not a health care policy wonk. I tried to stick to things I know about, and to avoid philosophizing. I also assumed that you know a lot about the topic, and that this is a discussion and not a debate to be won or lost based on oratorical skill.

As I mentioned previously, you seem to be saying that American health care is excellent because those with money can pay for high quality care. That is true not only in the US, but in much of the industrial world. But that is only part of the picture.

You also seem to suggest that the rest of the populace can get taken care of somehow. I don't know if you are among those who believe that people unable to pay are supposed to show up at the ER, or that hospitals and clinics will just take care of them between paying customers. In any event, it appears to me that this translates into the wealthy being charged enough to cover the cost of caring for the rest. Or would you just let the poor and middle class go without care for which they couldn't pay?

The health care system of Germany was instituted by Kaiser Wilhelm, that of France by Napoleon Bonapart. It was agreed by the elites that it was in the interests of the respective countries to have a healthy population to provide manpower for the military and industry. Over time this approach evolved into the social welfare systems that operate in much of Europe and the rest of the developed world.

This has never kept the wealthy from paying for additional or quicker care, but as things evolved in some countries, again France and Germany are the examples I can at least speak about in general terms, most people get most health care in the system and feel well served. Doctors are independent and have to fill out a lot of paperwork, just as they do here, if the American doctors I know are representative of the general situation.

In any event, per capita costs for good health care in the above examples are significantly lower than per capita costs in the US.

I favor having a single-payer national health care system -- required universal insurance would be fine with me, and would probably be best suited to American sensibilities. (This is how Switzerland handles healthcare. Costs there are higher there than elsewhere in Europe, but significantly lower than in the US.) Obvious cost-cutting measures include negotiating drug prices at the national level, establishing standard costs for various services, and oversight to minimize waste and fraud.

You mentioned HMO's in your golf/tennis example. My family (my wife and I, and when they were younger and living at home, our children) is in our fourth decade of continuous coverage with Kaiser Permanente. It goes back farther if you include my mother's Kaiser membership beginning around, I think, 1960 or so, which included me when I was still living at home. During that time whatever medical needs we had were met promptly and satisfactorily -- from routine physicals, the birth of children, a 3:00am apendectomy (sp), three operations for retinal detachment for one son, to heel spur surgery that has enabled my wife to resume tennis. Coverage is now seamless, computerized and very easy to access, and there is little, if any waiting for whatever is needed. All this was paid for by contributions by recipients and employers. The cost of Kaiser coverage is reasonable, and from my lifetime of experience it is excellent. In ratings of hospitals in California, Kaiser consistently rates among the best. In a couple of fields they are the best in the state.

As with all actuarially based allocations of service, the cost of service is met by avaraging across the entire covered population. Terms and payments are agreed upon by labor and management negotiation. In my present situation I am part of a large and solvent retirement system that is able to negotiate with providers to provide a satisfactory level of service for what the system can afford to pay. Members who want to obtain care outside the system, can do so if they wish. I have friends who have done so.

Kaiser Permanente got its start during World War II when Henry Kaiser wanted to provide adequate medical care for his shipyards, steel mills and cement plants. (Kaiser Permanente was the name of his cement company, and possibility his shipyard as well.) The history of railroad hospitals is similar and dates from the 19th Century. A lot of railroad workers got hurt and to keep a workforce the railroads had to provide care. (Please don't hold me to details about the railroads. I just know about this second hand, and from having an interest in trains.)

To lower costs it is necessary to aggregate service provision, negotiate with equipment and drug providers, and administer patient care centrally. We have examples such as Kaiser, and we are moving in fits and starts toward some sort of system. As mad as I am at Max Baucus and President Obama for colluding to sell us out to the health insurance and drug industries, we have at least started.

It is also essential to reduce fraud. You are probably aware of recent revelations about counterfit back surgery parts involving several hospitals and many surgeons -- a small part that should wholesale for $4,000, being made for $2,000, sold for more than $4,000, and subsequently billed to the patient's insurance coverage for $40,000+. And there are supposedly hundreds, if not thousands of these parts, many quite a bit more expensive than the example cited, now inside patients.

This is a very short and inadequate representation of where I stand. I have left out an account of the opposition by the AMA to President Truman's attempt to establish a national health system after the war. I have also left out an account of Mexico's formerly functional national system. I have relatives in Canada who think Americans are crazy when it comes to health care as they are well served by their system, and they can afford to come here for treatment if they want to.

I have tried to avoid rhetorical excess and ideological arguments.

Gurdon

PS: I'd much rather discuss Modern Art, or the invention of perspective by an Arab mathematician 200 years before Italian academics turned it into a scientific basis for representational art, and how this relates to Muslim ideas about images of people. I've enjoyed other exchanges we've had. I am not having fun with this one.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Thank you. It's not as though it's fun for me either, as I'm living it.

You've done a wonderful job at laying out the historical perspective however, populations have changed. People now live longer, we have drugs that are able to help people live fuller lives, nutrition is better and our overall standard of living is better.

During the Kaiser's and Napoleon's respective eras, one was likely to die of consumption or a musket ball / bullet before getting old enough to get cancer. Healthcare was rudimentary compared to now and obviously the costs associated with it were not what they are now.

Historical perspective is great, but it doesn't address the issue we have now.

What you indicate is true, people show up at the ER for the flu and simple ailments because they don't have insurance. However, by restricting access (which is what necessarily will happen with a single payer system), the same thing will happen:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-emergency-room-visits-keep-climbing-1430712061

The upside of a single payer system is of course more people being covered. But just having coverage is meaningless. It's like the old cartoon with the cat stuck inside the home with 1000's of cans of tuna but no can opener. By removing the profit incentive from healthcare, less availability will be the outcome. Less providers will be incentivized to open their doors and care will become more concentrated. People will have to drive or travel long distances for care.

I've had patients who have to jump through hoops to get out of the VA system because the closest VA hospital is too far away. In reviewing the exemption form and out of system referral, it indicates that the an outside referral can be made if the nearest VA center is >40 miles away. That means that if one lives within 35 miles of a VA center, one must go there. Can you imagine having to drive 35 miles to see your doctor? For an MRI? A test? It will mean taking a day off from work essentially which would impact on the economy.

As a country, in toto, we spend nearly 3 trillion dollars a year on healthcare. Imagine moving that cost onto the public sector. That would almost double the federal budget.

The best way to manage costs is to have a competitive system. I hate to say this as a provider, but the most sure fire way of doing it is to shift more of the cost to the patient. Look at Lasik surgery for example. It is largely still an out of pocket procedure and the price has been coming down due to competition.

People in this country have access to non-emergency healthcare services at a level unseen in the rest of the world. No one gets turned away from the ER if they show up. The poor and those unable to afford healthcare have government systems.

Comparing healthcare systems between different countries is somewhat irrelevant as well. We compare a public health system in a country perhaps 1/5 of the population of the U.S to a private health system in a country of 350 million.

A better comparison would be to compare a public vs. private health care delivery system within the same country. So I will offer up the VA vs. private health care. If there was a robust private system in the UK, Germany, France or Switzerland then perhaps that would be something interesting as well. But there isn't.

The answer, unfortunately, is not to nationalize healthcare. It will turn healthcare into more of a political football than it is now, subject it to constant deficits and the need to control costs further by restricting access.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

The history was intended to establish that the "socialized" medicine of the countries involved was begun under conservative governments, authoritarian ones at that. Obviously a lot has changed and the systems involved have evolved with the times. I couldn't read the WSJ article without a subscription but the headline was enough. I haven't looked at what is being written about health care costs under the ACA, but it will be a while, and a few academic studies, before we have some idea of cost impacts of the act. 

Availability is a function of many things, including numbers of medical personnel, and all the other entities involved in delivering care. But I'm talking about the administrative mechanism for payment. The VA is remarkable in many respects. I have friends who drive from the Mendocino coast to San Francisco for treatment. This is a variation on the topic of providing rural medical service. Notwithstanding problems, as in Phoenix, a state represented in the Senate by a well-known vetran, the VA has a pretty good reputation in many parts of the country, and serves its constituancy in some urban areas well.

It is not as if the total cost of medical care would be simply transferred to the federal budget, so I am not sure what relevance that comparison has to the discussion. As it now stands, medical costs are mostly paid by individuals, insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid, as well as other programs. In all of these, except for individuals paying on a fee for service basis, the cost of care is allocated actuarily, that is money is collected as fees and taxes in suffecient amounts to pay the costs of the anticipated service levels. 

An important aspect of this is that insurance companies extract profits from the fees collected. And they have a strong incentive to deny coverage or to pay less than the entire cost of procedures. (I have experience with this with respect to dental coverage.) 

In any event, the point of a single payer system is to replace allocation of care by profit-making insurance companies with an at-cost public (government provided) allocation of services.* In both cases the client pays a share of the cost of the service calculated on estimates of how much money is needed to cover the cost of serving everyone in the population being covered. Rather than adding $3 trillion to the federal budget, replacing the present for-profit insurance system with a non-profit government one in its simplest form, would just rearrange things by replacing premiums by a tax ( know that's a terrible word) to cover the same amount as before, minus the profits formerly paid to the insurance companies.

This is not the same as what you mean by shifting the cost to the individual, but it places the cost of care on the population that is eligible for whatever care they need, at whatever point in their lives that need arises. By having the entire population paying a modest tax (as in Social Security, which is not btw, going broke) the individual's cost is not burdensome, and major medical costs don't sink individual households.

I don't think your assertion about access here is accurate. Cubans enjoy remarkable access to medical care, we, as a nation, do not. 

People do get turned away from the ER. There are programs. It costs a lot to care for people that way. And, as you know, outcomes are not all good under those contitions. Waiting until something preventable is an emergency is the most obvious shortcoming. Another is the management of chronic conditions. 

The VA is not a good comparison. In my view Kaiser Permanente provides a good comparison of non-profit versus for profit care provision. 

The countries you mention, particularly Switzerland, have private, fee for service, medical care that provides whatever the rich want. They also have a variety of publicly administered medical systems, from national health service in the UK, to compulsory insurance in Switzerland. The latter is regulated and overseen to control costs and curb abuses. The French and German systems involve private practitioners whom the government pays. I do not know how the systems are organized or managed.

An obvious answer would be to expand Medicare to the entire population. As an old person I have found the transition seamless, and my Kaiser card now says something about medicare on it. 

Regards,
Gurdon

_________
* I am familiar with the subject of for-profit versus government provision of services. In the case of the former, the company wants to charge as much as it can while spending as little as possible on the product, in order to keep as much of the fee as possible. In the latter case the public agency wants to know how much money they will have in order to spend it all on the product. (This is a gross simplification, but I prefer it to the usual one alleging "effeciency" versus bloated bureaucracy.) In my former day job I got to administer consultant contracts, prepare agency budgets and so forth. I also got to consider whether to continue as a civil servant or work as a consultant making two or three times the adequate salary I was being paid.


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

Gurdon said:


> The countries you mention, particularly Switzerland, have private, fee for service, medical care that provides whatever the rich want. They also have a variety of publicly administered medical systems, from national health service in the UK, to compulsory insurance in Switzerland. The latter is regulated and overseen to control costs and curb abuses. The French and German systems involve private practitioners whom the government pays. I do not know how the systems are organized or managed.


In Germany public health insurance isn't actually handled by the government itself, but by a variety of "public law" non-profit corporations. Some of those are regional bodies, others were founded by trade associations for specific occupations or by large companies for their employees, but may now accept outside insurees. Besides those private healthcare insurance exists. Some groups (employees with a salary above IIRC ~55000 €, self-employed people, sworn civil servants and and a few others) may choose to fully opt out of the public insurance, others can purchase private supplemental insurance.
To my knowledge, the major part of health care in Germany is provided by private practitioners, who are either reimbursed by one of the above public health funds, or paid out-of-pocket by privately insured patients, who then submit the bill to their insurance.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Veblen said:


> In Germany public health insurance isn't actually handled by the government itself, but by a variety of "public law" non-profit corporations. Some of those are regional bodies, others were founded by trade associations for specific occupations or by large companies for their employees, but may now accept outside insurees. Besides those private healthcare insurance exists. Some groups (employees with a salary above IIRC ~55000 €, self-employed people, sworn civil servants and and a few others) may choose to fully opt out of the public insurance, others can purchase private supplemental insurance.
> To my knowledge, the major part of health care in Germany is provided by private practitioners, who are either reimbursed by one of the above public health funds, or paid out-of-pocket by privately insured patients, who then submit the bill to their insurance.


This is interesting. As someone who lives there, would you say that it's a somewhat 2-tiered system then? Those utilizing public health insurance wait longer than those who can pay privately, or perhaps have private health insurance?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As I've mentioned elsewhere, when Britain introduced the NHS the only serious opposition came from health practitioners, who predicted disaster and dire consequences. Not that they were biased of course!


----------



## Veblen (Aug 18, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> This is interesting. As someone who lives there, would you say that it's a somewhat 2-tiered system then? Those utilizing public health insurance wait longer than those who can pay privately, or perhaps have private health insurance?


That's a rather contested subject. There are statistical findings that publicly insured patients do wait longer for plannable specialist appointments (routine checkups, elective surgery). But it doesn't seem clear whether that is due to often alleged preferential treatment for private payers, or if something else is the main cause. To me regional differences seem a likely factor, since urban areas and economically stronger regions have both more specialist practitioners per capita and a higher percentage of privately insured patients than rural areas and economically weak regions (apparently the eastern states in the area of the former GDR have the longest waiting times). However I'd hesitate to draw any conclusions without seeing the underlying data. Somewhat contrary to the above, it seems that slightly more publicly insured patients than privately insured patients with acute symptoms managed to receive same-day appointments.
Also one would have to keep in mind that in some instances, especially compared to "budget-rate" plans, the public health insurance actually covers a broader spectrum of services than their private counterparts.
I don't recall a noticeable difference in waiting times between publicly and privately insured persons in my social environment, but of course that's anecdote, not data.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Thank you. It's not as though it's fun for me either, as I'm living it.
> 
> You've done a wonderful job at laying out the historical perspective however, populations have changed. People now live longer, we have drugs that are able to help people live fuller lives, nutrition is better and our overall standard of living is better.
> 
> ...


Hate to say it, but the most sure fire way to reduce costs is to put it in the hands of the government and control costs for everyone the same way that costs are now controlled for Medicare enrollees. I understand your position that Medicare's low costs are subsidized by everyone else. But anyone who has ever looked at a hospital's 990 can appreciate how much waste--and net profit--there is in private health care. Add to this private insurers now charged with controlling costs that must generate profit for shareholders. That's a ton of money for people who are not adding value to the system.

Where I live, the two major hospitals have embarked in a battle for trauma care patients. Why they would do this, I'm not sure, but there must be money in taking just anyone from off the street and accepting them via ambulance, or even walk in. Both sides have launched ad campaigns that include billboards, television commercials and radio spots. In addition to acquiring additional staff and upgrading facilities, the hospital that is vying for the other one's business has opened a lounge for ambulance drivers, complete with free snacks, to help convince them to go there rather than the other place. Of course, there is no need in a town this size for two full-blown trauma centers, but that is what has happened. And someone is paying for it. That someone is you and me and anyone who becomes a patient. Meanwhile, the local jail is bursting at the seams with mentally ill inmates who pose no real danger to anyone but have no other place to go. Why? Because there's no money to be made treating or housing mentally ill people who are so sick that they can't hold jobs. Unless they get hit by a car, in which case they can be whisked to the trauma center of their choice. Perhaps I am alone here, but I think that there's something wrong with this picture.

To say that increasing costs is the way to control costs is as absurd as it sounds, akin to burning a village in order to save it. It should be clear enough by now that our health care system is broken. We are paying more than ever for health care while the quality of our health care has decreased in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world. To suggest that we keep following the present course, which involves ever-escalating costs for the patient, seems a bit like suggesting that the dike will hold if we only get a bigger thumb.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Hate to say it, but the most sure fire way to reduce costs is to put it in the hands of the government and control costs for everyone the same way that costs are now controlled for Medicare enrollees. I understand your position that Medicare's low costs are subsidized by everyone else. But anyone who has ever looked at a hospital's 990 can appreciate how much waste--and net profit--there is in private health care. Add to this private insurers now charged with controlling costs that must generate profit for shareholders. That's a ton of money for people who are not adding value to the system.
> 
> Where I live, the two major hospitals have embarked in a battle for trauma care patients. Why they would do this, I'm not sure, but there must be money in taking just anyone from off the street and accepting them via ambulance, or even walk in. Both sides have launched ad campaigns that include billboards, television commercials and radio spots. In addition to acquiring additional staff and upgrading facilities, the hospital that is vying for the other one's business has opened a lounge for ambulance drivers, complete with free snacks, to help convince them to go there rather than the other place. Of course, there is no need in a town this size for two full-blown trauma centers, but that is what has happened. And someone is paying for it. That someone is you and me and anyone who becomes a patient. Meanwhile, the local jail is bursting at the seams with mentally ill inmates who pose no real danger to anyone but have no other place to go. Why? Because there's no money to be made treating or housing mentally ill people who are so sick that they can't hold jobs. Unless they get hit by a car, in which case they can be whisked to the trauma center of their choice. Perhaps I am alone here, but I think that there's something wrong with this picture.
> 
> To say that increasing costs is the way to control costs is as absurd as it sounds, akin to burning a village in order to save it. It should be clear enough by now that our health care system is broken. We are paying more than ever for health care while the quality of our health care has decreased in comparison with the rest of the industrialized world. To suggest that we keep following the present course, which involves ever-escalating costs for the patient, seems a bit like suggesting that the dike will hold if we only get a bigger thumb.


Right. You could mandate price controls on healthcare. That's an easy fix. Have you thought about the consequences of that though?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> Right. You could mandate price controls on healthcare. That's an easy fix. Have you thought about the consequences of that though?


Yes. I have. Bring it ASAP.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Several pages & weeks later I still don't know why this thread is entitled "Disgusting."

Frying pan = heat - Party
Fire = more heat - Congress
Furnace = extreme heat - POTUS

The Founding Fathers of the US of A weren't very complimentary about the King back in the day.
If you're in public life you have to put up with it.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Several pages & weeks later I still don't know why this thread is entitled "Disgusting."


You may wish to read the initial post by 32rollandrock...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tiger said:


> You may wish to read the initial post by 32rollandrock...


I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves.


???

You seemed perplexed by the title of the thread; I merely pointed out from where it was derived. That's not contemptible; it's common sensical.

What_* is *_contemptible is your propensity to attack, insult, and be belligerent. Your lack of civility has become very predictable...


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Several pages & weeks later I still don't know why this thread is entitled "Disgusting."
> 
> Frying pan = heat - Party
> Fire = more heat - Congress
> ...


I have to agree with you. These people wield enormous power, and have hugely detrimental effects on the lives of countless millions whilst elevating themselves to incredible heights. Abuse is the least they should get.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Earl and Tiger, you've both said your piece. Please do any further arguing via PM.

Thank you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> I have to agree with you. These people wield enormous power, and have hugely detrimental effects on the lives of countless millions whilst elevating themselves to incredible heights. Abuse is the least they should get.


Indeed. It is perfectly acceptable for the police and politicians to treat Joe Public unfairly but as soon as some flak is directed back at the high & mighty in their ivory towers the shouts start for people to show respect for the president! WHY? The POTUS is voted in by the people & should represent them. He should not be immune to the displeasure of the people.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

When people say things such as were said toward the president, it says way, way, way more about them than it does about Obama.

Really no excuse. Even in courtrooms where the most vile criminals are prosecuted, judges and officers of the court have sufficient decorum and manners to address defendants as "Mr." and often "sir," even as they send them to prison for many years for horrific crimes. They manage to hold a certain level of decency even as actions of the accused are condemned.

I hate the level of hate and vitriol that seems to be omnipresent these days and the increasing frequency in which it is excused as if it is somehow OK.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Indeed. It is perfectly acceptable for the police and politicians to treat Joe Public unfairly but as soon as some flak is directed back at the high & mighty in their ivory towers the shouts start for people to show respect for the president! WHY? The POTUS is voted in by the people & should represent them. He should not be immune to the displeasure of the people.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

One thing that is unfortunate - - this may not be true in your case, 32RollandRock, but

Even though I was not a fan of G W Bush and never voted for him, some of the biggest decriers of Obamas (admittedly frequently, but not always offensive) critics were just as uncivil to Bush. Thus, their previous behavior ruins any real chance at credibility.

Unless you are always for civility, it is a bit disingenuous to expect it only from your opponents.

If you have personally never gone over the top with anti-Bush stuff, I apologize. 

I was not a fan of Bush; his policies did a lot to poison the well of partisanship. However the left is almost always just as bad.




Sorry; as this has turned into something that is needing moderation and as I don't want to see an escalation, it is time to close this.


----------

