kallend 1,625 #26 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuote The law has but one tool - words. All laws are words. So long as a person has the ability to read and basic comprehension, a person can comment and interpret the law. Nearly anyone can comment on a law - especially one that describes what they are supposed to do. They are words. It's all they are. More than three out of four of those on welfare, 85% of unwed mothers and 68% of those arrested are illiterate. About three in five of America's prison inmates are illiterate. Reference Literacy Statistics Reference InformationWashington Literacy Council 12345 3.9 (119 votes) Over one million children drop out of school each year, costing the nation over $240 billion in lost earnings, forgone tax revenues, and expenditures for social services. Reference Literacy Statistics Reference InformationMcQuillan, 1998 12345 3.9 (102 votes) U.S. adults ranked 12th among 20 high income countries in composite (document, prose, and quantitative) literacy. Reference Literacy Statistics Reference InformationAccording to a separate report released by the Educational Testing Service. 12345 3.9 (87 votes) More than 20 percent of adults read at or below a fifth-grade level - far below the level needed to earn a living wage. Reference Literacy Statistics Reference InformationNational Institute for Literacy, Fast Facts on Literacy, 2001 12345 3.8 (169 votes) 44 million adults in the U.S. can't read well enough to read a simple story to a child. Reference Literacy Statistics Reference InformationNational Adult Literacy Survey (1992) NCED, U.S. Department of Education 12345 3.8 (111 votes)... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #27 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteLittle did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Well there are packers, there are senior riggers, there are master riggers, and there are rigger examiners. Do you consider the difference between a packer and a master rigger of no importance when it comes to your rig? As an engineer, you lack the qualifications to comment on the qualifications of others to comment. Leave this discussion to lawyers and sociologists who know what they are talking about. You are as qualified in this as I am in engineering. Don't bother disagreeing. If you had qualifications then you'd know you are unqualified (of course, then you would be qualified, and you'd know it.) I'm qualified, and am qualified to determine others' qualifications. You are not qualified. I don't expect you to understand this, dr. You can't unless you are qualified. Just accept that you have no business commenting on politics, law, sociology, etc. That's the way we do things today. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #28 August 13, 2009 Here is Prof. Lewis's curriculum vitae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites turtlespeed 212 #29 August 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Little did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Well there are packers, there are senior riggers, there are master riggers, and there are rigger examiners. Do you consider the difference between a packer and a master rigger of no importance when it comes to your rig? Of course you should, do you find it frustrating that lesser beings than you are entitled to their own opinion, and version of the truth? I take it that you have not bothered to read the thread before making your usual silly comment. I've been arguing that Lefty, mnealtx, me (and even you) are just as entitled to an opinion on healthcare as a professor whose PhD was on ancient civilizations. I suppose I could have satisfied your need to stalk me by starting a thread titled "Physics Professor takes a look at HR3200". But I didn't. I don't stalk you - I respond to your posts because out of all the rediculousness out there on this forum - yours is the most ascenine. Your opine your thoughts in a way that makes it seem that you are blinded so much by the leftist view and unable to admit that there are valid points and concerns from the right that you make yourself seen as no less than blind to reality it self, the whole while giving off the impression that, in your self image, you are better than everyone else. It's really rather annoying.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Ion01 1 #30 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe whole concept that you have to have some sort of special credentials is one of the real problems with the country. The government has this concept that the average person is too stupid to understand what they do and therefore they must tell us what is best and what we want. That is rediculous. Didn't everyone here take an english class in highschool? If you can understand the english language then you can understand these bills. It is patently obvious that this is untrue, based on the LIES that people are being fed and are believing about the Bill. Quote Do I really need a special PHD to understand the rhetoric of a bunch of elected official. We elected them so they would do what we want not so they would tell us and force on us what they want because they think we are too stupid to know whats best. Lots of people are too stupid to see through the LIES they are being fed, it seems. If they beleive the lies about the bill it is because they are unwilling the think for themselve and they don't want to know the truth. So are you saying that people should be forced to do what "is best for society" because people aren't smart enough to know what is best or aren't smart enough to know what they want so the government must make that decision for them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #31 August 13, 2009 Gee. Here I thought I qualified it with people who can read and have basic comprehension. And you point out the group of people whose "reading" of the law I said would be untrustworthy. So, I appreciate your narrowing down the group of people I excluded. Of course, you are an engineer. You've got no business dealing with sociology. You aren't qualified. So, despite your efforts I will ignore your post.[Sly] My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites sundevil777 93 #32 August 13, 2009 QuoteLots of people are too stupid to see through the LIES they are being fed, it seems. Indeed, lots of people are too stupid to see through LIES. However, we disagree on from where many of the lies are coming. Perhaps some claims about the bill are untrue, but without even referencing them in passing, you got nothing. Obama asks us to trust him (as do you in claiming that it is a bunch a lies), but for good reason his credibility is diminishing.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rasmack 0 #33 August 13, 2009 Quote I am a lawyer. I encourage people and clients to do research on their own. This is different from you. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. People should make up their own minds instead of "listening to that guy, because he's a professor"... oh wait... Obama was a professor. *ducks* Oh, and apart from this meta-discussion I am not going to touch the US health care debate with a 10 foot pole.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,123 #34 August 13, 2009 QuoteMy point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. Which is exactly what kallend was saying. People just seem to like to jump on him. Fact of the matter is that his opinion is as important as any other lay person's opinion on the matter. Which was also clearly stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #35 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuote I am a lawyer. I encourage people and clients to do research on their own. This is different from you. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. Well, if you agree wholeheartedly with lawrocket, then I was right to point out Lewis' credentials. Professors (visiting, associate, or otherwise) can presumably read and are no strangers to analysis and research. Hah, and to think I only mentioned the professorship thing so people wouldn't immediately dismiss the writer. How wrong I was. BUT...now that all the tears have dried regarding his description, we can move on to what he actually said. Not quite vague scaremongering, eh?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rlucus 0 #36 August 13, 2009 I read the whole thing and he does bring up some good questions with reasonable interpretations. If he is right or not I don't know. Other questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #37 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLittle did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Well there are packers, there are senior riggers, there are master riggers, and there are rigger examiners. Do you consider the difference between a packer and a master rigger of no importance when it comes to your rig? Of course you should, do you find it frustrating that lesser beings than you are entitled to their own opinion, and version of the truth? I take it that you have not bothered to read the thread before making your usual silly comment. I've been arguing that Lefty, mnealtx, me (and even you) are just as entitled to an opinion on healthcare as a professor whose PhD was on ancient civilizations. I suppose I could have satisfied your need to stalk me by starting a thread titled "Physics Professor takes a look at HR3200". But I didn't. I don't stalk you - I respond to your posts because out of all the rediculousness out there on this forum - yours is the most ascenine. It's really rather annoying. Rather like your spelling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #38 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteLots of people are too stupid to see through the LIES they are being fed, it seems. Indeed, lots of people are too stupid to see through LIES. However, we disagree on from where many of the lies are coming. Perhaps some claims about the bill are untrue, but without even referencing them in passing, you got nothing. Obama asks us to trust him (as do you in claiming that it is a bunch a lies), but for good reason his credibility is diminishing. The Bill is available online for anyone to read. No trust is needed. Untrue claims include: death panel, single payer, can't keep current insurance (among others). Factcheck.org is a good place to look, and non-partisan. These have been quoted so many times already it is redundant to have to do it all again for those who choose not to read.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #39 August 13, 2009 Quote Gee. Here I thought I qualified it with people who can read and have basic comprehension. You wrote: "Nearly anyone can comment on a law - especially one that describes what they are supposed to do. They are words. It's all they are." That "nearly anyone" of your seems to exclude a very large number of people, as I pointed out. Your definition of "nearly" would be appropriate for "three is nearly more than four".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #40 August 13, 2009 QuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #41 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. Nice logic. I guess the government should give me a free gun so I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #42 August 13, 2009 QuoteDoes anyone actually have anything substantive to say? Yes. Next election I'm writing in for Wil E. Coyote." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rlucus 0 #43 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. I completely disagree with you. Education and Public safety are both rights that the government provides through tax dollars... why should health care be different. Teachers, police, and firefighters are still paid, so your comment about doctors having to work for free is absurd. I'm not totally convinced that comprehensive health care is a right, but I lean that direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #44 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. Nice logic. I guess the government should give me a free gun so I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right. Come, come. You can do better than that. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the government (and, by extension, individuals) supplying citizens with arms. It simply prohibits the government infringing on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms--meaning the arms people possess can't be taken without due process. Contrast that with health care. If you want an amendment that declares the right of the people to keep and bear health care, then go ahead and champion that. Since the U.S. government is not trying to infringe on peoples' access to health care (at least, not for insidious reasons that I know of *shifty eyes*), I can't imagine it would do your cause any good. Now, if you'd rather say the right of the people is to have health care, then it becomes apples and oranges. Hell, I figured an educated man like yourself would have at least referenced the 6th Amendment to challenge my point. It even says "have the Assistance of Council". I haven't quite noodled out the contradiction there; it stands alone in the Bill of Rights as entitling an individual to the service of others.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,625 #45 August 13, 2009 Quote Hell, I figured an educated man like yourself would have at least referenced the 6th Amendment to challenge my point. It even says "have the Assistance of Council". I haven't quite noodled out the contradiction there; it stands alone in the Bill of Rights as entitling an individual to the service of others. Hey, 2 comes before 6, I'm working my way down the list, OK?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #46 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. I completely disagree with you. Education and Public safety are both rights that the government provides through tax dollars... why should health care be different. Teachers, police, and firefighters are still paid, so your comment about doctors having to work for free is absurd. I'm not totally convinced that comprehensive health care is a right, but I lean that direction. You're confusing "rights" and "services".Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rlucus 0 #47 August 13, 2009 Well that depends on which version of rights you are following. Public Safety is a constitutional right falling under the right to life. Education is human right as recognized by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26... None the less, forget the word "right" then and explain if (and how if so) you believe that comprehensive health care (I differentiate from emergency health care, which is its own issue) is different than police, fire, education, and legal defense? edit to add: When I mentioned public safety it also applies to property rights, while true police are a service designed to protect those rights... interesting distinction though? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #48 August 13, 2009 Quote Haha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points? Should have titled it: "Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200" Gotta keep the REAL professor happy "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lefty 0 #49 August 13, 2009 Quote Well that depends on which version of rights you are following. Public Safety is a constitutional right falling under the right to life. I suppose we're at an impasse on this point, especially if we're pulling the old DoI/Constitution switcheroo. Edit: I'll respond anyway. As far as versions of rights, I subscribe to the version that things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. can only be guaranteed to the extent that we agree not to interfere with the lives and choices of other people. The government can't guarantee me life, but it can not kill me without good reason. The government can't guarantee me liberty. It can only not deprive me of it without due process. Quote Education is human right as recognized by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26... The UN? Now I'm sold. Quote None the less, forget the word "right" then and explain if (and how if so) you believe that comprehensive health care (I differentiate from emergency health care, which is its own issue) is different than police, fire, education, and legal defense? Strictly speaking, it's only different from legal defense in that legal defense is a real right specifically outlined in the Constitution. The rest depend on where you draw the line of how many public services you want the taxpayers to provide for you.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 0 #50 August 13, 2009 Quote Quote Haha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points? Should have titled it: "Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200" Gotta keep the REAL professor happy On what factual basis can it be accurately asserted that he's been unable to pass a tenure review anywhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 2 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
lawrocket 3 #27 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteLittle did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Well there are packers, there are senior riggers, there are master riggers, and there are rigger examiners. Do you consider the difference between a packer and a master rigger of no importance when it comes to your rig? As an engineer, you lack the qualifications to comment on the qualifications of others to comment. Leave this discussion to lawyers and sociologists who know what they are talking about. You are as qualified in this as I am in engineering. Don't bother disagreeing. If you had qualifications then you'd know you are unqualified (of course, then you would be qualified, and you'd know it.) I'm qualified, and am qualified to determine others' qualifications. You are not qualified. I don't expect you to understand this, dr. You can't unless you are qualified. Just accept that you have no business commenting on politics, law, sociology, etc. That's the way we do things today. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #28 August 13, 2009 Here is Prof. Lewis's curriculum vitae. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #29 August 13, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote Little did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Well there are packers, there are senior riggers, there are master riggers, and there are rigger examiners. Do you consider the difference between a packer and a master rigger of no importance when it comes to your rig? Of course you should, do you find it frustrating that lesser beings than you are entitled to their own opinion, and version of the truth? I take it that you have not bothered to read the thread before making your usual silly comment. I've been arguing that Lefty, mnealtx, me (and even you) are just as entitled to an opinion on healthcare as a professor whose PhD was on ancient civilizations. I suppose I could have satisfied your need to stalk me by starting a thread titled "Physics Professor takes a look at HR3200". But I didn't. I don't stalk you - I respond to your posts because out of all the rediculousness out there on this forum - yours is the most ascenine. Your opine your thoughts in a way that makes it seem that you are blinded so much by the leftist view and unable to admit that there are valid points and concerns from the right that you make yourself seen as no less than blind to reality it self, the whole while giving off the impression that, in your self image, you are better than everyone else. It's really rather annoying.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ion01 1 #30 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe whole concept that you have to have some sort of special credentials is one of the real problems with the country. The government has this concept that the average person is too stupid to understand what they do and therefore they must tell us what is best and what we want. That is rediculous. Didn't everyone here take an english class in highschool? If you can understand the english language then you can understand these bills. It is patently obvious that this is untrue, based on the LIES that people are being fed and are believing about the Bill. Quote Do I really need a special PHD to understand the rhetoric of a bunch of elected official. We elected them so they would do what we want not so they would tell us and force on us what they want because they think we are too stupid to know whats best. Lots of people are too stupid to see through the LIES they are being fed, it seems. If they beleive the lies about the bill it is because they are unwilling the think for themselve and they don't want to know the truth. So are you saying that people should be forced to do what "is best for society" because people aren't smart enough to know what is best or aren't smart enough to know what they want so the government must make that decision for them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 August 13, 2009 Gee. Here I thought I qualified it with people who can read and have basic comprehension. And you point out the group of people whose "reading" of the law I said would be untrustworthy. So, I appreciate your narrowing down the group of people I excluded. Of course, you are an engineer. You've got no business dealing with sociology. You aren't qualified. So, despite your efforts I will ignore your post.[Sly] My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 93 #32 August 13, 2009 QuoteLots of people are too stupid to see through the LIES they are being fed, it seems. Indeed, lots of people are too stupid to see through LIES. However, we disagree on from where many of the lies are coming. Perhaps some claims about the bill are untrue, but without even referencing them in passing, you got nothing. Obama asks us to trust him (as do you in claiming that it is a bunch a lies), but for good reason his credibility is diminishing.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rasmack 0 #33 August 13, 2009 Quote I am a lawyer. I encourage people and clients to do research on their own. This is different from you. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. People should make up their own minds instead of "listening to that guy, because he's a professor"... oh wait... Obama was a professor. *ducks* Oh, and apart from this meta-discussion I am not going to touch the US health care debate with a 10 foot pole.HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227 “I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.” - Not quite Oscar Wilde... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #34 August 13, 2009 QuoteMy point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. Which is exactly what kallend was saying. People just seem to like to jump on him. Fact of the matter is that his opinion is as important as any other lay person's opinion on the matter. Which was also clearly stated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #35 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuote I am a lawyer. I encourage people and clients to do research on their own. This is different from you. I agree wholeheartedly with your post. My point was merely an objection to the fact that this guy's job was being used to affix a stamp of authority to the review when in fact his job and his academic credentials were entirely irrelevant. Well, if you agree wholeheartedly with lawrocket, then I was right to point out Lewis' credentials. Professors (visiting, associate, or otherwise) can presumably read and are no strangers to analysis and research. Hah, and to think I only mentioned the professorship thing so people wouldn't immediately dismiss the writer. How wrong I was. BUT...now that all the tears have dried regarding his description, we can move on to what he actually said. Not quite vague scaremongering, eh?Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rlucus 0 #36 August 13, 2009 I read the whole thing and he does bring up some good questions with reasonable interpretations. If he is right or not I don't know. Other questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #37 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLittle did Lefty know when he "published" his post in Speakers Corner that he would stoke the coals of the oft-overlooked war between real professors and lesser folk. Well there are packers, there are senior riggers, there are master riggers, and there are rigger examiners. Do you consider the difference between a packer and a master rigger of no importance when it comes to your rig? Of course you should, do you find it frustrating that lesser beings than you are entitled to their own opinion, and version of the truth? I take it that you have not bothered to read the thread before making your usual silly comment. I've been arguing that Lefty, mnealtx, me (and even you) are just as entitled to an opinion on healthcare as a professor whose PhD was on ancient civilizations. I suppose I could have satisfied your need to stalk me by starting a thread titled "Physics Professor takes a look at HR3200". But I didn't. I don't stalk you - I respond to your posts because out of all the rediculousness out there on this forum - yours is the most ascenine. It's really rather annoying. Rather like your spelling.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #38 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteLots of people are too stupid to see through the LIES they are being fed, it seems. Indeed, lots of people are too stupid to see through LIES. However, we disagree on from where many of the lies are coming. Perhaps some claims about the bill are untrue, but without even referencing them in passing, you got nothing. Obama asks us to trust him (as do you in claiming that it is a bunch a lies), but for good reason his credibility is diminishing. The Bill is available online for anyone to read. No trust is needed. Untrue claims include: death panel, single payer, can't keep current insurance (among others). Factcheck.org is a good place to look, and non-partisan. These have been quoted so many times already it is redundant to have to do it all again for those who choose not to read.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #39 August 13, 2009 Quote Gee. Here I thought I qualified it with people who can read and have basic comprehension. You wrote: "Nearly anyone can comment on a law - especially one that describes what they are supposed to do. They are words. It's all they are." That "nearly anyone" of your seems to exclude a very large number of people, as I pointed out. Your definition of "nearly" would be appropriate for "three is nearly more than four".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #40 August 13, 2009 QuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #41 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. Nice logic. I guess the government should give me a free gun so I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #42 August 13, 2009 QuoteDoes anyone actually have anything substantive to say? Yes. Next election I'm writing in for Wil E. Coyote." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rlucus 0 #43 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. I completely disagree with you. Education and Public safety are both rights that the government provides through tax dollars... why should health care be different. Teachers, police, and firefighters are still paid, so your comment about doctors having to work for free is absurd. I'm not totally convinced that comprehensive health care is a right, but I lean that direction. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #44 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. Nice logic. I guess the government should give me a free gun so I can exercise my 2nd Amendment right. Come, come. You can do better than that. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the government (and, by extension, individuals) supplying citizens with arms. It simply prohibits the government infringing on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms--meaning the arms people possess can't be taken without due process. Contrast that with health care. If you want an amendment that declares the right of the people to keep and bear health care, then go ahead and champion that. Since the U.S. government is not trying to infringe on peoples' access to health care (at least, not for insidious reasons that I know of *shifty eyes*), I can't imagine it would do your cause any good. Now, if you'd rather say the right of the people is to have health care, then it becomes apples and oranges. Hell, I figured an educated man like yourself would have at least referenced the 6th Amendment to challenge my point. It even says "have the Assistance of Council". I haven't quite noodled out the contradiction there; it stands alone in the Bill of Rights as entitling an individual to the service of others.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,625 #45 August 13, 2009 Quote Hell, I figured an educated man like yourself would have at least referenced the 6th Amendment to challenge my point. It even says "have the Assistance of Council". I haven't quite noodled out the contradiction there; it stands alone in the Bill of Rights as entitling an individual to the service of others. Hey, 2 comes before 6, I'm working my way down the list, OK?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #46 August 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteOther questions need to be examined also. "Will this increase the number of people getting decent health care at an affordable out of pocket cost?" and "Is comprehensive health care a right?" The second question might be easier to answer. If health care is a right, then a doctor is obligated to treat me for free. Through such an obligation he must give up his own rights, time, property, etc. to service mine. Therefore I do not consider health care a right. I completely disagree with you. Education and Public safety are both rights that the government provides through tax dollars... why should health care be different. Teachers, police, and firefighters are still paid, so your comment about doctors having to work for free is absurd. I'm not totally convinced that comprehensive health care is a right, but I lean that direction. You're confusing "rights" and "services".Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rlucus 0 #47 August 13, 2009 Well that depends on which version of rights you are following. Public Safety is a constitutional right falling under the right to life. Education is human right as recognized by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26... None the less, forget the word "right" then and explain if (and how if so) you believe that comprehensive health care (I differentiate from emergency health care, which is its own issue) is different than police, fire, education, and legal defense? edit to add: When I mentioned public safety it also applies to property rights, while true police are a service designed to protect those rights... interesting distinction though? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #48 August 13, 2009 Quote Haha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points? Should have titled it: "Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200" Gotta keep the REAL professor happy "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #49 August 13, 2009 Quote Well that depends on which version of rights you are following. Public Safety is a constitutional right falling under the right to life. I suppose we're at an impasse on this point, especially if we're pulling the old DoI/Constitution switcheroo. Edit: I'll respond anyway. As far as versions of rights, I subscribe to the version that things like life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. can only be guaranteed to the extent that we agree not to interfere with the lives and choices of other people. The government can't guarantee me life, but it can not kill me without good reason. The government can't guarantee me liberty. It can only not deprive me of it without due process. Quote Education is human right as recognized by the UN in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in Article 26... The UN? Now I'm sold. Quote None the less, forget the word "right" then and explain if (and how if so) you believe that comprehensive health care (I differentiate from emergency health care, which is its own issue) is different than police, fire, education, and legal defense? Strictly speaking, it's only different from legal defense in that legal defense is a real right specifically outlined in the Constitution. The rest depend on where you draw the line of how many public services you want the taxpayers to provide for you.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #50 August 13, 2009 Quote Quote Haha, man you're something. I went ahead and changed the thread title so as not to crowd your pedestal with peasants. Now, how about addressing Lewis' points? Should have titled it: "Visiting Duke Associate Professor Who's Been Unable to Pass a Tenure Review Anywhere Takes a Look at HR 3200" Gotta keep the REAL professor happy On what factual basis can it be accurately asserted that he's been unable to pass a tenure review anywhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
