Dems, GOP and Al Bore....

| | Comments (91) | TrackBacks (0)

The Sunday Washington Post was just full of interesting articles. You have the Dems playing the "word" game where there are no more "earmarks" on their bills. They change the name to something else and say that "....it is perfectly legal". Anybody that shows me a work-around and tells me that it is perfectly legal is skirting the rules. Earmark is earmark. The word carries a bad tone associated with "pork", "special interest" and the like. What that means is spending YOUR money wastefully. What the Dems do with proficiency (as well as some out-of-step Republicans). Let's just say that those people associated with the left are at it again!

The GOP is wanting to pander to the Hispanics and can't understand why no Republican candidates other than John McCain are willing to show up with the Democratic candidates for a forum tonight in Miami on Hispanic issues. I wonder if they are talking about foreign policy? Otherwise, why would a candidate single out an ethnic group? Special favors? I thought the object was to tell Americans (U.S.) what their positions were to help all? Does this smack of "special interest" also?

Al Gore is going to support one of the Dem candidates...any except the Clintons. Do you think that Hilly is better off because of this? I certainly have my own opinion.

And Mark (I'm the best Governor of Virginia in your lifetime) Warner is in a quandary as to which position to run for. If he chooses U.S. senator, he will be assessed with the other Democratic candidates (and he doesn't stomach that well). Does this say something? He wants to be governor of Virginia again and thinks that his record will landslide him right in. The governor who took a deficet and turned it into a surplus....with a tax increase! Heck, anybody can do that. The Dems are NOTORIOUS for that mindset. Kaine't wanted to save that surplus for a rainy day and increase taxes (and has) more. What is that surplus of our money for? I sure could use it. I forgot. The government under liberal thinking needs ALL your money so that it can manage your life since you are too inept to be able to do that yourself. Government for all. Viva Lenin!

I need more coffee so I can work the crossword.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Dems, GOP and Al Bore.....

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1343

91 Comments

AFF said:

I kinda think you should lay off the caffeine dude. You might not see as many visions of Lenin.

Activist,

The problem is that you forget what the government is all about. Republicans are for getting republicans elected. Democrats are for getting democrats elected. All of them are for getting better jobs for ... themselves. We live in a time of the professional politician. Washington is turning over in his grave. (He quit after two terms in order to set the precedent not just for the executive branch, but for all elected officials.) Because congress is peopled by those who have no other career than getting themselves elected, there is no longer a citizen-statesman. Sure, the politicians might just do some good incidentally to getting reelected, but only because they want to make sure they are reelected.

While having someone that is not at all interested in reelection could make them totally unresponsive to the people (why try to do what the people want, they can't do anything for me anyway) but it would make it easier for the people to realize that the important issue is character, not getting elected. I am disheartened with all the shenanigans by elected officials -- especially all the craziness with immigration. The only time they do anything from the look of it is when they are facing election pressure, and I'm convinced that politicians (at least the professionals) are inept as managers, which is their primary duty.

Jacob said:

Brian,
"I am disheartened with all the shenanigans by elected officials -- especially all the craziness with immigration. The only time they do anything from the look of it is when they are facing election pressure, and I'm convinced that politicians (at least the professionals) are inept as managers, which is their primary duty."
Ooooo do I ever feel your pain on this one brother!

I have come to the conclusion that term limits are the only hope. We need to codify this and couple it with some draconian penalties for when the professional politicians try to overturn the term limit regime.

stay puft said:

yes! ...but who's going to implement the term limits?

ACT, I like what you've gone here, accusing the democrats of totalitarian tendencies while griping about "out-of-step Republicans" (as opposed to the goose-stepping variety?). It creates a paradoxical tension that holds the piece together.

"While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State."

-V.I. Lenin

Jacob said:

Marshmallow,
I thought the German goose steppers were National SOCIALIST Party. Their domestic policies included:
- nationalized health care
- a national no smoking ban
- a ban on the private ownership of guns
- racial spoils (quotas and whatnot)
- promotion of sex outside of marriage
Does this sound familiar? Which party is looking to implement these ideas here and now? I am sure you can tell me. Do you have boots yet?

Jacob said:

Marshmallow,
As for the term limits issue, in several western states that bypassed the criminals in the legislature via ballot measures.

I think in some states you can modify the state constitution via ballot measures.

As citizens we have a common enemy, its called the professional (lifelong) politician. Thomas Jefferson warned against such thugs. We should be able to table our differences long enough to remove this scourge.

To top it off both parties are gerry mandering congressional distracts to be safe. This is short circuiting the ballot box. I would charge them all with a conspiracy charge to defraud the voter.

stay puft said:

well aren't you using a broad brush? Nazis liked social programs, therefore any social program must be part of a totalitarian agenda.

now there's a call to war: never mind the holocaust, the nazis want national health care! (heaven forbid)

here's another one:

national socialist PARTY
grand old PARTY

makes you wonder, doesn't it?

...nice talking points though.

Jacob said:

Marshmallow,
must have hit a nerve.

I am using the leftist arguments in reverse. "We invaded someone so we are NAZI's.'

It is an argument you have used in part. Please recall your reference to goose stepping

Sanity said:

Here are the common characteristics of Nazi parties. In the U.S. today, to which party are they similar?

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, Islamic fascists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

Sorry fellas. YOU are the Fascists, and it's not even close.

Sanity said:

Sorry, missed a couple:

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

The interesting thing is that I'm sure you're PROUD of most of these!

10 feet tall and bulletproof said:

Looks to me like you've implicated yourself, there, Sanity .....hahahahaha(what a handle for such a squirrel)
Those all point to something the democrats have manuevered at some point or another.
Thanks for taking time out to demonstrate that for us.

EDIT:
The Democrats cannot be given credit for holding a strong military.
If it'd been left to them, we'd have been overrun in 1948 by the Russians.

Sanity said:

Well, 10 feet (adolescent handle, if I've ever seen one), if you don't look at this list and see "Republicans" written all over them, you just haven't been keeping up!

I think Dick Cheney is the poster boy for almost ALL of these. In fact, these look like they're from his website!

And help me out. Which one is implicating me? There's not one of these that's less Repub than Demo.

ACTivist said:

Sanity? You pretty much covered some Communism, Socialism and a few others. What you didn't cover was the difference between radical/liberal/left-thinking values and conservatism. We have been heading more and more over the years towards a Socialistic state then anything else and, needless to say, pushed and promoted by the Dems. Granted, there are many Republicans (Dems in sheep clothing) helping the situation out. Bottom line is you think all Reps are bad and Dems are good. I think there are both good Dems and Reps out there that need to take the reigns of power. The parties will straighten themselves out in time and have that more "definitive" stand-for ethic. Right now the waters are too muddied to be able to see the good-guys. In the meantime, try and stay away from trashing a single party as it makes your stupidity shine too brightly!

Ted said:

I always find it amusing that those who scream about the BushCheneyMcHitlterHalliburton reign of terror always fail to realize that if it were a facist regime that they'd be dead or rotting in a prison.

Or maybe Cheney is going to use the last 17 months of his reign arrange a Kristalnacht just before the 2008 election so he can eliminate all his political enemies, declare a state of emergency, cancel the elections, and then declare himself Dictator for Life.

Or maybe not.

Sanity said:

ACTivist,

Besides not answering my question (which in itself is an answer), your point is so obvious as to be foolish. Of COURSE not all republicans and democrats think alike.

I'm talking about the current republican administration, and the previous republican congressional leadership.

To me, we've been heading, like a rocket, towards a fascist state, primarily through the efforts of the republican leadership. When I look at the list of 14 items above, they ALL seem very scary, and they ALL seem to be part of the "Cheney" agenda.

This scares the crap out of me.

I know that folks like you say "Socialist" when you really mean "increase in federal entitlements". Well, they ARE a problem, not so much because of policy, but because americans are aging.

The conservative Heritage Foundation has published the following recommendations for entitlements:

Conclusion: Take Action on
Retirement Entitlements
• Repeal or amend the Medicare drug bill
• Raise the retirement age
• Income test all Medicare and Social
Security benefits
• Transform entitlements into 30-year
budgeted programs, balanced against
other needs

It may surprise you to know that I agree with all four of these recommendations.

Our "Socialist" bent hasn't changed much overall since the Johnson administration. If I were you, I would re-read the 14 items above and develop some action plans to turn us around before it's too late.

I can see it's much easier to call someone "stupid" than to actually solve problems.

Sanity said:

Ted,

I'm sure Cheney would like to if he could.

No, not all of is will be rotting in prisons, but if it were up to Cheney et. al. a lot of would be called "enemy combatants" and put in jail for (pretty much) ever without benefit of counsel, without hearing the charges against us, and with no possibility of bail.

Why do I think that? BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY DONE IT MORON! We're not even talking about foreigners. We're talking about AMERICANS!

Ted said:

Sanity are you sure there shouldn't be an "in" at the beginning of your name?

(click)

Next please.

ACTivist said:

Sanity? I guess you had a question in there about which party is likened to your Nazism of which I did answer. To make it clearer I would have to say the Dems cover more of your examples then the Reps. I thought I was clear that it was more mindset then party but I guess you need to hear my opinion. Dems! Dems! DEMS!

As I said, we are moving towards Socialism (Johnson was a very good example, thank you) and I have an unending smile on my face hearing you say that you support the 4 mentioned social items. Figures. Are you also biggoted againest the elder people? After all, they do cost money. Not that they haven't given their lives to enjoy God's gift of a little peace in their final years. If you were in any office of power and authority, would I have to worry about being incarcerted into an old folks concentration camp? For the good of the people of course and to help keep expenditures down. Please don't try and solve my problems for me. I think I have a better handle on things. Like I said, I am trying to HELP you.

Jack said:

Actually, ACTivist, inSanity probably has "Logan's Run" in mind.

Jacob said:

Insanity,
why do you think medicine costs what it does? MEDICARE. Not "greedy doctors" as I have heard them called. As a good little socialist you attack those who produce and not the buerocrats and politicians who wreak havoc by trying to control the lives of others.

Sanity said:

This is funny that you guys are trashing four conservative ideas simply because I agree with them? That's rich!

You should be saying "Gee, that Sanity is ok. If he agrees with the Heritage Foundation, he can't be all bad!"

ACTivist, you are obviously asleep if you think that the 14 fascist points are more Dem than Repub. Those 14 points are practically from the last Repub platform!

ACTivist said:

Sanity? the conservative ideas aren't that at all. Just because it comes from a "conservative" organization doesn't mean it is so (remember wolf in sheeps clothing). The proof is in the pudding or YOUR MONIKER for instance.

Everyone has an agenda.

1. That's Socialism, Communisim, Marxist, Capitolist...it's patriotic and everyone does it. So?
2. Are you talking Abu Grabe (sic) or the mass release of prisoners that BJ let go before walking out the door?
3. Terrorists? That is a FACT and ralling point. Tim McVee. Osama. Inside or outside, still a threat and cause.
4. Should be. They give their life for YOU to sleep at night.
5. The only ones I know that suppress abortion, homosexuals and divorce are religous conservatives. There are laws in favor of all three. Didn't the Dems get them there?
6. If the media isn't controlled by the lib/left/Dem agenda, I don't know what is.
7. The Dems are the ones running scared and hyping on doing more for National Security. Ask Hilly.
8. We are trying to get religion IN government so that it makes more sense. Dems have been successful at every turn to keep it out (Ten Commandments on public grounds, pledge alligence in schools, having prayer in any government building, take "In God We Trust" off our currency, etc.)
9. That has been America on BOTH sides!
10. Don't get me started on Unions. Let's just say that they are disproportionately Dem and that anyone that opposes them is the opposition (or as you would see it, Rep).
11. I don't know anyone being arrested (site me an instance) but I do know of (not censure) works that have been proven complete falsehoods (lies, to you) by some in the academic community. What were they about? A self-inspired insane realization of the true meanings behind things like Bill Of Rights, fabricated statistics on crime, disease and the like.
12. Isn't that what the Dems like to do? Take away your freedoms and go to things like "no-knock"? Or how about Katrina and the police state that Ray Nagin created? He still hasn't complied with federal mandates because he feels he is above that. Oh, yeah. He's a Dem too!
13. Three words...William Jefferson Clinton!
14. You mean like missing ballot boxes or allowing convicted felons to vote or driving the homeless to voting stations and telling the incapable how to vote or "overseers" at every voting location to assure no improprioty? You mean like DEM??????

I lost count because I had to take my show off. Who won? I know the people didn't. It must be a lib/left/Dem thing.

Sanity said:

Well, let's see, since ACT has obviously had too much caffeine:

1. Which party prefers the flag over the constitution?

2. Which party wants to lock people up without lawyers or charges and torture them?

3. Which party wants a "forever war" and blame the "terrorists" for everything? (Aside: What a stupid name: "War on Terror". What's it mean, that we are going to war with anyone who scares us?)

4. Which party has tripled military spending since 2000?

5. Which party wants constitutional amendments for abortion, gay marriage?

6. Fox news, real liberal! Rupert Murdoch, famed uber-conservative is close to owning a virtual monopoly on mass media.

7. The current administration governs by fear.

8. Which president "talked to God"? Obviously doesn't believe in separation of Church and State?

9. Which Vice President was giving no-bid contracts to Halliburton?

10. Which party never gets any union endorsements because they're so anti-labor?

11. Which party keeps trying to de-fund the NEA?

12. Which candidate for office let his cops runs rampant shooting innocent people because he didn't want even jaywalkers?

13. Which party is the party of Abramoff?

14. Which party told blacks to vote on Wednesday?

I think they're ALL repub.

Tom said:

The idea of a liberal media is a complete and utter joke. Despite truckloads of documentation refuting every lie Powell and Cheney were putting out to convince people of the need to, in Ron Paul's words, wage an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, the media went along entirely with WarParty talking points, and wholeheartedly adopted the stupidest logic I'd ever encountered. That being that the lack of evidence of WMD in Iraq indicated it must be there (since when did a country having the same kinds of weapons we and all our allies have become a just cause for war?). Even though at the time there were books out by people such as Scott Ritter, who was very involved in the disarming of Iraq, explaining point by point how the administration's case was a lie. And there was no shortage of reporting in the alternative press (The Nation, What Really Happened) refuting all the lies before a single bomb was ever dropped.
Liberal media today? Let's see-they denigrate and ignore the only two liberals running for the Democratic nomination-Gravel and Kucinich.
The same way they ridicule Ron Paul, and anyone who ever speaks out against the corporate, fascist leaning state we've inherited.
Why you all support these bought and paid for candidates on either side of the aisle is beyond me...I see there's now someone on this site who regularly posts Fred Thompson propaganda. Get real. Most of you guys who write here are mad as hell, but you're fully prepared to be pragmatic rather than principled. Does anyone here deep in their soul believe the things you desire deep within you for your country will be made real by any of the so called "leading candidates"? The reason they're leading is because they're against Americans, not for them.

Jack said:

1. What party's members are too illiterate to speak, but must resort to flag-burning to symbolize their illiteracy?

2. What party want to murder over a million innocent children every year, and wants to allow doctors to turn a baby around in the womb so that it can be pulled out by the feet (if the head came out first it would be a live birth, and the rest would be de jure, rather than just de facto, murder), pull the baby out so that only the head remains inside the mother (remember, if the head comes out, it's a live birth), suck his brains out to kill him, and then pull out the dead baby?

3. Which party wants us to lose the war for political advantage?

4. Which party destroyed our military?

5. Which party wants judges, not elected officials and the people, to make the laws?

6. Which party runs ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and the New York Times? Which party is Ted Turner supporting?

7. Which party has campus speech codes and threatens employees with termination if they speak out against the homosexual agenda? Which president threatened people before they were to testify against him? Which president's advisor committed "suicide" by shooting himself twice?

8. Which party thinks the phrase "there will be a separation of church and state" appears in the U.S. Constitution, rather than the Constitution of the U.S.S.R.?

9. Which party ignores the fact that the FBI has been investigating the Halliburton contracts since 2004 with no results?

10. Which party gives preference to protecting their union supporters over educating our children? (After all, for which party are uneducated people more likely to vote?)

11. Which party ignores the constitution to fund the NEA, to get more control of education in the hands of those who want uneducated voters?

12. Which candidate for office had a close friend who, as A.G., ordered the use of a banned chemical agent against innocent men, women, and children, and burned them alive?

13. Which is the party of Hsu? Which party took campaign contributions from China?

14. Which party shoots up opponents campaign offices? Which party gets the vast majority of the dead vote? What party gets the vast majority of the illegal immigrant vote? Which party wanted to suppress the military absentee votes? Which party gets the vast majority of the ex-con vote? Which party has had more votes than voters in a precinct? Which party appointed the judge that threw out that evidence? Which party runs the "Crook County" Illinois political machine?

Anonymous said:

OK, Jack, I give up. Tell us which party you're referring to. It doesn't sound like any party I've ever heard of--at least on Earth. That comment definitely goes on the list of Top Ten Looniest Jack Posts.

ACTivist said:

Thanks, Jack. I thought you copied my "absentee vote" and when I reread mine, I realized I forgot to put it in. That and the dead vote were important ones.

Jack said:

"It doesn't sound like any party I've ever heard of...."

That's because liberals ignore those things that are inconvenient for them.

Sanity said:

Yeah, I'll say! Holy cow! Jack's in need of some serious anger management therapy.

(Not to mention some current event and history lessons. Too much in error in his last post to even begin to discredit it.)

I think we're done with this entry.

ACTivist said:

Jack, I just had a scarey thought from your last response. When you said liberals don't like things inconvienient, I thought about Liberal Sanity Centers on every street corner like 7-11's. I will ahve nightmares tonight!

fed up said:

Insanity,
You are done because you have no response. The DEMONRAT PARTY is the answer to all of Jacks above (besides Vince Foster's double tap to the head). Run along get some therapy creep.

stay puft said:

...anyway, since seniority plays a role in legislatures' committee assignments and whatnot, it's not in any one state's interest to impose term limits on itself unless every other state is going to do it too. If it's only a couple states, they're only hurting themselves. As long as that's the case, it's going to be difficult to get the ball rolling on term limits. There would have to be a massive nation-wide campaign with term limit initiatives on at least 2/3rds of the state ballots. If 2/3rds of the states had self-imposed term limits, a constitutional amendment mandating term limits for all states could be introduced, and enough representatives would be free of any conflicting interests to pass it and send it to the states...

stay puft said:

and let me just say that I don't think that we live under a fascist regime, only that there are certain fascist tendencies used by a certain NATIONAL party.

NATIONAL socialist party
republican NATIONAL committee

hmm...

it's ok, you guys don't hesitate to rail against bush on immigration. your talk of his secret plans to create a North American Union has strong NWO overtones. Why the reluctance to admit that his admin. has borrowed pages from the fascist play book?

the democrats hint at a national health plan and you start with the "national SOCIALIST" rhetoric, meanwhile these guys with their emergency powers act are advocating spying on citizens and torture and you're all, "right on!" what the hell?

they're all assholes, but you can't seriously tell me that these guys represent the lesser of two evils, as if a government program to provide everyone with access to health care is somehow more "NAZI-like" than what the bushies have been up to

...and yes, medicare is expensive, it also provides health care to about 40 million Americans (and often by way of private insurance companies). what do you want? You want to talk about the evils of national health plans? look at the UK (those nazis!) where they have longer lives, less infant mortality, and spend 1/2 of what we do on health care.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"You want to talk about the evils of national health plans? look at the UK (those nazis!) where they have longer lives, less infant mortality, and spend 1/2 of what we do on health care"
First of all the infant mortality rate in this country includes that of illegal immigrants. So is it a fair comparison? The lifespan is impacted by this as well.

Our inner cities produce a homicide rate 10x that of England. Which is also rolled up into lifespan. You know this as well. So why are you deliberately trying to mislead?

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
"it's not in any one state's interest to impose term limits on itself unless every other state is going to do it too. If it's only a couple states, they're only hurting themselves"
You have a point here. Still several states DID manage this. I think the only real solution is a constitutional amendment. Which as you pointed will be difficult.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
National does not imply much but SOCIALIST is an economic formula. But you go boy. Keep defending socialists. Keep denying that the Nazi's where socialist. Have a warm glass of mike too.

Jack said:

Democratic NATIONAL Committee..... Hmmm.

Yes, puffy, the UK has the best health care Pakistan can provide.

Once again, you refuse to normalize the statistics for minorities. The UK has the same problems with infant mortality that we have in the United States: http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:R7NlSwv-fuoJ:www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/core/documents/download.asp%3Fid%3D825%26log_stat%3D1+UK+minority+infant+mortality&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us However, we have a larger minority population.

Sanity,

"Besides not answering my question (which in itself is an answer)..."

The implication is false. Sometimes a question is so infantile that it should not be dignified by an answer. I'm not saying your question is in this class, but your implication is that the answer is clear ... it is not even an answer, but could be a statement exactly the opposite of what you imply. Not answering a question is just that, not answering a question.

I'm saying this in hopes that you are in fact not infantile, but just uninformed. If your response is to insist that not answering is in fact an answer, then I will stop the attempt at education.

stay puft said:

Jack-ob,

first of all, you show me one country in the world that doesn't have any socially run welfare programs and I'll show you Somalia, alright.

second of all, it's like this, in America there are minorities, yes. They are part of the population, yes? We have violent inner cities. It's part of the cultural landscape. You want to exclude these problematic data, and say that I'm misrepresenting the facts by including them?

yes, it's true, our infant mortality rate is very low if we only count the ones that live.

Let's ask ourselves why are minorities dying so much sooner? In many countries, minority groups have slightly shorter lifespans, but life expectancy for black men in detroit is 46 years, in chicago's south side it's 43 years, for example. (geronimus et al, "Inequality in Life Expectancy, Functional Status, and Active Life Expectancy across Selected Black and White Populations in the United States." Demography 2001:38(2):227-251.)
Don't tell me that's genetic.

...and what do you think they're using to kill each other with? I'll tell you, it's guns. that's right, guns, there's too damned many of them floating around. there are like 200,000,000 guns floating around, that's absolutely pointless, especially given that most of the people who possess them legally are complete push-overs when it comes to the government convincing them that spying on Americans is for their own good. you guys support national biometric id cards for christ sake. so don't give me this, "We need guns to defend ourselves against tyranny," because you've already forfeited the first several rounds of that battle, and if it came down to it you'd welcome the tyrants with open arms, as long as they looked like you and used the words like "creationism" a lot. let me give you some more info:

"In Boston, gun-related homicides dropped markedly when police began to apprehend gun traffickers, closing channels through which firearms travel from the legal market into criminal hands"
(wintemute, association between illegal use of handguns and handgun sales volume, 2000 JAMA)

"A 1976 District of Colombia law restricting handgun sale and possession was associated with an abrupt decline of almost 25% in the rate of homicides by firearm, an effect that persisted for 11 years."
(Teret, wintemute, policies to prevent firearm injuries, 1993 Health Affairs)

and infant mortality has been high in the US compared to other industrialized countries for years, it's not all because of immigrants. The WHO ranks health systems, ours is 37th in the world, even though we spend about 13% of our gdp on health care vs. 7.3% in the UK. look it up. So why don't you tell me who's getting more bang for their buck?

if we have huge disparities within our country, it's a problem, not something we can just ignore. Including inner city deaths in the life expectancy isn't a distortion of the truth, it IS the Truth, god damnit.

let's give the people in inner cities access to quality health care and good education. let's spend .001% of what it's costing us to secure baghdad on securing our own cities, on gang prevention programs and community development, and let's see what happens to our nation's life expectancy. wouldn't it be nice not to have to make excuses?

...so far terrorism has taken perhaps 4000 Americans since 1970
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Terrorism/usvictims.html
That sucks, and we as a country are putting up $500,000,000,000+ to make sure that number doesn't rise. Every year 400,000 Americans die from smoking, yet you guys got all up in arms about how a national health system would be an infringement on your liberties because people might have to quit smoking before an operation -- in order to heal faster! Are you Kidding me?!

Sanity ...

1) Which party prefers the flag over the constitution? Which party has consistently opposed the civil liberty to defend oneself by the bearing of arms?

2) Which party wants to lock people up ....

Have you stopped beating your wife?

3) see question 2

4) The question is a bare fact without context. But it doesn't make a lot of sense compared to the spending increase from pre-WWII to during WWII (which was Democratic increase). But I'll give you that, you should take the civil war (Republican increase that initiated income tax). But then I get WWI as well, and Vietnam, but you get Korea. I'd call it a draw.

5) Which party initiated the courts intruding into areas not covered by the constitution, making it necessary to put things explicitly into the constitution so a court doesn't monkey with it?

7) NBC, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, Viacom, ABC, .... Washington Post, New York Times, MGM, Disney, Paramount ... do you *really* want to compare the media? If you think the media is conservatively controlled, you are either blind, don't listen/watch any media, or are purposely using the example of the outlier to bolster a weak argument ... might be something else, but it certainly isn't an effective argument.

7) This statement is equivalent to "Ah, so you haven't stopped beating your wife." (Or it is just an attempt at inflammatory speech, also not effective.)

8) Oh, George Washington, or do you mean Adams (either one) or perhaps you mean FDR? I so strongly support separation of church and state that I don't send my children to public schools. While I am taxed for public education of my children, I fully understand that the state cannot rightly be made subject to the church. The state has a different charter from God than the church, and should stick to that charter. That most of our Presidents prayed is beside the point. Are you really so ignorant of history that you think prior Presidents, of *every* prior party, back before the present dems and reps even existed, has prayed (talked to God)?

There is so much couched in a pervasive narrow view of things that I have to believe you are blind to what you are saying. For instance, what part of the constitution allows for the federal government to support the NEA? If it isn't explicitly within the powers stated, then it is supposed to be reserved to the states and the people. Where does the constitution say we should be doing anything with the NEA?

Are you really so naive that you believe what you have written is an accurate view of the world?

Which party actually had their corrupt president removed from office? (Think long and hard on this one; Clinton *should* have been removed, Nixon was removed [he resigned in disgrace].) Do you really think the Dems didn't know that Clinton deserved to be thrown out of office? At least the Reps do clean their dirty laundry instead of wear it.

Tom,

What I want deep within my soul cannot be accomplished by any leading candidate, minor candidate, or marginal candidate. What I desire deep within my soul for this country is a complete change of heart. I pray for that to the only one that can accomplish that goal. What is scary is that the church is the problem here ... "If *MY* people, who are called by MY NAME, humble themselves and pray, and turn from their wicked ways, then from heaven I will hear, forgive them of their sin, and heal their land." It isn't up to politicians of any ilk to fix the problems with this country -- it is only God's people that can accomplish it, by repenting of *their* own sin, praying, and humbling themselves.

No other way to fix it. The problem is the heart is broken -- the heart is deceitfully wicked -- if the heart is broken, the patient is dead. The patient just hasn't figured it out yet.

ACTivist said:

Brian, I like your fire but the same story repeated to a dummy still leaves..a dummy. Sanity just doesn't get it. He could be the "anti-Jack"-alot of talk but hollow and no facts. Rest assured, he'll keep at it.

Puft,
You are up on them guns. You ask why we need all them guns? It is quicker to pick-up a second and third weapon then trying to reload one. If it weren't for those "illegal" arms in the inner-city, how could those people survive? You need a gun to rob; to buy the crack that causes the mortality in births. Oh, you forgot about the drugs? Well then I would suggest you try and get that cleaned up first and watch what happens to the culture. Giving them better healthcare and trying to give them better education when they don't want it or use it will leave you with the same circumstances. Drugs and alcohol.
There are those that you can tell to reach for the stars and they will do all in their power to succeed. Then there are those who want the easy money. And people die. And drugs and alcohol screw up the body and cause birthdefects/mortality.
There is over a trillion knives in America. Jump on them. How many cars? Jump on them. Beer bottles and barrels of gasoline? Jump on them.
You want to spend money? Let's go to the old days and make sure everyone is vaccinated againest diseases which haven't been common in this counrty for over half a century. Gee, I wonder where it could be coming from. Must be on the wind blowing across our borders. Any infant mortality there?
btw. I could almost bet that we are 37th in the world because we tend to OVERTREAT an ailment.

stay puft,

Couple of things. First, I qualify as "poor" according to Loudoun County's own publications. We have 6 people in the house (used to be 7 up until July, when my eldest child married). I'm a teacher with Loudoun County schools, and I have 5 years experience, so I get paid (according to LCPS website) $47K/year. According to the Loudoun County Home Improvement Loan program, if I have less than $55k/year, I've got a very low income. http://inetdocs.loudoun.gov/dss/docs/housing_/improvements_/lchip_/lchipflier/lchipflier.pdf

Now, with that, I would rather you not give poor people anything other than freedom from the oppression of our rights. I would include in that, the right to defend ourselves. Our civil liberties start with the liberty to defend ourselves, our wives and our children. Take that away, and you take away all my rights by giving them to the first bully that comes down the street.

Thanks but no thanks. I don't need you to do what the constitution does not state. I don't want the federal government in education (it isn't constitutional). I don't want the federal government providing welfare. I would want the federal government doing what the constitution explicitly states, but not anything more.

Jack said:

"Let's ask ourselves why are minorities dying so much sooner?"

The point, puffalump, is that the state-run medical system is NOT the reason for the low infant mortality in the UK -- their lack of minorities is. Are you really that daft?

Gee, why are Black men dying in Detroit? Let's see, perhaps they are killing each other and themselves? It's not genetic, puffalump, it's behavioral. So how do you propose to change their behavior?

So they're killing each other with guns. Both the Boston and the D.C. studies specifically say GUN-RELATED homicides? What of the others? Does it really matter HOW someone is murdered? Gun or knife, dead is dead.

Yes, the murder rate went down in D.C. for a short time, until the black markets established themselves, then the murder rate went through the roof, and the murder rate more than doubled: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm Talk about giving up freedom for temporary security....

"and infant mortality has been high in the US compared to other industrialized countries for years, it's not all because of immigrants."

Will you ever learn to read? I said MINORITIES, not IMMIGRANTS.

"Including inner city deaths in the life expectancy isn't a distortion of the truth, it IS the Truth, god damnit."

But if we do not look closely at that truth, by doing proper statistical analysis, we will come to the wrong conclusion -- that socialized medicine is the answer to their problems. If we do not parse out the data with respect to race, we see that the UK has lower infant mortality and longer life expectancies. When we look at minorities in the US and the UK, we see that, when broken down by race, that is not necessarily the case, so we must look for some other way to solve the problem.

"The WHO ranks health systems, ours is 37th in the world, even though we spend about 13% of our gdp on health care vs. 7.3% in the UK. look it up."

You present the data, YOU can look it up. You apparently got it from somewhere, unless you pulled it out of your nether regions. (I wish you'd pull your head out occasionally.) Why are you too lazy to post the link? I guess it must go back to liberals' wanting someone else to do everything for them.

"let's give the people in inner cities access to quality health care and good education."

Define "quality health care." They already have access to better health care than most people in the world. As for education, let's have school vouchers. Detroit already spends more per child than any jurisdiction in Virgina. Why are their schools so bad?

"let's spend .001% of what it's costing us to secure baghdad on securing our own cities, on gang prevention programs and community development, and let's see what happens to our nation's life expectancy."

What have we spent on the "War on Poverty"? We were at $7,000,000,000,000 (that's 7 TRILLION dollars) as of 1995. http://downloads.heartland.org/92005g.pdf I suspect we have passed $10 trillion by now. We will spend $582 billion this year on Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf In 2006, there were 36.5 million people in "poverty" in the U.S.: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf That's $15,945 for every "poor" person in the United States -- $63,780 for a family of four. The median household income was $48,201! This does NOT include Social Security payments made to widows and their minor children.

If that is not enough, tell me, how much SHOULD we be spending?

"...wouldn't it be nice not to have to make excuses?"

Money does not seem to be the problem, puffalump. Any more brilliant ideas?

"Every year 400,000 Americans die from smoking, yet you guys got all up in arms about how a national health system would be an infringement on your liberties because people might have to quit smoking before an operation -- in order to heal faster! Are you Kidding me?!"

No, it's that you would have to quit smoking or you would not get your surgery at all. Remember, under Hillary-Care, one would not have been allowed to pay for a doctor himself. That would have been a crime.

Jack said:

I forgot to mention, there are also another $199 billion in payments to the "poor" that were not included in my numbers.

In 1956, defense was 57% of our budget, now, including the war, defense is 19% of the budget. Transfer payments have gone from 21% to 59%.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/13/AR2007021301091.html

How much more do you want?

Jack said:

If you like, we can remove Medicare from the calculations, and the "poor" people over 65. Then we'll put in the $200B for Welfare. So between Welfare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, we have about $400B, and 33,066k "poor" under the age of 65. That's about $12,100 per person, or $48,400 for a family of four. That's still slightly higher than the median household income.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,

There is a difference between the government providing emergency services and shots for children and TELLING you not to smoke, and to come in for check ups. You are correct as far as Somalia goes, but does that make it the right thing to do, especially when the government start encrouging upon your freedoms in the name of safety? Ben Franklyn who was the most community minded of the founding fathers had admonished those who would sell their freedom in order to attain safety.

Today I see us collectively going down a rabbit trail where in the name of health and safety the guv'mint will know my personal habits, and tell how often I need to go in to have a checkb up. This is not a good thing.

As for Jack-ob, blow it out you pipe. I ain't that ugly, the boy scares small children.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
I was not talking about guns. Why addressing me with this?

UPDATE:
OK, I get it. Jack walked in on our argument. The Jack-ob is almost deserved. Hmmm. Only almost. Insults like this must be called out. Pistols at Dawn!!

Jack said:

Puffalump. It's quite clear. Jacob calls you marshmallow, and I call you puffalump. (Don't be too insulted, a puffalump was my oldest daughter's first and favorite "lovie" -- my sister gave it to her when she was born.)

"Scares small children," Jacob? I have only two words for you: "MY JACK!"

stay puft said:

Jacob,

I don't support an outright ban on smoking, and I don't believe that freedom should be sold for safety.

I have to say that usually when gun violence comes up, someone (Jack) is quick to point out that violent crime rates are higher in countries where handguns are more tightly regulated. ...and when life expectancy is brought up, someone will say that the US LE is lower compared to countries like the UK because of the high rate of violence in inner cities. These two ideas are contradictory. If we have a lower violent crime rate, violent crime can not be the cause of our lower LE.

Is the murder rate higher or lower in the US compared to the UK? If guns make communities safe, why are our inner cities so dangerous?

clearly higher rates of gun ownership don't make us safer. Pubmed:

"In the “high gun states,” 21 148 individuals were homicide victims, compared with 7266 in the “low gun states” (Table 3 [triangle]). For every age group of at least 5 years minimum age, people living in the high-gun states were more than 2.5 times more likely than those in the low-gun states to become homicide victims. These results were largely driven by higher rates of gun-related homicide, although rates of non–gun-related homicide were also somewhat higher in high-gun states. For all age groups, people living in high-gun states were 2.9 times more likely to die in a homicide; they were 4.2 times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide and 1.6 times more likely to die in a non–gun-related homicide."
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364

Table 3:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364&rendertype=table&id=t3

Jack,

If we have more minorities, that's something we have to work with, not an excuse for having an infant mortality rate comparable to Angola's.

You also say, "We have a lower LE because we eat so much more fast food." So? the question is what are we going to do about it?

CMS does spend a lot of money, it's not money that would otherwise be in the pockets of the people who are benefiting most from these programs. Socialized medicine isn't the solution to everything, preventative measures like screening and risk-reduction/education programs are more cost effective. but I think this is a tiny percentage of what we spend on health in this country. It's constitutional in that the fed. gov. is charged with looking out for the general welfare of Americans. (article 1 section 8, as I'm sure you're aware) For some reason you want to interpret "welfare" to mean "not the population's health" which is odd

""and infant mortality has been high in the US compared to other industrialized countries for years, it's not all because of immigrants."

Will you ever learn to read? I said MINORITIES, not IMMIGRANTS."

there you go acting like an ass, Jack. I was responding to the statement that infant mortality is high because it includes illegal immigrants in the count (which I think Jacob said.)

they're talking about gun related homicides because they're talking about gun laws. the bottom line is fewer guns=fewer people being killed by guns.

note that step 1 for putting a gun on the black market is "buy a gun legally"

"You apparently got it from somewhere, unless you pulled it out of your nether regions. (I wish you'd pull your head out occasionally."

"Are you really that daft?"

how necessary are these types of comments to the point you're making?

stay puft said:

note: US infant mortality is not literally comparable to Angola's. It is the highest in the developed world. There's no excuse for that.

here's a breakdown I found that everyone can access:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm

Jack said:

Puffalump, you really should do some research yourself. The study you site is amusing, but flawed. The very data they use, the four "low-gun" states and the six "high-gun" states, contradict their assertions.

First, the variety of murder rates in (not between) the two groups belies the theory. Per 100k, the low-gun group ranges from 1.9 to 4.8 murders. The high-gun group ranges from 2.7 to 9.9.

Second, TWO of the six "high-gun" states, WV and WY, have lower murder rates (4.4 and 2.7) than does NJ (4.8). Not surprisingly, WV and WY have the lowest percentage of Blacks and Hispanics of the high-gun states, NJ has the highest percentages of Black and Hispanics.

Since we have already established that the Black murder rate is 9.0/100k, the Hispanic rate is 5.5/100k, and the White rate is 2.0/100k, these results really are not surprising at all.

In fact, I have seen analyses that show the concentration of Blacks increases the murder rate at a greater-than-linear rate. (Essentially, the criminal culture is reinforced -- it is harder to avoid gangs, there are simply more targets in a dense environment, violence begets revenge, etc.)

(If you don't mind, I will decline to post a link to the site, because his premise, that this effect is some product of a supposed racial inferiority in Blacks, is completely repulsive to me, and I do not want his site to get any hits on my recommendation.)

"If we have more minorities, that's something we have to work with, not an excuse..."

Agreed. However, an examination of the data between here and the U.K. shows that socialized medicine has not solved that problem.

I never mentioned that we eat more fast food. I have never seen such data. When did I say this?

"It's constitutional in that the fed. gov. is charged with looking out for the general welfare of Americans. (article 1 section 8, as I'm sure you're aware)"

Let me quote the relevant part of Article 1, Sec. 8:
"The Congress shall have Power... to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Note carefully, that it is the general welfare of the UNITED STATES. The federal government has no more obligation to provide for my personal welfare than it does to pay my personal debts or provide for my personal defense. That you think it does is very odd indeed.

"note that step 1 for putting a gun on the black market is 'buy a gun legally'"

The usual first step is to STEAL a gun. Are you blaming the victim of the theft?

"note: US infant mortality is not literally comparable to Angola's. It is the highest in the developed world. There's no excuse for that."

Normalize the infant mortality rate based on race, and we are no longer in the bottom. Simply put, if the U.K. had the same percentages of minorities as we do, they infant mortality rates would be as high or higher, and their life expectancies would not be as high, either. The point is, the SYSTEM is not the cause of either our infant mortality or our life expectancies.

jacob said:

Marshmallow, Jack,
I see you two are dancing the "gun-toting-medical-system" tango AGAIN.

I will get out of the way for now, get a bowl popcorn,and just watch.

Unless Marshmallow you feel I am ducking something that Jack has not already addressed.

Tom said:

Jack,
So by every objective measure we'd be better off if we were a whiter nation?

stay puft said:

(see Tom)

What do you think the UNITED STATES is? Rocks and trees? That's what the founders were talking about right ...and the government's response to 9/11 didn't have anything to do with the thousands of Americans who died, because they're not the government's concern. The government was upset about the big hole those terrorists put in the ground of the UNITED STATES, right?

and the countries dept is the people's debt, and the government accrues this debt on their behalf. ...but let's pretend for a moment that it's possible to be concerned with the welfare of an abstract concept. would it not be in the interest and welfare of the UNITED STATES to have safer communities and a healthier, citizenry?

..and are you kidding?? the author is too racist to link to? ...and there's no other study that's come to the same conclusions? ...and I'm just supposed to take your word for it that his analysis is objective and well-reasoned when, according to you, I can't even trust the peer-reviewed American Journal of Public Health to publish sound research? ...and to top it off you tell me I should do the research myself? what, like the research you've done, namely reading the rss from bigotland.com/blog?

"Normalize the infant mortality rate based on race, and we are no longer in the bottom. Simply put, if the U.K. had the same percentages of minorities as we do, they infant mortality rates would be as high or higher, and their life expectancies would not be as high, either. The point is, the SYSTEM is not the cause of either our infant mortality or our life expectancies."

you have no evidence of this. you have nothing that shows any causal links. I'd like to see a study that's able to control for every other socio-economic factor.

i'm going to site another study off of pubmed. this time just the abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7821259&dopt=AbstractPlus

Infant mortality among minotiry pakistanis in the UK is 5.7/1000 vs. 4.9/1000 white (non-minorities) in the UK. That's less than 1. So using this figure, if the UK were 49% minority (it'd be impossible to be more than that, right), it's infant mortality would increase by less than 1/2

Compare that of minorities and Whites in the US.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5422a1.htm

IMR for whites is 5.9/1000, vs. 13.9/1000 for American Blacks, and 9.1/1000 for American Indians.

this must give you pause

Jack said:

Color has nothing to do with it, Tom. Culture does. I suspect this is an issue not just in crime, but in health as well. Poor eating habits and lack of exercise contribute to both infant mortality and shorter life expectancies.

One of my best friends from high school was Black, but did not grow up in that culture at all. He even taught me how to make a proper half-Windsor. His cousin was flown to NYC every week for his piano lessons. (Yes, he was THAT good.)

No, Tom, it is not color, but culture.

Jack said:

"What do you think the UNITED STATES is?"

Before the Civil War, "the United States" was always used in the plural. "The United States" were just that, the STATES taken as a group. The 10th Amendment clearly distinguishes between the United States, the states individually, and the people: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The debts you speak of are COMMON debts, which are collectively debts of the people. But it does not work in reverse -- personal debts are not debts in common. Neither is my personal protection or personal health a matter for the federal government. If you want the STATES to do it, I will have no argument with you.

Now, here you pose a valid question: "Would it not be in the interest and welfare of the UNITED STATES to have safer communities and a healthier, citizenry?"

The answer is a definite "maybe." But there are other issues. (1) There is no evidence that socialized medicine will achieve that goal. (2) How does improved health of Montana residents help the people of New York? (3) Why is the federal government better able to deal with the problem than the state governments? (4) Experimentation in the several states will probably yield better comparisons to find out what works and what does not.

"Infant mortality among minotiry pakistanis in the UK is 5.7/1000 vs. 4.9/1000 white (non-minorities) in the UK. That's less than 1. So using this figure, if the UK were 49% minority (it'd be impossible to be more than that, right), it's infant mortality would increase by less than 1/2"

What has that got to do with anything, puffy? Do you really have such problems reading? I will repeat myself, with emphasis applie: "[If] the U.K. had the same PERCENTAGES OF MINORITIES as we do, they infant mortality rates would be as high or higher, and their life expectancies would not be as high, either."

Please note the plurals in the emphasized words. Comparing one minority (Pakistani) to another (Black) that has a completely different culture is not normalizing the data.

Again, I contend it is not race, but culture. Further evidence is that the Hispanics actaully have LOWER infant mortality (5.55/1000) than do non-Hispanic whites (5.66). (Mind you, there are some Black Hispanics, but the vast majority are White.) The LOWEST rate was amomg Cuban women, at 4.55/1000. http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKN0235798620070502

"IMR for whites is 5.9/1000, vs. 13.9/1000 for American Blacks, and 9.1/1000 for American Indians. this must give you pause"

Here is another article indicating that culture, not biology, is responsible: http://www.physorg.com/news105091598.html

I ask again, how do you propose we change the culture?

I think I see part of the problem here.

The government should NOT be in the business of "fixing" things. We have a lower life expectancy? So what? It isn't the governments job to "fix" it. We have higher infant mortality? So what? It isn't the governments job to "fix" it.

The governments job is to assure the freedom of people to do what is right, and suppress what is wrong. The boundaries of what is okay for the government to do is spelled out explicitly in the constitution.

Why should the government get involved in my life requiring that I wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle, eating fatty foods? It shouldn't.

Stating that there is "no excuse" for the United States having the worst infant mortality among developed nations implies the government should have done something about it. I disagree. Unless that rate occurs because of laws that are broken or things explicitly within the governments charter, then it is wrong to insist the government do something about it.

I'd rather have options than have no freedom. Give me liberty -- I would rather have that than safety. If the government "does something" it takes away liberty.

stay puft said:

you think I can't read? is your memory really that bad, old man? all this started when you said that IMR in the UK is lower Because the UK has fewer minorities:

"The UK has the same problems with infant mortality that we have in the United States... However, we have a larger minority population."

and

"The point, puffalump, is that the state-run medical system is NOT the reason for the low infant mortality in the UK -- their lack of minorities is. Are you really that daft?"


but if you want to talk about PERCENTAGES OF MINORITIES now, fine: we've established that african americans have a higher IMR. What you're saying is that if there were more african americans in the UK, the UK's IMR would be higher; if we took the group in this country with the highest IMR and stuck them in the UK, the overall IMR in the UK would go up. d-d-d-duh... That doesn't get us anywhere.

"1) There is no evidence that socialized medicine will achieve that goal."

there is NO evidence? come on Jack. of course this is wrong.

(2) How does improved health of Montana residents help the people of New York?

(see below)

(3) Why is the federal government better able to deal with the problem than the state governments?

economies of scale, look at the VA system's ability to cut costs and provide good service.

(4) Experimentation in the several states will probably yield better comparisons to find out what works and what does not.

maybe so, but the states working together could take better advantage of economies of scale and monopsony power in purchasing stuff.

"If you want the STATES to do it, I will have no argument with you"

It would work best for the states to do it in unison. If only there was some sort of over-arching, trans-state organization that the states could send representatives to in order to unite behind a common purpose. hmmm...

this is access to medical. medicine would help, but it wouldn't fix everything. part of it IS culture, part of it is poor housing, poor environmental conditions (asthma rates in Detroit are well above the state average), unhealthy diet, (you often can't get fresh produce from a grocery store in Detroit, but you can always get a big mac.)

off the top of my head, I think the health & human services spends around 95% of their budget on medical care, and 5% on these other community development programs. allowing the urban poor to access health care w/out going into debt to pay for a broken hand or the night their kid had to spend in the hospital would help.

of course, it's been shown that reducing the number of guns in inner cities reduces murder rates. That wouldn't hurt. One way to reduce the number of guns would be with a 200% sales tax on handguns, with the money going to fund community development projects, and on policy efforts to reclaim stolen/illegal guns. an increase in price would decrease demand. fewer guns purchased = fewer guns out there to be stolen, etc. if you think you need an instrument of death in your pocket, fine. but you should be held accountable if it gets stolen. When a gun is stolen, the community instantly becomes a more dangerous place in a way that it does not if a car or a dvd player is stolen. When you buy a car you have to purchase insurance. There's a tax on cigarettes... When you buy a gun you're putting society at risk, you should bear some of the burden. You don't want that responsibility? don't buy a gun.

stay puft said:

brian,

the government should not take away anyone's freedom. You don't have to take away freedom in order to fund a project to give people access to healthier food options or to spread information about what constitutes a healthy diet. it's +access, +information, not -freedom. I don't agree with helmet laws, but I do think you'd be stupid not to wear one -- but that's your prerogative as far as I'm concerned.

jacob said:

Marshmallow,
But you do take away freedom when you regulate. There does come a tipping point when you have removed all personal responsibility from the activity. At that point you also have no freedom. Once the freedom is gone it is not easy to get back. Getting people used to not thinking makes them easier to rule. You want this?

Jack said:

>> 1) There is no evidence that socialized medicine will achieve that goal."

>there is NO evidence? come on Jack. of course this is wrong.

Then show me the evidence already!

>>(3) Why is the federal government better able to deal with the problem than the state governments?

>economies of scale, look at the VA system's ability to cut costs and provide good service.

Right. That's why Walter Reed is so exemplary. That's why my parents paid out-of-pocket to take their children to civilian doctors instead of Navy doctors.

>> 4) Experimentation in the several states will probably yield better comparisons to find out what works and what does not.

> maybe so, but the states working together could take better advantage of economies of scale and monopsony (sic) power in purchasing stuff.

Right -- that's why the Pentagon gets such good deals on toilet seats and hammers.

Now there you go ranting about guns again. First of all, neither homicide or suicide are among the top ten leading causes of death: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/vital_statistics/deaths/ (Table 111)

If a person's car is stolen and used in a crime, the victim of the theft is not held responsible, nor does his insurance have to pay. Since cars are a much greater danger to society, with 42,884 deaths in 2003 http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm, should we not ban cars and make everyone take public transportation? You think everyone should be dependent upon the government for protection, why not for transportation, too?

We also see that guns can DETER crimes also: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html We have seen crime rates drop significantly in states that adopted concealed-carry laws. Florida was a classic example, but there are many others: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3574822.html In fact, crimes against tourists in Florida rose while crimes against citizens declined -- tourists were not allowed to carry.

We read there that "Lott and Mustard estimated that if all states that did not have concealed carry laws in 1992 adopted such laws, there would be approximately 1,800 fewer murders and 3,000 fewer rapes annually."

Back to socialized medicine, we see that the U.K. has the same problems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4850986.stm Is it any surprise that Birmingham has the second highest percentage of minority residents outside of London? http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=26205&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=11333

stay Puft said:

Jacob,

"But you do take away freedom when you regulate. There does come a tipping point when you have removed all personal responsibility from the activity."

I don't want to regulate anything. I haven't even used the word...

Jack,

"Then show me the evidence already!"

no, this is a good opportunity for you to practice doing some honest research on your own. You don't have to agree with the evidence, but claiming that there is none is absurd. You think that every country in the developed world has implemented some form of socialized medicine without the slightest shred of evidence???

"That's why Walter Reed is so exemplary. That's why my parents paid out-of-pocket to take their children to civilian doctors instead of Navy doctors."

right, they had some problems, so the whole concept is bunk. By that logic, 9/11 has shown us that we should never build sky scrapers. If your parents were anything like you, they probably opted to pay out of pocket on principle alone, and no one tried to stop them, did they?

A gun is an instrument of death. It's specifically designed to kill people. That seems to put guns in a different category than cars.

"Birmingham has the second highest percentage of minority residents outside of London"

not sure, but it doesn't look like they controlled for income in that article. besides, I thought we were talking about PERCENTAGES OF MINORITIES. ...or can't you read?

stay Puft marshmallow Man said:

"monopsony (sic)"

how do You spell it? Don't tell me you can't read OR write!

Jack said:

I have done the research, puffalump, and it shows NO connection between socializing the medical system and improved health of the citizens. We have already seen that countries with socialized medicine have the same issues with minority health that we have.

YOU are the one proposing socialized medicine, YOU need to be the one to defend the proposal. Go for it.

"A gun is an instrument of death. It's specifically designed to kill people. That seems to put guns in a different category than cars."

So what? Automobile ownership is not protected by the Constitution, and it is a much greater threat to society. Furthermore, you ignore the studies that indicate that CCW laws REDUCE the rates of murder, rape, etc. Why?

"it doesn't look like they controlled for income in that article"

What of it? It's socialized medicine, right? Doesn't everyone get the same care?

Anyway, the article I cited earlier, http://uk.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUKN0235798620070502 , indicates that income may not be such a factor. Hispanics have lower income than non-Hispanic Whites, but their infant mortality rates are LOWER. The LOWEST infant mortality rate was among Cuban women, at 4.55/1000. They're really rich, aren't they?

I have added "monopsony" to the Google Toolbar. Thanks.

ACTivist said:

"A gun is an instrument of death. It's specifically designed to kill people. That seems to put guns in a different category than cars."

That statement was a lie when you stated it, puft. It is a tool with many purposes and some designs have been made specifically for killing people. ANY tool can be designed that way. Knives, bats, arrows, atomizers, etc. Cars and drugs don't mix. Cars and alcohol don't mix. Your opinion and the Constitution don't mix. You just don't like guns because you don't know anything about them. Admit it.

Sanity said:

ACTivist,

Let me rephrase for stay puft: "a HANDgun is an instrument of death. It's specifically designed to kill people."

I know you'll argue, but then you're just being contrary and your usual whacked out self. Yes, yes, I know that you can use a handgun for other things, like killing a wild dog or a mean bear or something, but they are DESIGNED to kill people. That's why they're made. That's what they're for.

The most important spec's are firepower and stopping power. Accuracy is almsot secondary.

Rifles are a different story, but there's no question about the purpose of handguns.

Cars (or any other automotive vehicle for that matter) are designed to move something from point a to point b. Very different.

Making cars less lethal is something, I think, everyone can agree is a good thing. But making handguns less lethal? That's not the direction most of you whackjobs want to go. Y'all want to make them MORE lethal. "Heh, heh, one shot and I'll leave an exit wound the size of a basketball."

The fact that you don't agree wtih stay puft about gun control (or "anti-gun rights" as some of you like to put it) doesn't mean you should be a dickhead and be so picky.

BTW: Since when were you on the Supreme Court to decide what the 2nd amendment means? Look at any reputable law site and you'll see that there's a strong consensus that the Supreme Court has never ruled even half definitively on your right to bear arms. Yes, you can find sites on both sides that are sure they know, but not ones catering to lawyers.

stay puft monopsony man said:

Jack,

income matters even in countries with social med. because as I've said med. isn't going to solve all the problems. I know you agree because you point to culture.

there's a relation between low income, poor eating habits, housing, working conditions, higher rates of smoking, drug use, you name it. It's not as if the only factor is "how much medical attention can people afford to buy?"

Although access to med. care does help, and being able to access such care w/out accruing 10 years worth of debt in a matter of hours is going to benefit the poor. There are disparities in all countries. Even Japan, which has one of the longest life expectancies, has some disparities between wealthy/urban and poor/rural populations. Public health programs can reduce these. We can see that in the fact that the UK does have disparities between different groups, those differences are no where near as drastic as they are in the US.

I've read some stuff about hispanic IMR that suggests it has to do with support networks. In traditional hispanic households, where several generations life together, mothers have constant assistance, the grandma can watch the kid while the mother works, etc. Interestingly, IMR among hispanics who identify as culturally American (ie, they life in single family houses, etc.) the IMR is higher than for hispanics who identify with their traditional culture (Cuban, for instance) If I find the article I'll post it. It's good stuff

ACT,

"You just don't like guns because you don't know anything about them. Admit it."

no, I'm not a gun nut because I'm perfectly comfortable with my manhood, thanks

ACTivist said:

Sanity?
Name-calling. I see how much you want to discuss.
Anyway, the 2nd Amendment goes back to the founding fathers steeped in documentation as to what it meant as written. Having you do research and then being able to reach a logical solution is just fantasy on my part. And you are thinking about the courts having to decide the TRUE meaning of the amendment which is really not in doubt. If it were, it would have been contested long before THIS century.
I don't think that Puft would take kindly to you answering for him. I believe he makes a much better argument and you speaking on behalf of him just brings any credibility he has and dumps it in the crapper....from my point of view. Let's hope you're not twins, brothers or anything distantly associated with one another!

Sanity said:

If you weren't so much of a a**hole and saying unfounded, mean, nasty things about me, I might not have to call you names.

I can't stand up for Puft, but you obviously can? Well kiss my grits.

I think I've quoted about 20 times as many sources as you have in the last two weeks, so I'm the nutball? Go crawl back under your rock and evolve (assuming you believe in that kind of stuff).

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about with the 2nd amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/ quotes "...there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects." It's a site for legal professionals.

How 'bout this: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html It says "Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm? Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, 'Yes.'"

I'd add many more, but I don't want to get caught in the SPAM filter.

Sure, I can find sites like "www.gogunsgokillkillkill.com" that agree with you, but they're simply not credible. The fact is that the Supreme Court has never ruled on the 2nd amendment while the majority of states that have taken up the issue disagree with you.

Sanity said:

Read that: "...ruled definitively on the 2nd amendment." Obviously, it's been cited in some cases, but they've never resolved the state/person question.

Jack said:

"income matters even in countries with social med. because as I've said med. isn't going to solve all the problems. I know you agree because you point to culture."

I don't understand. If the medical care is free, and food is widely available (the major health problem of our poor is obesity!), then I do not see a link between income and IMR in a country with socialized medicine. Again, I point to culture. As I have mentioned, and will show more data shortly, the Hispanics have lower IMRs than non-Hispanic Whites. The Cubans are the lowest of all. Why? Well, the Blacks eat fat-back sandwiches and the Hispanics each papusas. The Black obesity rate is 67.9%, the Hispanic rate is 59.6%, and the White rate is 57.8%: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparebar.jsp?ind=91&cat=2

We also see that, for the same income and education levels, Blacks still have higher IMRs than Whites: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0906/is_15_51/ai_86035135/pg_2 As you will also note in that report, we ARE trying to do something about it.

"We can see that in the fact that the UK does have disparities between different groups, those differences are no where near as drastic as they are in the US."

Puffalump -- I have had a difficult time finding IMRs by race for the U.K. If you can find them, please post the link. Here is what I have, and even it says, "The only available data regarding ethnic differences in rates of infant mortality is from the register of infant deaths in England and Wales (Office of National Statistics). The register only provides breakdowns of rates of infant deaths by mother’s country of birth, which is not a certain indicator of ethnic group." http://www.cre.gov.uk/duty/reia/statistics_health.html

Still, the variations are large, a factor of 2.0, between the highest and lowest groups.

In the U.S., we do not distinguish by country of birth, but by race. The difference is a factor of 2.4. Again, we're in the ballpark, and the earlier indicates that "Racial segregation is an important macrolevel predictor of greater black-white infant mortality differences in 38 U.S. metropolitan statistical areas, independent of differences in median income." Essentially, we have the reinforcement of the culture of poor health habits when that culture is less integrated.

"Interestingly, IMR among Hispanics who identify as culturally American (ie, they life in single family houses, etc.) the IMR is higher than for Hispanics who identify with their traditional culture"

I look forward to seeing the article. It is not surprising, though. Culture, culture, culture.


"I'm not a gun nut because I'm perfectly comfortable with my manhood, thanks"

I'm glad you have your manhood firmly in hand. ;-)

ACTivist said:

Sanity?
You are who you are.

First, read william Blackstone's Commentaries.

When finished read St. George Tucker's American Blackstone Commentaries.

These are the definitive sources that the Supreme Court uses when they are in doubt as to the true meaning of the Constitution and its amendments.

I would have made it easy for you but the links are way too numerous and you may ahve to go to the library for some.

When you are done, if you have anything left unanswered about the second amendment, I start another thread and we can discuss it.

I've been called a**hole before. It's just a name. Can you site the mean, nasty, unfounded (?) things that I said that don't pertain?

Sanity said:

Well, this one especially pissed me off:

"I'm sorry your thread got messed up but it is like you, me and everyone else has been saying about this guy. Not only is he always wrong, he is so whacked he can't keep track as to what thread needs his comments."

Sure blogs allow more sniping than would happen F2F, but as a high percentage, it gets old. Especially saying "He's always wrong." At least I don't just say "You repubs are all jerks and are going to get creamed this fall. HAHAHAHAHAH."

I agree that when someone says something like "commander and chief" they should be called a moron. I'm ok with that.

As for your references, perhaps the Supreme Court will use 18th century British law as their basis on the 2nd amendment, but these facts remain:
1. The Supreme Court has never ruled definitively on the 2nd Amendment.
2. They've had opportunites in the past and not taken them.
3. More state courts have said that the 2nd Amendment refers more to the first clause than the second clause.

Perhaps you're right and when the Supreme Court rules on it they will agree with you. But until then, you're arguing for a right that does not definitively exist.

stay puft said:

Jack, for starters, low income correlates with poor diet, hence the obesity. Poor have access to food, but a larger proportion of their diets is high carb low nutrient crap, because it's cheap (...because we subsidize corn, but that's a bit off topic.) I'll find some online articles I can link to later. for now let me just say,

You repubs are all jerks and are going to get creamed this fall. HAHAHAHAHAH.

jack said:

Sanity,

(1) How many times has the S.C. ruled "definitevely" on the 1st Amendment? But we're still arguing about it. Somehow, it covers pornography, but it does not cover political ads during the last weeks of a campaign. It seems that right does not "definitively exist," either.

(2) If you go read the Miller decision, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174 , you will see that the Supremes overruled the lower court because: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

(Of course, such weapons WERE used, especially in the trench warfare of WWI, but such evidence was not presented to the court.)

In any event, their decision was based on the weapon type, not on Miller's membership or non-membership in a militia.

(3) Why would one clause matter more than another? They go together. If the states can prohibit possession of military firearms, they will impair the United States' ability to raise a militia, and if the United States can prohibit possession of military weapons, it will impair the states' ability to raise a militia.

---------------------

"But until then, you're arguing for a right that does not definitively exist."

Rights are not granted by the constitution, only protected. The phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is not, "the people will have the right to keep and bear arms." The right pre-existed the constitution.

Furthermore, even if the Second Amendment does not specifically protect that right, I would argue that we do have the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property. Do you disagree?

How do you propose that my 67-year-old widowed mother protect herself from a band of thugs that break into her house? "What are we supposed to use, harsh language?"

Just as the "right to privacy" is nowhere explicitly protected by the Constitution, our right to self protection is not specifically protected. That is why we have the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Jack said:

"Jack, for starters, low income correlates with poor diet, hence the obesity."

Go back to the obesity data. The Hispanics have a higher obesity rate than the Blacks do, but a lower IMR.

"Poor have access to food, but a larger proportion of their diets is high carb low nutrient crap, because it's cheap (...because we subsidize corn, but that's a bit off topic.)"

It's poor choices. Going back to the National Review article I cited in "They're Poor Because They Don't Have Enough Money":

"As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg

We also artificially inflate the price of sugar. So the sweeteners for juice and soda is corn syrup, which has more calories. (Why would ANYONE buy juice with corn syrup anyway? Why would anyone buy apple sauce with corn syrup? Poor choices.)

You still haven't answered the critical question, puffalump, so I will repeat it, with context:

Between Welfare, Medicaid, and SCHIP, we have about $400B, and 33,066k "poor" under the age of 65. That's about $12,100 per person, or $48,400 for a family of four. That does NOT include spending by the States.

That's slightly higher than the median household income.

In 1956, defense was 57% of our budget, now, INCLUDING the war, defense is 19% of the budget. Transfer payments have gone from 21% to 59%.

How much more do you want?

ACTivist said:

Sanity?
Jack said "ACTivist,
inSanity had tried to comment in the correct thread, but it got caught in the filter, probably for having too many links. I have deleted his comments here, and published the one in the September 11th thread."

And I said,"Jack,
Don't know about filters and Sanity? has my apology for the "wrong thread" statement. The always wrong and whacked statement stands!"
That's my opinion and I will admit that you are having better conversations as of late.

I will not reiterate or add to Jack's post of 12:12pm. It says enough.

Puft, "I don't think that Sanity? would take kindly to you answering for him. I believe he makes a much better argument and you speaking on behalf of him just brings any credibility he has and dumps it in the crapper....from my point of view. Let's hope you're not twins, brothers or anything distantly associated with one another!"

Down with lib/lefties!

ACTivist said:

:)

Sanity said:

Jack, ACT,

You can argue all you want about what you think the 2nd amendment means (I notice, Jack, that you conveniently left off the first clause of the amendment), or how important you think it is, or how your poor 67 year old grandmother has to have a gun.

That's all fine. But when ACT (and others) claim that this right is protected in the constitution, the answer is that the Supremes have never said that. You are making an assumption not yet validated by the courts.

I can say what the 1st amendment means only through the decisions of the courts. Just as well, you can only say what the 2nd amendment means through the decisions of the courts. And, so far, the Supreme Court has not ruled that the second clause of the 2nd amendment is more important than the first clause.

Until they do, it's just as valid to say that the States' National Guard units are satisfying our rights as it is to say that your grandmother can have a handgun.

In fact, more state courts have ruled in favor of the guard units (state "militia") than have ruled in favor of indivduals.

Whether you agree or not, or whether you like it or not isn't the issue. It's simply something that's in dispute by reasonable people and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled.

To say otherwise is disingenuous.

Jack said:

"I notice, Jack, that you conveniently left off the first clause of the amendment"

Not at all -- I addressed the militia issue in my discussion of the Miller decision. I left it off in that context, because I was emphasizing that the "right... shall not be infringed." That was written BEFORE the Amendment was passed, therefore, the writers acknowledges existence of that right, and that they felt that it needed explicit protection.

"Until they do, it's just as valid to say that the States' National Guard units are satisfying our rights as it is to say that your grandmother can have a handgun."

That's just plain ignorant.
Allow me to quote U.S. Code, TITLE 10 Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Sec. 311:

"Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

OK? That US LAW.

I notice you have not answered the question about the right to self defense? Do we have that right, or do we not? Admitting we have that right, but to deny people the means to exercise that right is akin to saying that we have freedom of the press, but no-one is allowed to own a press.

Sanity said:

Jack said: "Not at all -- I addressed the militia issue in my discussion of the Miller decision"

Well, I'm glad you're smarter than all the legal scholars out there that disagree with you. Sounds to me like you're arguing your point and not whether the Supreme Court has decided the matter. I'm trying my best not to argue with you about gun rights or gun control, just that you should not be speaking for the Supreme Court when they haven't actually ruled on something. Better for you to say "I hope the DC gun case goes before the Court and that Kennedy agrees with me." That's really what it comes down to.

Jack said: "I notice you have not answered the question about the right to self defense? Do we have that right, or do we not? Admitting we have that right, but to deny people the means to exercise that right is akin to saying that we have freedom of the press, but no-one is allowed to own a press."

This is an irrelevant question. (a) It's certainly not in the Constitution, and (b) even if it was, it's not absolute. If I agree with you, there's still the question of what weapons constitute reasonable self defense. Knives? Colt 45's? Uzi's? Bazooka's?

There will still be discussions on what should be allowed as it is primarily for self defense and what should be disallowed as it is more likely to be a weapon of crime.

(Note, these are rhetorical questions for thought, not for responding to individually):

Do night goggles fall under the 2nd amendment? How about switchblades? How large can a clip be before it can be disallowed? If no limit, than obviously it's ok to have a self-defense weapon that can kill many people? Uzi's? Can I spray sarin at my attackers? If I'm pretty sure that someone is going to attack me at some future point, can I launch a pre-emptive strike?

Is there any reason why the government can't know who has guns? Should they be registered? If so, what are the requirements? The 2nd amendment doesn't say "except idiots"?

Are some of these questions foolish? Of course. But the point is, that no right is absolute, there are always degrees. The two questions still remain and have NOT been decided by the Supreme Court:
1. Does the 2nd Amendment allow individuals (as individuals) to bear arms, or does the individual bearing arms need to be part of a state-organized militia?
2. In either case, what degree and type of "arms" are allowed?

You may want the answers to be one thing or the other, and I'm not going to be re-baited into discussing what I think the answers should be. Those two questions, though, still remain open.

Jack said:

The right to self-defense is NOT an irrelevant issue. If we have that right, then denying the means of exercising that right is the same as denying that right.

Furthermore, as I said (damn I'm tired of repeating myself -- I wish you'd just address the issues the first time), the 9th Amendment says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Just because a right is not mentioned in the Constitution does not mean we do not have that right.

One of those rights is the right to privacy. If another is the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property, then the means to do so cannot be taken away. The SC might as well have said, in Roe, "You have a right to an abortion, but not to the means of getting one, so you can have an abortion, but no-one is allowed to perform one on you."

So, I put the question to you again, "Do we have the right to defend ourselves, our families, and our property?"

I'll answer some of your rhetorical questions with rhetorical questions:

"Do night goggles fall under the 2nd amendment?"

How many people have been killed by night goggles?

"How about switchblades?"

Are they military weapons?

"How large can a clip be before it can be disallowed? If no limit, than obviously it's ok to have a self-defense weapon that can kill many people? Uzi's?"

Has no-one ever been attacked by a gang? (BTW, and Uzi is just an Israeli-made 9mm pistol. It's nothing special.)

"Can I spray sarin at my attackers?"

Do individual soldiers have sarin in spray bottles?

"If I'm pretty sure that someone is going to attack me at some future point, can I launch a pre-emptive strike?"

Why can't you just call the police?

The following need more detailed answers:

"Is there any reason why the government can't know who has guns? Should they be registered?"

YES to the first and NO to the second. Registration leads to confiscation. This happened in Nazi Germany, in England, in Australia, in New York, and in California.

"The 2nd amendment doesn't say 'except idiots.'"

Indeed not, but those who have been adjudicated to be incompetent cannot vote, either.

Sanity said:

Again, you're arguing your positions and not whether they have been decided. I will repeat myself for the last time:

ACT said that he (and others) had the right to bear arms (as individuals).

I said that that had not been decided yet. I stand by that. That's the question.

Why the self-defense question is irrelevant:

I never said you don't have the right to self defense. You do. That's been decided. So what? It still has nothing to do with whether you have the individual right to have an Uzi. The courts could well determine that you have the right to punch the guys lights out but not shoot him. You may say "well that's not enough". Well, if a group of attackers have equipment more powerful than an Uzi than an Uzi isn't enough. What's the limit?

You seem to imply that any military equipment is ok for individuals to own. You, I would guess, have this opinion from the 1939 Supreme Court case. Not one of the websites that agree with you I deemed credible. They were all "axe to grind" websites. I also dismiss the websites that say that the 1939 case "obviously" means that you don't have the right to own a gun. Every one of the websites that I reviewed that appeared educational all agree that the meaning of the 2nd amendment has not been decided.

As far as registering guns, that has not been decided either. Again, you are arguing your opinion and not the law.

And, for the last time, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the question. If it was so damn obvious, the U.S. Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts would have all ruled on it by now. They haven't. There are still those two open questions I stated above. And nothing you opine will decide them.

Jack said:

"I never said you don't have the right to self defense. You do. That's been decided. So what?"

So the means of self-defense cannot be taken away, because doing so is tantamount to taking the right way.

"It still has nothing to do with whether you have the individual right to have an Uzi."

An Uzi is just a type of 9mm pistol. Get over it.

"The courts could well determine that you have the right to punch the guys lights out but not shoot him."

Please give me a list of weapons that my 67-year-old mother can use against a group of thugs that break into her house. (Answer not from a legal perspective, but from a practical one.) My mother must have the means to exercise her right, or you are taking that right from her.

"You may say 'well that's not enough'. Well, if a group of attackers have equipment more powerful than an Uzi than an Uzi isn't enough. What's the limit?"

Why should there be a limit?

"As far as registering guns, that has not been decided either. Again, you are arguing your opinion and not the law."

I did neither. I argued the facts. The facts are that registration ended in confiscation under the socialist lawmakers of Nazi Germany, England, Australia, New York, and California.

"And, for the last time, it doesn't matter what you or I think about the question. If it was so damn obvious, the U.S. Supreme Court and the state Supreme Courts would have all ruled on it by now. They haven't. There are still those two open questions I stated above. And nothing you opine will decide them."

Then why do you continue to argue about it? (And how do you know that none of the Supremes reads our blog?)

Sanity said:

If you go too far to the right, do you fall off the edge of the earth?

Just wondering. I've never been there. I try to stay on safe group near the middle.

Sanity said:

Oops. I meant "ground". Spell checker was worthless. Let's repeat:

If you go too far to the right, do you fall off the edge of the earth?

Just wondering. I've never been there. I try to stay on safe ground near the middle.

Jack said:

That explains a lot -- you still think the earth is flat, socialism is good for the people, and gun control reduces crime.

ACTivist said:

Didn't they also confiscate the weapons as a first thing when the Russians and Cubans parachuted into Wyoming in the movie "Red Dawn"? The Hollywood types are whack for the most part but they had the where-withall to put that in the story. Wonder why? That's what happens with gun registration.

I see that you are just as inept about guns ("clip" vs magazine, "uzi" vs M2 50cal) as you are about the 2nd amendment. The British ALREADY had restricted laws about gun ownership in England and that is exactly WHY "...the rights of the people shall not be infringed."

You seem so unwilling to take things as they are meant....face value. The lib/left needs those justices because they are always wanting to go to court. That is why the Dems try to stack the deck with radicals and get all "up in arms" (pun intended) over constitutionalists. If/when it goes before the SC you will have your answer. It will be no different then you get here or when the 2nd amendment was inacted. It will just put alot of the left out of business.

I fear you can't trust others only because you can't trust yourself. Why fear sane, responsible people, Sanity?

stay puft said:

"Why would ANYONE buy juice with corn syrup anyway? Why would anyone buy apple sauce with corn syrup? Poor choices"

poor choices; why are people making poor choices? are these informed decisions? lack of information, lack of access to better food sources, better food costs more money, all this contributes to lower health in poor communities. Anything w/ corn syrup is cheaper than a healthier version (in part because of corn subsidizes).

in Detroit you often can't buy fresh produce unless you go to the produce market, hours something like 4:00am-8:00am, or you drive 30-40 minutes to a suburban supermarket.

yeah you can say that people ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps or whatever, but the bottom line is that when you have large groups of low-income people who often aren't well-informed about these sorts of things, you're going to have higher rates of illness in those groups.

higher IMR and obesity rates are two examples; even though they aren't necessarily going to go hand in hand all the time...

I'm not saying we should spend more. In fact, a national system for everyone could reduce overall spending on health (gov. + private) by taking advantage of economies of scale and monopsony power. Also, spending on preventative things, like informing people who buy corn syrup apple sauce that it's elevating their risk of a number of health problems, screening for diabetes, all of that is more probably more cost-effective than purely medical solutions.

...but there's all sorts of things that contribute to the insane amount of money we spend on health. Do I think that a higher % of our gdp should go to this? no.

Jack said:

Well, puffalump, what about those Detroit public schools that are spending so much money (more than any Virginia system)? Why aren't they teaching these things?

The next time I am in the grocery store I will get some prices for you, but I do not recall that pure juices cost more than those with corn syrup, or that pure apple sauce costs more than apple sauce with corn syrup, or that unsalted peanuts cost more than salted ones, or that real hot-dogs cost more than those with corn syrup.

(Even if my assumptions are correct, I cannot say that this will be the case in inner-city stores, so the exercise may not be worth much.)

Oddly enough, getting the poor educated in these matters, driving up demand, may end up REDUCING the prices. As demand goes up, more stores will buy more of the in-demand products. When they do, those "economies of scale" that you like will come into play. What a store can buy at $1.00 per pound for 100 pounds, it can often purchase for $0.90 per pound for 1000 pounds. The prices get even better if the trucks are delivering to many stores in the area.

We do have some nurses in the school system, and they help screen the children for ear and eye problems. Could they also do blood-pressure and diabetes screening for the parents?

Just a thought...

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM