Insult to Injury

Talking Point: Records of E-Mails and IMs Are Only Circumstantial Evidence

2006-10-06T13:22:00.000-07:00

We shouldn't go jumping to conclusions just because a former Congressional page was able to produce "records" with "IP addresses" and "time stamps" and Foley "confessed." Sure "fellow Repulicans" said Hastert "knew" about "2 years ago." Sure, Congressional pages were told simply to "watch out for Foley" as early as 2001. But when the speaker of the house tells me that he only knew about the relatively innocent, "overly-friendly" e-mails between a gay Congressman and 17 year old boys, I'm inclined to believe him. Why would he lie?

If anything, Hastert should hang for standing up for a Democrat's "Constitutional" rights. Not for using $207,000,000 in taxpayer money to increase the value of his real estate holdings.

Somebody Gets It!

2006-10-06T11:50:00.000-07:00

This is indeed a slippery slope! If we let a NY prison guard wear a Muslim hat while at work, it's only a matter of time before the liberal-packed Supreme Court issues a fatwa requiring all our soldiers to wear turbans and baggy Aladin pants with those silly curved slippers!

Next they'll outlaw the cross and the ten commandments, and after that we'll all have to worship Allah under threat of execution! This is a culture war people, and the courts are on the other side! Onward Christian soldiers! A Muslim is trying to wear a hat at work!

Of more immediate concern, if we were to permit this Muslim to wear his special hat, that would totally interfere with his work. For example, it could get in the way of him sticking his head between bars to see what's going on inside cells. Or it could cause jealously among the other guards.

Worse though, is that it will lead to all the other guards wanting to wear all sorts of crazy symbols of "religious expression" like crosses, yamulkes, and temple garment underwear, which totally undermine the entire purpose of a uniform. The prison system would be in total chaos!

The government should never have to make reasonable accomodation for religious expression in the workplace - only ACLU fags are for that. Instead, we should purge the government of those who attempt to express their religion, especially if it's one we don't like.

REPUBLICANS DID NOT PROTECT FOLEY, ONLY THEMSELVES!

2006-10-06T10:56:00.000-07:00

Of course the Republican house leaders weren't protecting that homo, Foley, they were protecting themselves! Now, you may ask yourself, why didn't they go forward right away?

I think the answer is pretty clear: Being good Republicans, they are also good businessmen, and once Foley donated $100,000 to the NRCC (right about the time Hastert knew), I bet the other house Republicans realized that this was a cash cow they could milk forever. That's why Tom Reynolds encouraged Foley to run for reelection, even after he knew.

So if the silence-for-money exchange blew up in their faces, we really ought to look at it as an isolated instance of bad business judgment, rather than a character problem. After all, it was only a few friendly messages:

"Take your dick out and measure it for me."
"Take your boxers off."
"Do I make you kind of horny?"

Foleygate

2006-10-05T23:16:00.000-07:00

What distinguishes Foley from the average self-hating Republican homosexual was that he specifically sublimated his repression into a neurotic fixation on man-on-boy cybersex, an obsession that he carried into both his private and personal lives (with obvious contradictions).

However, Foley is not of real concern to me. Mass marketing aside, this sex scandal is not about sex, it's about corruption. Specifically how several members of the house Republican leadership knew about the scandal and let it ride after Foley contributed an astonishing $100K to the NRCC. It's really telling that the price for an open-season license on underage teenagers is so low in Congressional circles.

The vituperative back-stabbing and blaming amongst house Republicans is the inevitable result of several people being caught doing something they either know to be wrong or at the very least politically radioactive. Their reactions have varied, but some of the more amusing strategies have been:

1. Conflating homosexuality with a hyperactive sex drive.
2. Downplaying the scandal as politically timed.
3. Downplaying the scandal as homophobic!
4. Victim blaming.
5. Defending the conduct as non-criminal.

For the first time, I am entertaining hopes that the Republican rank and file will be disillusioned enough with the party elites to at least withhold their votes this year.

Of course, I doubt it. Fantasism knows no bounds.

2006-07-13T17:24:00.000-07:00

Apparently the Bush administration has decided to create a new court system for dealing with suspected terrorists.

National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones:

"What seems to have developed this week is a lot of people are agreeing with the president that a straight UCMJ approach is incompatible with the war on terror and that we need to work together to craft a system that works. We have been having many discussions with members of Congress as we work through these issues."

I wonder what they mean by "works"?

Plame to sue Cheney

2006-07-13T16:28:00.001-07:00

Former CIA WMD agent Valerie Plame has resorted to suing Dick Cheney, Karly Rove, and Scooter Libby for blowing her cover, while "Special" Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald continues to move at a glacial pace.

When the Whitehouse is accused of outing undercover agents for political retaliation, the Department of Justice likes to take its time - but God help you if you're involved in a real estate deal that goes bust.

Iraq Body Count: 38,000+
BJ Related Fatalities: 3

Who won the WAR? (Long)

2006-07-13T13:23:00.001-07:00

Kender McGowan of Kender's Musings had this to say about the launch of his online radio station, Wide Awakes Radio:

We have some of the top independent (not MSM related) political bloggers from the Right Side of the Aisle to tell you all about True Conservative Values, what the hell is wrong with the country and how to fix it, and why, if you don't agree with us, you are most likely an idiot.

As a side note this certainly doesn't mean that we will agree on everything with each other. We are Conservatives, which means we THINK about the issues, apply LOGIC and REASONING, and look at the world with a COMMON SENSE VIEW that precludes being a wishy washy dumbass that relies on FEELINGS to form their worldview.

The choice cut: "...if you don't agree with us, you are most likely an idiot. As a side note this certainly doesn't mean that we will agree on everything with each other." I guess Kender is saying WAR's top conservative bloggers are idiots, at least on issues they all can't agree on. Frankly I think that's being a little over generous.

Unfortunately I could not leave the rest of his rant unchallenged (emphasis mine):

Frankly, I don't want the lefty idiots listening to us. They don't have the balls to debate their views or stances, (as I proved at The Kos Kamp in Vegas), and they talk real big online behind the safety of their screen, but in person, and that includes on the phone, they are cowards that can't back up their shit.

So I won't tone down the rhetoric. Leftys are cowards, plain and simple, and won't listen anyway.

To refute this empty-headed over-generalization I challenged Kender to a debate on the topic of his choosing. Unsurprisingly, he wanted this debate to occur on his radio show, but I convinced him to accept a debate over e-mail. You can judge for yourself who made the stronger argument.

Me:

The reasons I prefer e-mail:

1. Both sides are able to document their sources.

2. Neither side has a clear advantage over how the forum works, e.g., no one has to worry about cutting each other off.

3. Both sides can explore ideas fully, as opposed to speaking in soundbites.

4. Both sides can be explored dispassionately, with truth being valued over heated emotional yelling.

5. The debate records itself and opponents are less able to distort each other's positions.

6. Certain argumentative techniques, while not barred, can be revealed for what they are, e.g., in radio merely insulting an opponent is considered a valid rejoinder while in an actual debate it is not.

You claim an interest in dispassionately arguing the truth using facts, logic and reason. However, I have no reason to believe that you are willing or able to abide by these constraints on your radio program. E-mail evens the playing field and allows for mature, rational thought to prevail. Besides which, you can always just read the dialogue on your show if you really want to fairly give voice to my views.

In case you are wondering, I have no fear of defending my views on your show (or in person, for that matter). However, I believe doing so would be a waste of your time and mine. Let us document our differences and let a written record reflect who has a position supported by truth and logic. As an intellectually honest person, I am open to the possibility that you may be right, and may actually convince me of your views. I hope that you would approach a debate with similiar regard for the truth.

In the meantime, I eagerly await your choice of topic.

-Rhyleh

Kender:

I haven't spent a grip of money, been blessed with the gift of gab and started a radio station to "debate" in email , sweetheart.

Reading an email is not good radio. If you can't handle the live one on one just say so. It's ok.

I understand.

I have never claimed to want to "dispassionately" debate anything.

But to humor you, where do you stand on socialised medicine?

Me:

1. In general, I am for "socialized medicine" if by that you mean a single-payer universal health care system. If your selection of the topic means you accept my e-mail debate challenge, then I would be interested to hear your opposition to such a system. However, don't condescend to "humor" me. If you are confident in your position, interested in arguing the issue, and dedicated to the truth, it's not a question of "humoring" the other side.

2. You did claim to be dispassionate, albeit without using that particular word. You wrote: We are Conservatives, which means we THINK about the issues, apply LOGIC and REASONING, and look at the world with a COMMON SENSE VIEW that precludes being a wishy washy dumbass that relies on FEELINGS to form their worldview. That last part about keeping feelings out of it means dispassionate.

3. Don't call me sweetheart. If you can refrain from doing so, I promise not to do the same to you.

Kender:

No, I dont' want to debate in email. That one question shows that you are at heart a socialist. How are we supposed to pay for that health care system? Why must you people insist on stealing my money to pay the way for others?

And feel free to call me sweetheart, sweetheart.

Me:

Why don't you want to debate the issue? Are you afraid of losing? Are you afraid that losing on one issue might mean you're wrong on several other issues? If you were proven wrong in a fair debate, would you change your mind, or would you choose ideology over truth?

You claimed that being a conservative meant thinking about the issues and using logic and reasoning, not emotions. Your responses on the other hand have shown that you refuse to back up your points with logic and reaon and instead prefer to name call.

As for your points, to the extent that you have any:

1. The US spends the most money per capita on health care than any other country in the world. Our public (i.e., government) spending on health care is only slightly below the G7 average. Meantime, our healthcare system provides the least amount of coverage, coverage is distributed unevenly among different income groups, our infant mortality rate is the highest among developed countries, and our life expectancy is mediocre. By comparison, all the socialized health care systems in the world cost less and provide more coverage, with outcomes that for the most part are superior to the US (i.e., in infant mortality rate, in life expectancy, outpatient care, etc.). Can you please explain to me the benefit of paying more for health care? The facts show that is cheaper for me to buy healthcare using my tax dollars than it is to bargain as an individual with insurance companies that only drive the cost of actual coverage up.

2. You really are jumping to a lot of conclusions when you call me a socialist. Do you even know what socialism is? Or that there are various degrees and grades of socialism? As a general proposition, I support the idea of free markets. However, unlike you, I don't believe that every aspect of life ought to be privatized.

Market systems are inherently based on inequality - which is why I believe a market based system of health care to be immoral. Your system says: If you are poor person, and sustain an injury that is not your fault, you must pay the system if you want society to take an interest in protecting your health; otherwise you can die. Is that a moral or even practical position? It is neither.

By the way, calling me a socialist does not prove a damn thing for your side.

3. It's not "your money." It's money that you obtained by virtue of living in society, using public programs and facilities like currency, roads, schools. Without government you wouldn't have any money at all or any markets to spend it in. Without government you wouldn't be able to protect yourself from those who would merely steal from you for their own benefit. Taxes are a necessary part of living in a society. Besides which, you already pay enough in taxes to cover the estimated expenses of a
single-payer health care system.

It really is up to society to decide whether it is smarter to band together and pay for health care costs as a nation or to go about it as divided individuals with no bargaining power. A universal health care system would provide better coverage at less cost to the average person.

4. Seriously do not call me sweetheart.

Kender:

It is too "my money. A person should be abel to keep the fruits of their labor. Not have it taken away by the government to redistribute to those that don't have the drive or ability to reach the level I can reach.

And a lefty talking about something being "immoral?" How friggin droll.

YOU, and the rest of society, HAVE NO RIGHT to the product of my labor!!!! It is NOT the governments job to provide everything for everyone.

It is the federal governments job to secure the border, keep a military force ready to defend us and our interests (and our economic intererest is just as important and physical well-being) and regulate trade across the borders and settle disputes between states.

But I don't expect you to understand that, as it would take a reading of the Constitution as it is written, not as it has been twisted.

If you really want to discuss these things you can call the show. Your ideas are socialist at their base, SWEETHEART, and will be the downfall of this country.

Me:

You are dissappointing me Kender. You were able to choose the subject of the debate and haven't said a single thing of substance relating to your own topic. Are you afraid of being proven wrong?

If "socialized medicine" is wrong, you should easily be able to prove how. If "socialist ideals" threaten the country, you should explain how. Meantime, consider this - if society has no right to confiscate the fruits of your labor for programs you dissapprove of, why should society have the right to confiscate the fruits of MY labor for programs I dissapprove of? If your principle is taken to its extreme, no one would ever pay any taxes at all and society would descend into anarchy. Are you really saying that no one should pay taxes unless it is specifically for the expenses you mentioned?

By the way, I have read the US Constitution, have you? I would direct your attention to the first sentence of the pre-amble. The word "welfare" is right in the first sentence, after "common defense." Since you are citing Constitutional authority, can you please tell me where in the Constitution does it state that a national health care system would be unconstitutional? Also, did you see that the government claims the authority to levy taxes? The founding fathers apparently did not find this at odds with property rights - I wonder why you do?

Finally, health care is a moral issue. Explain to me how it is moral to let poor people die merely because they cannot afford the coverage they need. Is that a Christian position? Or did Christ speak of tending to the poor and the sick? Does not the Bible say that God spoke will speak unto the nations and tell them, how you treated the least among you, you treated me?

Kender:

"why should society have the right to confiscate the fruits of MY labor for programs I dissapprove of?"

They Don't. What you earn should be yours to keep. As I stated, the governments job is the borders, defense and regulating international trade. The rest should be the states job.

Health care is not a moral issue, it is a business.....moral issues are whether we should let adults have sex with children (no) and whether abortion is bad (yes)...not whether someone should work so much harder than many other people, spending years in school learning their craft, only to give away their skills.

One should earn a living commiserate with their skills and knowledge (don't even get me started on sports figures and actors) and not be forced to give away their labor at a lower cost because "it's more fair" or "it's the moral thing to do."

I still find it entertaining that you are claiming a position of morality on something.

So in essence what you are saying, I guess, is that it is less immoral to steal from me and give it to somebody else than it is to let people suffer the consequences of nature and/or bad choices on their part?

Theft is good, personal responsibility bad.....go it....good position you have taken there, babe. (note I did NOT call you "sweeheart")

Me:

Health care is absolutely a moral issue. Why do you think the Bible includes so many parables about Jesus tending to the sick? Morality doesn't just exist for the convenience of political ideologies. Caring for those who cannot care for themselves, i.e., the poor, the elderly, and the downtrodden, is a question of moral responsibility. The 10 Commandments require that we "Love our neighbor as ourselves." Leaving people to suffer and die merely because you want to avoid the possibility of marginally higher taxes is a morally untennable position under any code of ethics or morality.

As to your repeated implication that Conservatives have a monopoly on morality, let me ask you: What morals guide the conservative ideology? Certainly the 10 Commandments are out the window, as are the teachings of Jesus or any other spiritual leader. Please explain how leaving poor people to die is a moral position.

You state that medicine is merely a business, beyond morality, yet at the same time condemn the health care industry's abortion business on moral grounds. What is the basis for your distinction? In addition, why is it that once an unborn child comes to term you are apparently perfectly comfortable with leaving that child to die on grounds of being unable to pay for services? Could it be because your supposedly moral opposition to abortion requires absolutely no tax expenditures, while public pre-natal care, maternity leave, and other pro-family measures would? A brief aside on abortion: Why hasn't your party done anything about outlawing the practice? Could it be because GOP party leaders don't really care about the issue beyond using it as a means to rally support from their base?

Also, you seemed to miss my point regarding the government taxing me for programs I do not support, so let me spell it out step by step. If the government has no right to tax me (as you assert), then how can it fund any programs (i.e., borders, defense, reulation of trade, etc.)? Under your view, government cannot exist. Incidentally, your view is completely repudiated by the Constitution, which clearly grants the Federal and state governments the power to levy taxes (and broadly regulate interstate commerce). Your view that taxes are "stealing" is completely unfounded.

To reiterate, taxes are the price to pay for living in a society with a functioning government. Taxes are not "stealing." I defy you to explain how spending on borders, defense, and trade regulation aren't equally redistributive as social programs.

Finally, let me add that you are not sticking very closely to your chosen subject. Your arguments are very broad and frankly I find them pretty incoherent.

Kender:

Caring for the downtrodden, elderly and ill is one thing. Health care for all is entirely another.

We simply cannot afford to go with a socialist program of that magnitude. If socialized healthcare was so great, Canadians that need better care owuld stay home, and not come to America for it because the wait is so long. Government healthcare also turns every healthcare worker into a government employess. Mix your doctors
office with the DMV and tell me the service would be better.

Conservatism is based on the greatness of the human spirit, which socialism prohibits. Free will is Jesus' greatest gift to us. That is the ability to guide your own life, make your own choices and live with the consequences or rewards of those choices.

InAmerica one has the abillity to rise to great heights, but the flip side of the freedom to rise to those hieghts must be the ability to fall to the lowest pit. One cannot know honest freedom, and the true greatness of the spirit unless one has the freedom to attain great success and the threat of horrid and dismal failure.

This is what you folks on the left do not understand.

Giving a helping hand up, a temporary one, is fine, but enabling a life long handout is evil. It takes away the drive from the human spirit. If one knows that they can't truly "fail", that abject poverty and a lack of resources is not a possibility, then the drive one has is naturally diminished.

I dont' expect you to understand this concept. No offense, but I have learned that most people on the left really cannot, or will not understand the drive that pushes some people on to great heights, or to even simply attempt to attain these heightseven if they never reach them.

Abortion causes great mental trauma, and I have seen this first hand many, many times. If women wish to have abortions because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions, they should be precluded from publically funded help, especially years later with regards to mental health, as I dont feel that I should be forced to pay for someone else being irresponsible. On that same note, if you are not ready to have a baby and take care of it, protect yourself. Of all of the tings that our goevrnement licenses (try to open any kind of business without a license) teh one thingthey SHOULD train people in is PARENTING!!!

Why should I pay for your mistakes?

I really dont expect you to understand. Frankly I suspct that many people on the left are much lazier than those on the right, and don't mind the idea of working less time for less reward. :et me ask you. Do you feel guilt that our country has more than others? Do you feel that corrupt governments in Africa are owed anything by the U.S.
simply because we have it and they don't?

Listen, if you wish to continue this, feel free to call one of the shows (preferably mine), but I don't expect you to call the show. As for me I have a strem to get back online.

Me:

Thank you. It seems we are now finally beginning to debate. For clarity, I will rebut point by point.

1. You wrote "Caring for the downtrodden, elderly and ill is one thing. Health care for all is entirely another." I agree that these are two different things. Let me put my point in context. I believe that health care for all is a moral imperative. To support this idea I cited the Bible's call to care for the less fortunate. I admit however that a universal health care program takes this concept to the next level by providing health care for all, rather than only to those who are the most vulnerable. I have several reasons for making this jump. First, because it is more practical to assure health care for all, with preventative medicine, rather than have a system that is merely reactive. We can argue this point in more detail if you wish. Second, because illness, weakness, age, and infirmity eventually effects everybody, it only makes sense to have a system that is universal in its scope. Thirdly, I am curious: If you support caring for the downtrodden, elderly, and ill, what are the bounds of your charity? What are your measures for when help becomes harmful?

2. You wrote "We simply cannot afford to go with a socialist program of that magnitude." I already explained in my first e-mail that the US spends more money per capita for health care than any other nation in the world. I also mentioned that our public spending on health care is only slightly less than what other countries spend in total. Meaning, we can afford a public health care system - it would in fact be significantly cheaper! In addition, by distributing the costs of health care across the board, operating costs for US employers would actually decrease, which would in turn make America more economically competitive.

3. "If socialized healthcare was so great, Canadians that need better care owuld stay home, and not come to America for it because the wait is so long." It is undeniable that Canadians frequently have problems seeing specialists and that wait times for major surgeries are sometimes up to several months. However, many lower income Americans face the same problems in the states. Furthermore, in general only wealthy Canadians can afford to go south for additional care. While your point is valid, it does not necessarily follow that the Canadian system as a whole is worse than the American system. For one thing, pharmaceuticals are cheaper - and many Americans cross the border to buy prescription drugs at cheaper Canadian rates. Furthermore, Canada provides coverage to every citizen, the user fees are a small fraction of what Americans pay, and rates of infant mortality, cancer, and obesity are all less than in America. But I am not here to say that Canada is the only model of socialized health care, or even the best system. Canada is not the only socialized health care system in the world. Denmark, Japan, and Sweden have not experienced the same delay of service problems as the Canadian system and in addition all of these systems provide broader coverage than the Canadian system.

3. "Government healthcare also turns every healthcare worker into a government employess." No, a universal health care system does not preclude citizens from electing to purchase additional private health insurance. In fact, the Canadian system permits additional private insurance. In essence, doctors remain private practioners, it's just that their clients are primarily paying with government insurance.

4. "Mix your doctors office with the DMV and tell me the service would be better." Why not just take a look at how existing American governmental medical programs are operating right now? Medicare and Medicaid current have a world renowned overhead cost of just 9% - a rate of financial efficiency unmatched by any private insurance company or any other government health care system. They also have tremendous speed and efficiency in processing claims and delivering reimbursement. Not all government offices are created equal, and social programs will only operate like the DMV if we underfund them like the DMV. BTW, my state's DMV is great.

5. "Conservatism is based on the greatness of the human spirit, which socialism prohibits." Whereas I appreciate your attempt to explain the moral foundation of your views, I would say that it is liberalism that is founded on a deep-seated respect for the greatness of the human spirit. It is at least comforting to know that at heart we are driven by a similar underlying goal, albeit with very different conclusions as to what that means.

6. "Free will is Jesus' greatest gift to us. That is the ability to guide your own life, make your own choices and live with the consequences or rewards of those choices." If our will is truly free, it must be an innate quality and not a gift from an external source. On a broader note, I would ask you: Does free will have any meaning in the absence of truth? If our decisions are not informed by truth, can they be said to be truly free? These questions are not really relevant to our debate, but I consider them interesting nonetheless.

7. You wrote: "InAmerica one has the abillity to rise to great heights, but the flip side of the freedom to rise to those hieghts must be the ability to fall to the lowest pit. One cannot know honest freedom, and the true greatness of the spirit unless one has the freedom to attain great success and the threat of horrid and dismal failure. This is what you folks on the left do not understand. Giving a helping hand up, a temporary one, is fine, but enabling a life long handout is evil. It takes away the drive from the human spirit. If one knows that they can't truly "fail", that abject poverty and a lack of resources is not a possibility, then the drive one has is naturally diminished. I dont' expect you to understand this concept. No offense, but I have learned that most people on the left really cannot, or will not understand the drive that pushes some people on to great heights, or to even simply attempt to attain these heightseven if they never reach them."

Obviously there is a lot to address in the above quote. I would first start by stating that yes, I do understand your point about diminishing people's drive for success, not that I agree with it. The reason that I understand your point is that I used to believe exactly as you do. Like many leftists, I am a former conservative. You can spare me the "I don't expect you to understand..." line. I do understand, I just disagree, and here's why:

Denying people health care for inability to pay does nothing to advance their freedom. You have emphasized your belief that meaningful freedom necessarily entails the possibilty of failure in life. I disagree. There are two types of political freedom. The first is freedom from the government, or "negative rights." These rights are recognized in the US Constitution and include freedom from government interference in speech, press, and assembly. Most conservatives at least pay lip service to these ideals. However, the other type of freedom is freedom to the government (and its resources), or positive rights. Some of these rights are recognized by the US Constitution, such as the right to vote, public ownership of the waterways, and other publicly held property. In other countries, recognized positive rights include the right to health care, the right to public education, the right to clean air and water, etc. This is the dreaded "welfare state" that Conservatives are constantly told to fear and hate. The theory behind positive rights is that negative rights are empty if there is no meaningful opportunity to exercise them. I don't expect you to understand that line of reasoning, so let me return to your model of the world.

You write that taking away the possibility of failure diminishes the drive for greatness, and on that grounds you would retain a system in which poor people are essentially punished for getting sick. I agree that welfare perhaps reduces ambition for some. However, your argument rests on several assumptions that are false.

First of all, eliminating the health care consequences of poverty (through universal health care) does not mitigate all the negative consequences of poverty, only the most egregious ones. I believe that even with a universal health care system, people will strive for greatness. I believe this because I believe human beings are innately driven to meet their potential, and don't need societal punishment to motivate them. In that sense I believe liberalism respects the greatness of the human spirit.

Secondly, even if the threat of a financially devastating health crisis is removed and people are less motivated to succeed, it doesn't necessarily follow that their drive will be extinguished altogether. Of course, some will try to take advantage of the system and coast, but they are the exception, not the rule. Besides which, other countries have developed mechanisms to address these people.

Thirdly, wealth and material success do not necessarily reflect merit. You seem to agree that many people are wealthy who do not deserve to be so (celebrities, athletes, perhaps Paris Hilton). I imagine that you would agree that many who are poor do not deserve to be so either - the principal example being poor children who have not yet had the opportunity to establish their merit. I would also urge you to consider the plight of those people who are driven and hard working, but suffer handicaps like congenital blindness, deafness, or other mental or physical retardation. In large part success is often a question of luck as well as effort. Don't disadvantaged, handicapped, or otherwise unlucky people deserve health care?

Fourth, providing heatlh care for all is no way an affront to individual freedom. People can always refuse to accept service if they desire. The only aspect of it that is mildly oppresive is the extent to which people are forced to pay taxes to support the system. In my mind there is no difference in forcing people to pay for the military than there is in forcing them to pay for healthcare. In both instances the government is taking a share of your property for the benefit of society at large and circumventing a system in which every person fends for themself. In that sense it makes no difference to me if that protection takes the form of guns and bombs or doctors and drugs, but of course all things considered I'd rather have the health care.

8. "Abortion causes great mental trauma, and I have seen this first hand many, many times. If women wish to have abortions because they refuse to take responsibility for their actions, they should be precluded from publically funded help, especially years later with regards to mental health, as I dont feel that I should be forced to pay for someone else being irresponsible."

Abortion is a huge land mine issue so I will try to limit my comments. I will go so far as to agree generally that getting an abortion, or recklessly putting yourself in a situation where you might need one, is probably a bad moral choice. On the other hand, you might want to consider that a) some women are impregnated through rape, 2) making the mistake of having an abortion is in itself a pretty terrible thing to endure, 3) most women have abortions exactly because they believe it is the responsible thing to do, rather than have a child they cannot afford to raise.

I disagree with your take about "being forced to pay for someone else being irresponsible." Yes, in a universal health care system you would be forced to do just that for some cases. However, the reason why it's a good idea is simply a matter of practicality. People cannot undo their dumb mistakes (e.g., drug addiction), but pointing fingers about their irresponsibility does nothing to deal with the fact that we have people in society with problems who need help. It is in your interest to help out burned out drug addicts and women traumatized by abortion and all manner of unsavory characters because regardless of their reckless stupidity, they are sharing a society with you and you are safer with them receiving treatment and having a stake in society.

9. "On that same note, if you are not ready to have a baby and take care of it, protect yourself. Of all of the tings that our goevrnement licenses (try to open any kind of business without a license) teh one hingthey SHOULD train people in is PARENTING!!! Why should I pay for your mistakes?"

Interesting point of view for someone who believes in freedom and the greatness of the human spirit. As much as I love government regulation, I believe licensing parenthood is a bad idea. However, you and I apparently agree that public education on parenting skills is a good idea, but that's a surprsingly socialist proposal if you think about it.

10. "I really dont expect you to understand. Frankly I suspct that many people on the left are much lazier than those on the right, and don't mind the idea of working less time for less reward."

I don't know about being lazy, as this is closing in on a 4 page single spaced response. Does expecting more rewards out of society necessarily reflect a reduced work ethic? Or does it merely reflect a difference of opinion about what is fair and equitable? If leftists are lazy, does that mean that conservatives are greedy?

10. :et me ask you. Do you feel guilt that our country has more than others? Do you feel that corrupt governments in Africa are owed anything by the U.S. simply because we have it and they don't?

No, I don't feel guilty about our country having more than others, just about some of the means by which we got to having more (e.g., breaking treaties, assasinating democratically elected leaders in other countries, lending financial and military support to third world dictators). You speak of corrupt African governments (for some reason) - and yet this very week it was revealed that the US has been lending financial support to corrupt Somalian war lords. As to what the US owes the world, well, that's an interesting question really beyond the scope of our original health care debate.

In closing, I am glad that we have finally begun to actually talk about the issue of health care generally. I would love to continue in shorter rounds, as this was a bit much. I have done some research to support my points, and I am confident that if you are open minded to truth and reason, you will reach agreement with me on at least some issues.

Kender:

You said:

"It is undeniable that Canadians frequently have problems seeing specialists and that wait times for major surgeries are sometimes up to several months. However, many lower income Americans face the same problems in the states." and "Don't disadvantaged, handicapped, or otherwise unlucky people deserve health care?"

I never have wait times for anything in healthcare. I have found good doctors and know how to make them get things done....and I am on MediCare. In fact right now I am trying to get them to hold off a week or so before they place me in the hospital for surgery because I am trying to get this station going.

I have been low income, and have never lacked healthcare...never....still don't. I grew up lower middle class (barely) and have had a lifetime of serious health problems. When I went to work (at 16) I went into working with race horses....I had to pay a percentage of my income to the group health care plan, I didn't want to but I had to, and the next year I ended up on dialysis. I could have quit and lived on SSI or disability, but I didn't.

Instead I kept learning my trade and moving up the ranks. I took myself off of dialysis because I felt I knew myself better than the doctors (having dealt with my health allof my life) and started exercising horses. It was quite a few years before my kidney finally failed, and in that entire time I may have taken a total of 21 days where I didnt' work. Weekends, holidays, rain, shine, didn't matter, I was in the barn making certain that my horses were taken care of and trained.

I continued to ride and train through a failed transplant (it lasted one year and the time I spent in the hospital was the longest time I had off of work since i had started working...an entire week), and when I got out of the hospital I went straight to my barn. After the transplant failed I still worked, just as hard, until I retired in '01 to be a stay at home dad.

I went back to the track on '03 for the summer just to catch up with friends and keep my nose in the game. IN '04 I got a second transplant and set about learning about internet radio, which I had been dabbling in since '02. This spring my second transplant failed and I am back on dialysis, working 18 hour days at my new career with WAR, being a dad, a road manager for a band and a music promoter.

In fact, I have about 3 hours before we are supposed to be back on the stream and I am still up answering emails and loading promos, bumpers and ads.

I despise people that whine. I hate people that lay around and say such things as "I can't, I have carpal tunnel" or I got whiplash" or I'm don't feel well".

Bullshit. Get the hell up and just do it.

I hate that kind of weakness, and stay away from people such as that.

That's why I hate the idea of universal health care and all of the other socialist welfare coddling baby ass programs that the left pushes.

They will not help keep this country great...they will simply suck us dry economically, spiritually and physically.

Me:

1. "I never have wait times for anything in healthcare. I have found good doctors and know how to make them get things done...."

So did it occur to you that you were lucky? Or that your personal experiences do not necessarily represent those of the majority of poor people in America? Hence the saying, "There but for the grace of God go I."

2. "...and I am on MediCare."

Isn't Medicare a "coddling" socialist program that you oppose, albeit a limited one? Isn't it the conservaitve position that individual health care costs should be borne *entirely* by individuals? Isn't it a contradiction in values to accept the benefits of a program you oppose on principle? Is it possible that you don't really oppose certain limited forms of socialism as much as you say you do?

3. "In fact right now I am trying to get them to hold off a week or so before they place me in the hospital for surgery because I am trying to get this station going."

It seems like you're saying that your experience has been that the Medicare system has worked extremely efficiently for your benefit. This contradicts the notion that a national health care system would run like the DMV. It also supports what I was saying earlier about Medicare running efficiently.

4. "I have been low income, and have never lacked healthcare...never....still don't."

Again, it is possible you were merely lucky. According to conservative (small c) estimates, there are at least 45 million Americans without any medical coverage. That amounts to roughly 15% of the population.

5. "I could have quit and lived on SSI or disability, but I didn't."

Why didn't you? My theory is that even though there was a hand out available in the form of SSI, you innately desired the dignity and honor of working and contributing to society. This is what I was talking about when I spoke of liberalism and the human spirit. As a leftist I believe that people will continue to struggle for greatness, even with guaranteed medical coverage, or even with guaranteed subsistance handouts (e.g., SSI payments), or even if earning more money means paying a higher tax rate. You stated that as a conservative you believe that if people are even given the option of coasting, they will bleed the system dry - but you didn't. Do you think you're the only person who would want to keep working?

6. "I despise people that whine."

Everyone does. Which is worse - whining about being unable to afford vital health care for you and your family, or whining about a marginal increase in taxes that goes towards taking care of fellow citizens? Which of the following is a genuine tragedy and which is whining:

A. "Boo hoo, I can't afford my child's chemotherapy."
B. "Boo hoo, I have to pay 5% more in taxes for some jerk's kid to have chemotherapy."

7. "I hate people that lay around and say such things as "I can't, I have carpal tunnel" or I got whiplash" or I'm don't feel well". Bullshit. Get the hell up and just do it. I hate that kind of weakness, and stay away from people such as that."

It seems to me that your health problems must have taught you that people can be *legitimately* incapicated by injury or illness. For those people, I believe public health care is vital, because catastrophic illness deprives them of their ability to earn money to pay for medical expenses privately. Of course there will always be people who simply make excuses not to work, but if you really believe in the greatness of the human spirit it seems to me you would give people the benefit of the doubt.

8. "That's why I hate the idea of universal health care and all of the other socialist welfare coddling baby ass programs that the left pushes."

Hate is an interesting word for evaluating policy decisions - I thought we were trying to keep emotions out of it. Also, isn't any government program coddling? Even border protection and military programs are coddling in the sense that the government is saying, "Don't worry about your safety, you can depend on us to do it for you."

If you are truly about freedom and independence, you would reject being a member of any society whatsoever. Obviously that is a ridiculous suggestion, but it illustrates the point that government programs exist because people consider costs and benefits and democratically decide to pool their resources to address certain problems rather than facing them as individuals (e.g., border defense, community policing, basic education, some health care).

9. "[Socialist programs] will not help keep this country great...they will simply suck us dry economically, spiritually and physically."

Do you have anything at all that would back this assertion up? Because Japan, Sweden, Canada, and so on are not bankrupt in any of the ways you mentioned. In fact, the US has the most public and private debt per capita among the developed nations, and is among the worst for public health. As a matter of comparison, we spend less per capita on welfare than any other developed nation, so it stands to reason that welfare statism is not the cause of our problems. Spiritually is a more subjective question, so I will leave you to consider which is more spiritually bankrupt:

A. A country of people who assume the moral and civic duty to provide for the health care of every fellow citizen, and believe other fellow citizens are obligated do the same for them.

B. A country of people who believe that it is their moral and civic duty to ensure that individuals bear the cost of their own health care, even if that means that some people get no health care whatsoever, even if their inability to pay is no fault of their own (e.g., children, the handicapped, etc.).

Clarification needed: You stated earlier that health care policy is not a moral issue. When you say socialist programs will suck America dry spiritually do mean to use the word "spiritually" without implicating morals? Or are you saying that it's ony a moral question when it is convenient for the conservative position?

On an unrelated note, I know that WAR at least officially stands for Wide Awakes Radio. I am curious however as to whether you chose the name because the acronym also stands for White Aryan Resistance.

Kender:

Isn't Medicare a "coddling" socialist program that you oppose, albeit a limited one?

Actually I cannot GET treatement without medicare.

It seems like you're saying that your experience has been that the
Medicare system has worked extremely efficiently for your benefit.

Actually it is because I know how to deal with the system. Most people don't and they suffer for it.

You stated that as a conservative you believe that if people are even given the option of coasting, they will bleed the system dry - but you didn't. Do you
think you're the only person who would want to keep working?

Because I AM a conservative, and don't believe in handouts. I odn'tm believe in giving OR receiving them.

Even border protection and military programs are coddling in the sense that the government is saying, "Don't worry about your safety, you can depend on us to do it for you."

If the government gives the people the right to defend the border, and doesn't arrest them for doing so, see hwo many Patriots line up three deep to keep illegals out, by any means necessary.

Because Japan, Sweden, Canada, and so on are not bankrupt in any of the ways you mentioned.

I don't know about Japan, but Canada coddles it's drug users with places to shoot up, enabling an addiction that is the sign of a weak mind and low character. Sweden is a socialist county that is quickly heading into teh Authanasia camp, like Denmark, where it is legal to starve Downs babies to death. I have never said the handicapped and children shouldn't have health care, but neither shoudl people be having children they cannot afford to take care of.

I believe it is your moral and civic duty to provide for yourself and accept the consequences of bad decisions and weak character, not rely on everybody else to clean up your mess when you screw up due to idiocy.

As for "spiritually" I believe that the spirit of of a nation whose people cannot stand on their own two feet (because they have no way to truly FAIL due to safety nets of social programs) lose a vital part of their spirit. If you do not face failure you cannot know success.

As for the "Whiet Aryan Resistance" I hadn't thought of that acronym. The Wide Awakes were a group of political activists that campaigned for the Republicans in the early days of the party, marching through towns late at night by torchlight for Lincoln, hence the name "Wide Awakes.

We do NOT condone racism in this company. I have a huge and color filled family, with a black (he says he is American that's black, NOT "african american") brother in law that is a decorated Navy career man (still in, was once a crew chief on The Blue Angels), a brother in law of mexican descent (speaks no spanish, surname of Martinez proud Marine) and adopted brothers and sisters from Honduras (proud LEGAL immigrants, one of which is Special Forces-Psy-Ops), plus a brother just out of the Air Force, another did a decade in the Navy medically retired), yet another is STILL in the Marines, JAG, currently in South Korea, Dad is retired AF, Grandpa was Medically retired Navy (WW2, almost killed in plane crash).

I have a huge mutil-ethnic family (I am the oldest of 15 kids) and not one of them is living on handouts and never has. When you ahve the drive instilled in you that it is up to you, and not the government, you can reach any heights you wish. Depending upon the government and others to counter your weaknesses is a major part of the problem, and teaching peopel that the government will take care of all of their needs is evil.

Me:

I hope you're not worrying about this going on forever. I appreciate that you've spent the time to share your views. On the other hand, I don't want you to say that I ever chickened out of arguing my point, so if you want to continue that's fine too.

Good luck getting your station back up. Meantime, I have only one request: Please do your best to answer the last questions in part 1, the ones enclosed in ***s. Here goes:

1. You said that you don't believe in giving or receving handouts, but also said you are forced to accept Medicare for treatment. Is it hypocritical for you to accept Medicare? Has accepting Medicare made you lose a vital part of your spirit? As a Medicare recipient, does it make practical sense for you to oppose Medicare?

***Most importantly: Do you realize that if you ran the government, there would be no Medicare and people in your situation would simply be forced to go bankrupt and/or die? Does that make you want to reconsider whether public health care is really "coddling?" If not, why?***

2. You wrote "I believe it is your moral and civic duty to provide for yourself and accept the consequences of bad decisions and weak character, not rely on everybody else to clean up your mess when you screw up due to idiocy."

What about health care problems that were not the result of bad choices, but merely bad luck - like your kidney problem? You didn't deliberately choose to become ill. Most people don't. Your illness was likely not even caused by any deliberate choices you made. This is the case for many patients.

In the current system, it doesn't matter why you're ill, what matters is whether you have money to pay for treatment. Would you support a national healthcare system if it refused service to people who's problems were caused by their own actions? Where would you draw the line between people who: deliberately try to kill themselves / do drugs / are promiscuous / smoke / get abortions / drink / overeat / eat poorly / don't exercise / exercise dangerously? Where in that list would you start to cut off service and why?

A less important but more interesting question: What if services were granted or refused based on the government's assessment of moral behavior or character? If so, how would that work? Is that consistent with respecting the human spirit?

As for the moral state of Japan, Sweden, etc. I really think that is a huge can of worms. I can tell you that Japan has much lower rates of crime, divorce, teen pregnancy, abortion, etc. I don't know how Denmark and Sweden measure up on those fronts but they consistently achieve the highest citizen happiness polling results, for whatever that's worth. Can you send me a link on the Danes legalizing baby murder? I find that a little hard to believe.

Kender:
***Most importantly: Do you realize that if you ran the government, there would be no Medicare and people in your situation would simply be forced to go bankrupt and/or die? Does that make you want to reconsider whether public health care is really "coddling?" If not, why?***

If there were no Medicare or advances in health care I would have died, and so would many others, but wouldn't society be better off as a whole if there were less people for the resources to go around? Life is not fair, and what breaks you get are what breaks you get.

Thsi is what I dont' get about the left. They seem to want to create a society where outcomes are equal and attempt to legislate a fairness into life that is not natural.

My health problems were caused by a flap that developed backwards, and if I were born today a short operation would have solved all of the problems.

I still don't support being forced to pay for others bad choices. Why should I pay for someone to get their stomach stapled when they were a big, fat greedy cow that didn't understand that eating to excess leads to obesity? Or the acoholic that drinks until his liver dies and wants a new one, when the problem is the fault of his actions?

I believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and reaping the rewards or suffering the consequences of ones actions.

Me:

So depending on Medicare to save your life has not affected your thinking about Medicare? That doesn't make much sense to me.

1. "If there were no Medicare or advances in health care I would have died, and so would many others, but wouldn't society be better off as a whole if there were less people for the resources to go around?"

So what you're saying is that society would be better off if you were dead? I disagree. I believe that on average people contribute more value (resources) to society than they take away. Otherwise societies couldn't continue to exist. I don't think you or anyone should feel guilty for accepting necessary government medical care. You are a member of society, and therefore your life is assumed to be valuable, even if illness makes you temporarily a drain. Society has an interest in protecting your health.

Even if you sincerely believe that society would be better off if you were dead, that doesn't give you the right to decide that issue for others. Even if you did have the right, reason would dictate that you would err on the side of caution by avoiding needless deaths.

2. "Thsi is what I dont' get about the left. They seem to want to create a society where outcomes are equal and attempt to legislate a fairness into life that is not natural."

I believe this is the first thing accurate thing you have said about liberals so far. I completely agree. Liberals do want to legislate outcomes that would not ordinarily occur without government intervention. They even want to go so far as to create equality and fairness in certain areas of life - like equality in civil rights, job opportunities, access to health care, access to eduction, and access to clean water and air. Liberalism is largely about striving towards these goals, and let me explain why:

First off, you may want to ask yourself what you mean by natural. Is any society natural? Isn't society merely the product of people's decisions? In a state of nature, there is no government beyond the will of the powerful, meaning tyrrany. Governments exist in part to guarantee equality. Is the American government any more natural than Canada's or Japan's? Lliberals are all about using the government to reduce the consequences of poverty in certain very specific contexts. What exactly is wrong with that? Conservatives seem to want to use the government to do the opposite and *increase* the consequences of poverty and make life harder for people who already have hard lives. That seems to be very cruel and frankly silly.

Secondly, isn't it possible to create equality in some areas of life, but not in others? For example, Canada has universal health care, but it still has rich people and poor people. The wealthy are still rewarded for their efforts, and the poor still have much to struggle and strive for. People still have a reason to work hard and succeed. Equality in some areas doesn't destroy a society based on merit, it just recognizes that everyone has a certain minimum level of merit.

Thirdly, there are practical reasons to have a public health care system. For one thing, it is less expensive to society as a whole, and definitely less expensive to individuals. The reason we Americans pay more for health care is that all the money we spend goes to businesses trying to make a profit, as opposed to going only towards paying for the expenses of the system. How has America benefited from its unequal system of health care? We spend twice as much for it and get worse results. It's ridiculous.

Fourthly, contrary to what you may have been told, liberals recognize limits to mandated equality. Liberals generally believe that we should only have "forced" equality in those aspects of life that are essential to being a human being. For example, everyone at some point or another needs health care, so why would it make sense to punish the poor on account of health? The same reasoning applies to education: why would you want to make it harder for a poor person to get an education, which is something everyone needs? Etc. No liberal would support a program to give everyone mansions or luxury items or other such nonsense, and anyone who says so is lying.

Fifth, most liberal social programs are not about creating equality, but instead are designed to create a minimum safety net. For example, nothing in Canadian law prevents people from buying additional insurance coverage or medical services. The result is that the system provides most of the health care that most of the people need, most of the time.

Are any of the above points new to you?

3. My health problems were caused by a flap that developed backwards, and if I were born today a short operation would have solved all of the problems.

Imagine you were born today but your parents couldn't afford the operation. Under the American system, society would end up paying even more cost due to a short-sited, penny pinching view of health care. If you were born in a country with public health care, you parents wouldn't have to worry about the expense of the operation and eveyone would be spared great misery and waste.

4. "I still don't support being forced to pay for others bad choices...I believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and reaping the rewards or suffering the consequences of ones actions."

As I pointed out, there are many people who are sick through no fault of their own. What about those people?

As for responsbility, isn't *more* personally responsible to assume responsibility for the well-being of your fellow man? When Cain asked "Am I my brother's keeper?" wasn't the answer "Yes!" Doesn't the Bible say that God will speak unto the nations and say to them, how you treated the least among you, you treated me? I agree that is somewhat selfish and irresponsible to say "Society needs to take care of my health care problems regardless of what bad choices I make," but it is worse to say "Poor people ought to die so that I can save money and avoid enabling lifestyle choices I disagree with."

By the way, are you from Kentucky?

Kender:

In a state of nature, there is no government beyond the will of the
powerful, meaning tyrrany.

No, in a state of nature each does for themselves, survival dictated on intelligence, skill and luck.

Imagine you were born today but your parents couldn't afford the operation. Under the American system, society would end up paying even more cost due to a short-sited, penny pinching view of health care.

No, in America if my parents couldn't afford it there is a public system for taking care of it. It is called Medic-Aid.

And why do you ask if I am from Kentucky?

Sorry for teh short answer...am really busy...

Me:

1. "No, in a state of nature each does for themselves, survival dictated on intelligence, skill and luck."

Your thinking is correct but incomplete. In a state of nature, the strong live and the weak die, and everyone acts in their self interest. We agree on that point. My point is about the relationships between the strong and the weak absent government. In nature, there is nothing to prevent the strong from doing injustice to the weak, e.g., from riding onto their land and stealing the fruits of their labor. That is what I meant by tyrrany. In nature, the strong have no interest in acting benevolently. They can push around whoever they want.

The whole foundation of our government is based on the idea of preventing tyrrany by granting everyone certain minimum rights (as in the Constitution). The difference between conservatives and liberals is a question of degree. Conservatives believe the government exists to protect property rights primarily, hence their opposition to any public spending but the police, army, etc. This tends to benefit those who have property to begin with, at the expense of those who don't. Liberals take the view that government exists to protect as many rights as possible for as many people as possible, while construing "rights" broadly to include entitlement to health care, education, clean air and water, etc.

Liberals believe that the less rules there are for any given market (e.g., health care), the more likely the market will approach a state of nature where "freedom" is only meaningful for the strong and means tyrrany for everybody else. Most people agree with this premise to a certain degree, which is why we have things like minimum wage, trade regulation and so on. Liberals take the idea further in their belief that certain areas of life cannot be fairly or even practically addressed by a pure market approach. Even the American system acknowledges this to a certain extent, which is why we have Medicare.

2. No, in America if my parents couldn't afford it there is a public system for taking care of it. It is called Medic-Aid.

You don't seem to get my point about Medicaid. Conservatives generally oppose Medicaid. They opposed its formation during the New Deal, and they have consistenly opposed funding it whenever they can do so. It is what you yourself call a "socialist" program. Medicaid is a liberal quasi-socialist program, created by our most liberal socialist President - Franklin Roosevelt.

So it seems to me to be inconsistent and wrongheaded to depend on this program to save your life, and then oppose its use for other people on the grounds that it costs you tax dollars. If anything, the more socialized the medical system becomes, the better off you are (as well as society at large).

3. And why do you ask if I am from Kentucky?

Horses and having a big family suggest you are from there. It's just a guess.

4. The short answer is okay I guess. I am raising a lot of questions that you haven't been willing/able to answer, which is understandable because there are a lot of them. I hope though that you are at least thinking about them and reconsidering your position with an open mind.

Kender:

You are not "entitled" to anything outside of having the freedom to pursue your "life, liberty and happiness" and this is where the disconnect between liberalism and conservatism lies.

Liberals seem to think that it is the governments job to take care of every single necessity (they fail miserably most of the time BTW), while conservatives believe that it is your job to take care of yourself.

It is as simple as that.

There is a difference between won't and can't, and those that won't (a large number of people, and we all got a great view of many of them after Katrina) should not be given shelter, food or other resources that others work so hard to secure.

Liberalism has created a whole segment of society that believes it is the governments job to help them, that they are "owed" for one reason or another, and that if they can't get by they can simply go on down to the welfare office and get some food stamps.

Short story. My wife was newly pregnant, and we moved across the apartment complex from a studio to a two bedroom in anticipation of a child. We had been tenants there for a couple of years, had always paid rent on time and caused no trouble. It was a quiet complex with nice amenities and we enjoyed it..

Then we were informed that the owner had decided to go "Section 8", welfare housing, and all tenants must fill out financial paperwork to qualify to stay there. This was not a cheap place to live, and we knew we made way too much money to even approach staying in low income housing.

So we decided that we would move when we had to.

They started moving in Section 8 tenants. They were gangbangers and drug addicts, dealers and whores, and within two weeks of the first ones moving in, we had graffiti, cars being broken into and loud parties at midnight with bar-b-ques going. Complaints were useless, as the manager said they couldn't be thrown out once they were in without a lot of paperwork. We moved two weeks later.

To a much worse complex, an inferior apartment with less amenities for more money because in the time we had been in our old place rents had risen. The section 8 tenants, to rub some more salt into the wound, were moved into apartments that had a refrigerator included.....we had to buy one when we moved in, because we were working people.

The manager of that old place quit two weeks after we moved when she was carjacked in broad daylight leaving her job for the day.

Our tax dollars are supporting thousands upon thousands of these kinds of people, that simply get given more "help" no matter how much they show that they don't want to work.

I am sick and tired of the people in this country, such as yourself, that refuse to see the harm your programs have done. There is no reason for people to work anymore if they are willing to live like pigs, and many, MANY of them are. They prey on hard working people, and if they get arrested there are programs to "reform" them, when
what they need is not reformation, but punishment.

Liberalism is dangerous, no matter how pretty and soft you try to dress it up, and the fact that you cannot see the damage liberalism has wrought through soft headed and soft hearted policies scares me........there are literally millions of people such as yourself that refuse to wake up and understand that you are killing humanity through stupid policies and a willful ignorance of human nature.

What scares me even more is that it seems liberals won't be happy until everyone is existing at the same stadard of living, and the truth of the matter is that while that sounds nice ina Star Trek kind of way, there isn't enough to go around and what you folks on the left are pushing for, without realizing it, would end up more akin to the middle ages crossed with Blade Runner....solid squalor across the globe with a technological edge to keep track of all of the citizens as they lines up for their daily bread.

Me:

Your response wasn't very relevant this time around, and you didn't answer any of the questions that I raised.

1. "You are not "entitled" to anything outside of having the freedom to pursue your "life, liberty and happiness" and this is where the disconnect between liberalism and conservatism lies."

Wrong. Conservatives believe that citizens are entitled to government police and military protection. You yourself said so in an earlier e-mail. What I have been saying is that police and military protection are entitlement programs that happen to benefit people who have property needing protecting. In that sense, liberalism isn't very different beyond the fact that liberals believe in entitlements that benefit poor people instead of only rich people. For more on this point, follow this link and look under "Welfare for all, except the poor":

http://www.greens.org/s-r/12/12-15.html

The disconnect between liberalism and conservatism is that conservatism believes in only spending resources on people who do not need them, while liberals believe on spending money on the poor.

2. "Liberals seem to think that it is the governments job to take care of every single necessity (they fail miserably most of the time BTW)..."

As I have explained again and again in these e-mails, public health care systems are less expensive, provide better coverage, provide better treatment, and create better outcomes than the American system. The American system costs twice as much as any other and provides worse results in pretty much every respect you can measure. You can see so for yourself in the attachment I have included.

From what you have told me, your experience with American public health care has shown that the system works very efficiently, although you seem to believe that this was only true in your case because you are some type of paperwork wiz. You haven't rebutted a single assertion I've made about public health care systems, except for anecdotal evidence about Canadians coming to America for surgeries, which I already responded to. Meanwhile, everything in your personal experience shows that public health care is needed to save lives, especially among the working poor.

3. "...while conservatives believe that it is your job to take care of
yourself. It is as simple as that."

Wrong. Conservatives don't believe this at all, they only believe it to be true for poor people. Conservatives have no problem spending government money to bail out big businesses like the savings and loan industry or American car manufacturers. They have no problem spending money for police and other security for property owners.

Even if consevatives believe in "taking care of yourself" why didn't you? Why was it okay for you to become a welfare bum when you needed Medicare to survive? How do you reconcile accepting Medicare for yourself while opposing it for others? Don't you see the hypocrisy and stupidity of doing so?

4. "There is a difference between won't and can't, and those that won't (a
large number of people..."

So what you are claiming is that many poor are poor by choice. Do you have anything to support this assertion, or are you just saying so because it happens to be convenient for your worldview?

Conservatism doesn't distinguish between the working poor and the lazy poor. Conservative policy asks both to conveniently shuffle off and die if they are unable to pay their medical bills. You have totally avoided the subject of poor people who are poor through no fault of their own, the "Can't" people. The best example being children of the poor. Is there a reason you avoid talking about them? Conservatism says that a poor child's life is worth as much as people are willing to spend on it. Liberalism says that a poor child's life is worth just as much as any other life, and ought to be protected.

5. "Liberalism has created a whole segment of society that believes it is the governments job to help them, that they are "owed" for one reason or another, and that if they can't get by they can simply go on down to the welfare office and get some food stamps."

First, medicare is a welfare program which you seemed to have had no problem using. So again it seems pretty hypocritical and stupid to oppose its existence.

Second, let me explain the liberal sense of entitlement. It is based on the idea that there shouldn't be a difference between being rich and poor when it comes to certain aspects of life. For example, health care and education. It is not just a simple-minded belief of "Give me X, I alone deserve it." That would be consevatism, which holds that health care, education, and other help only belongs to those who can afford them.

Third, your whole argument about a welfare sucking underclass is simply not true. Most poor people are working poor - like you apparently were. Studies of welfare use have shown that only 9% of users try to defraud the system, most accept welfare for less than 6 months, and most people are resistant to accept welfare benefits. Conservative talkers love to create the illusion that poor people are lazy whiners, while avoiding any discussion of the evidence I mentioned above. Meantime, ask yourself what is more respectful of the human spirit:

A. The assumption that people largely follow their worst instincts and therefore it is best to lump all poor people together as lazy, whining welfare chasing losers.

B. The assumption that people largely follow their best instincts and therefore it is best to give poor people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're hard working people who've run into bad luck.

Again, what about the poor who work for a living but still can't afford health care? Conservative policies make no distinction between lazy poor and hard working poor. The consevative message on health care is that only people with money are worth saving. Note that it doesn't matter how you got the money, or how you failed to get the money.

6. "I am sick and tired of the people in this country, such as yourself, that refuse to see the harm your programs have done."

What harms are you claiming and what evidence shows the harms were caused by
liberal programs? Public health care systems have not harmed America at all, in fact they have saved a lot of lives, including yours. More public health care would save even more lives.

It is hardly fair to say that liberals are responsible for the state of the country at this point. Conservatives have more or less controlled Congress for 14 years, and held the Presidency for 18 of the past 26 years. In addition, liberals have failed to establish many of their key programs such as universal public health care and education. You can't blame liberals for causing problems when they haven't been able to control the government. Hell, they can't even control their own party.

I am not close minded to the idea that some welfare programs have caused some harms, but just merely asserting that they have, without any proof, doesn't show anything but your own close-mindedness.

7. "There is no reason for people to work anymore if they are willing to
live like pigs, and many, MANY of them are."

Actually there are many reasons: People enjoy working, work provides dignity, a sense of identity, a sense of achievement and purpose. People innately prefer work to receiving a hand out. Many retirees and wealthy people work to avoid boredom. You chose to work when you could have gone on SSI - that's not an especially unusual choice. Maybe you chose that path because you believed your conservative ideals required you to do so, but I know of many liberals who have made the same choice because they enjoy work. As Freud said, "To be happy man requires two things: work and love." Freud wasn't right about much, but I believe he was right about work.

What you are saying is that people are innately lazy or evil. I disagree. I think some people are, some of the time, but for the most part I believe in humanity.

8. "They prey on hard working people, and if they get arrested there are programs to "reform" them, when what they need is not reformation, but punishment."

As a welfare recipient, "they" includes *you* in the eyes of other conservatives. The topic of criminal punishment versus criminal reform is an interesting one, but it is such a huge issue that it would require a whole new debate, especially seeing as how long and sprawling this one is. If you were wondering, I disagree entirely with you. Punishment based sentencing lends itself to a higher repeat offender rate, whereas rehabilitation and job training have been shown to reduce the repeat offender rate. But that's a topic for another day.

7. "Liberalism is dangerous, no matter how pretty and soft you try to dress it up, and the fact that you cannot see the damage liberalism has wrought through soft headed and soft hearted policies scares me........there are literally millions of people such as yourself that refuse to wake up and understand that you are killing humanity through stupid policies and a willful ignorance of human nature."

Wow, a lot to respond to here. First of all, I haven't tried to dress up liberalism as pretty and soft. If anything I've made sure to use facts and figures to show that a public health care system isn't just a nice thing to do, it's actually cheaper and has more value for money. Again, see the attached study. I have occasionally spent time talking about why it is also a moral thing to do, and the Christian thing to do, but that's mostly a side topic. If you think about it, many liberal policies are born out of pragmatism, not soft-heartedness or pure ideology. What is bizarre to me is
that you apparently fail to see how your life was saved by a public health care system.

If liberal policies are "killing humanity" I'd like to hear how, and I'd like to see some proof. In the meantime, I would challenge you to explain why the infant mortality rate is higher in the US than in countries with a socialized medical system. Meantime, which ideology is more impractical, and will lead to killing more people:

A. We believe in survival of the richest, because poor people choose to be poor and letting them die will eventually evolve society to where everyone works hard and no one is surprised by bad luck. That is why charity and helping others actually hurts them and us.

B. We believe in ensuring the survival and good health of as many people as possible, to ensure that society gets the most contribution out of people. Pure natural selection deprives society of maximum individual contribution, so charity and helping others is in our self interest.

8. "What scares me even more is that it seems liberals won't be happy until everyone is existing at the same stadard of living, and the truth of the matter is that while that sounds nice ina Star Trek kind of way, there isn't enough to go around and what you folks on the left are pushing for, without realizing it, would end up more akin to the middle ages crossed with Blade Runner....solid squalor across the globe with a technological edge to keep track of all of the citizens as they lines up for their daily bread."

I am running out of time so I cannot respond to this as thoroughly as I would like. I agree most liberals would love to live in a Star-Trekkie type world where everyone is equal and society spends most of its money on scientific research. However, no liberals I know of are proposing that we attempt to get to that just yet. I don't know what the conservative alternative version of this would be, but I do know Blade Runner was set in a future where everthing was capitalist - but since I don't expect you to believe that, you can read that for yourself in the book "Do Androids Dream
of Electric Sheep," on which the movie Blade Runner was based. Of course, liberals do not want to live in a world of Soviet style bread lines; that is just how conservatives want you to think of liberalism so that they can avoid having to pay more taxes.

More later I hope.

That is where we left the debate. I am hoping that the quality of Kender's argument will improve sometime soon, but I doubt it. He seemed very evasive, particularly regarding the inconsistency of accepting Medicare for himself while opposing it for others. Supposedly we will resume this argument when he's less busy with his radio station.

Introduction

2006-07-07T14:00:00.000-07:00

Welcome to Insult to Injury, home of the vitriolic wit of yours truly, Rhyleh. The forecast for today is slightly jaded with a high chance of bitterness.