Fiscal Conservative i said. I believe we should pay for what we use.
Social LIberal - CIVIL libertarian. Individuals should be able to do
what they want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else or the
environment.
Strict Constructionist - in the words of the famous strict
constructionist Thurgood Marshall - "NO means NO!"
george bush said marriage is a sacrament, I agree. the first
amendment (which is part of the constitution regardless of what neo-cons
belive) says that Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment
of religion.
since marriage is a sacrament and therefore an establishment of
religion, the government has no business meddling in marriage at all.
if "married" couples want legal benefits and tax breaks, let 'em all
register as domestic partners. Domestic partners can be any combination
or number of people and pets making a household together. why would
anyone want to deny a "household" benefits currently available under
"marriage" to anyone?
dan
________________________________
From: Casey Wheeler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Dan Scolnick
Cc: Mark Phillips; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate
You cannot be a conservative and sociL liberal. Those are compatible.
John McCain attempt that last, I think he called it compassionate
conservatism. It's bs. The very nature of conservatism goes agaisnt
social policy n
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2009, at 2:18 PM, "Dan Scolnick" <[email protected]>
wrote:
i am a fiscal conservative, a social liberal and an original
constructionist.
however those claiming and wearing the mantel of conservatives,
liberals and original constructionists are usually not.
the constitution was drafted as a living document. Because it
WAS silent on things does not mean it must always be.
because it counted a black man as less than a whole man doesn't
mean it must always be so.
dan
________________________________
From: Casey Wheeler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 2:11 PM
To: Dan Scolnick
Cc: Mark Phillips; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate
Btw, I don't really understand the neo-con definition... I am a
conservative and a originalist...
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2009, at 2:00 PM, "Dan Scolnick" <
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
very good neo-con tactic, try to change the focus of the
argument, well here goes.
i don't hate highly paid people, i am one.
along with that high pay goes fiduciary responsibility.
They clearly did NOT practice fiduciary responsibility and therefore
should NOT be highly paid and should NOT have a job.
I resent highly paid people that do their job so poorly
that their banks go out of business, and then my tax dollars have to
bail them out, and they continue to be highly paid.
the are incompetant and should be out of jobs, and out
of money. the got paid for a service they did not deliver, and now we
taxpayers have to make good on it.
if the fair market is good for one side, let it be good
for the other.
dan
________________________________
From: Casey Wheeler [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:13 PM
To: Dan Scolnick
Cc: Mark Phillips; < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]>; < <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate
Why do you HATE HIGHLY PAID PEOPLE?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:58 PM, "Dan Scolnick" <
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]> wrote:
oh pullleeze!
had the HIGH PAID bankers stuck to their
fiduciary responsibilities AND DONE THEIR JOBS,
the banks would not have failed, regardless of
the impetus the government put on them.
the government gave them incentive, the
incentive was GREED. it was GREED for the borrowers, it was GREED for
the lenders.
let's see what the outcome is.
The HIGHLY paid bankers, who were the only ones
with fiduciary responsibility, got to keep all the money they made.
The borrowers got to live in a nice house for a
little while, and now they're out.
We the taxpayers put in all the money,
and NOW
the HIGHLY paid bankers are buying the houses at
foreclosure to make their next killing on the same stuff.
AND they get continued be paid far in excess of
their worth to the economy.
in fact the worst offenders are the highest
paid.
Free markets seem to only count when the
oligarchy is making their money.
dan
________________________________
From: <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Casey Wheeler
Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 12:53 PM
To: Mark Phillips
Cc: < <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]>; <
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
[email protected]>
Subject: Re: NMC - Healthcare Crisis Debate
No I feel that people should pay attention to
things. The banks for instance.... Had the government not forced them to
lend to so risky people, some banks would not have failed. Some would
have, sure. But that's a free market. Things need to fail. It creates
new oppurtunities.
Artificial limits and regulation put on most
markets slow growth and hurt competition. Adam smith was a smart man.
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, "Mark Phillips" <
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:
"Free market always creates the best
policy", I disagree. The current economic climate is a testament to
that. Industries need regulation or they will continue out of control
until someone gets hurt. After that, they will continue until they get
hurt or are stopped. The really bad ones continue regardless. Think
indestructible teenager with a learner's permit, a self-centered
attitude and a high-powered Miata (I finally worked some list related
content in :-)).
_______________________________________________
Miatapower mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.miatapower.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/miatapower
