On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all
the cleanliness and maintenance standards of Walter Reed combined
with the prompt
At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship
ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote:
Some people fear that government-run health care will feature all
the cleanliness and maintenance
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net
wrote:
Some people fear
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 9:16 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Patrick Sweeneyfirefly.ga...@gmail.com
wrote:
Until you have freed everyone else in the world from taxes, you don't
get to talk about the US any more. Sorry. Just applying your own
At 06:43 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Sep 7, 2009, at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship
ronn_blankens...@bellsouth.net wrote:
At 02:19 AM Monday 9/7/2009, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2009, at 8:36 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Ronn!
Blankenship
That's precisely what lots of people
wonder. Neither government nor business has a
record that exactly encourages optimism.
I guess it depends on perspective. Compare the lot of the median citizen
of the US with the median citizen of any country 500 years ago; 300 years
ago; 100 years ago.
John said:
Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
burger and fries.
Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
fries, but not both. My choices have been limited. My freedom to
choose has been limited.
That is obvious.
Yes, but it's
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Richard Bakerr...@theculture.org wrote:
John said:
Say I have two $1 bills. I could choose to go to McDonald's and buy a
burger and fries.
Now someone takes one of my dollars. Now I can only buy a burger, or
fries, but not both. My choices have been limited.
John said:
Yes, but it's not the whole story.
It is not my whole post, either, since you cut the quote off early.
I know it wasn't your whole post let alone your whole argument but it
was enough for me to hang my toy example from.
I suspect you double-counted the 9 possibilities where
On 6 Sep 2009 at 15:17, John Williams wrote:
I would really like to
understand your point of view,
I doubt it. I suspect you would like to fit me into one of your
simplistic models. Good luck with that.
I'm sorry, for that statement I'm taking out a warrant for your
arrest for
On 6 Sep 2009 at 18:46, Bruce Bostwick wrote:
On Sep 6, 2009, at 5:12 PM, John Williams wrote:
Really? Would you literally come to my house with a gun and force me
to give you money, telling me that you know better who it should be
spent on than I do?
If your idea of how to spend it
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 12:55 PM, Richard Baker r...@theculture.org wrote:
Do you think Nick would argue the same thing (Alice must give everyone
a dollar) if Alice had $10 and 9 others had no dollars? What if Alice
had $20 and ten others had $2 each? What if, instead of dollars, we
had
On 7 Sep 2009 at 2:57, Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
I think the fear is that employers who now offer insurance as part of
the compensation package will realize that it would be cheaper for
them to stop doing so and let their employers be covered by the
public option so after a little while
Nick said:
I'd argue for democracy -- none of this business of X must give Y
money. A social contract, not force. That's why I said the
original post failed to address the critical question of what take
means.
If you prefer, recast the questions as In this situation, is it
morally
John Williams wrote:
On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
(Anyway, aren't charitable
contributions tax-deductible?)
You do realize that tax-deductible means that your taxes are reduced
by some fraction of the amount you donate, not the whole amount? Less
than
On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 Sep 2009, at 19:06, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 Aug 2009, at 23:46, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:05 PM, William T Goodallw...@wtgab.demon.co.uk
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes
is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't
buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not
an attack on your views.
It is not an argument, it is a statement
On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Your argument seemed to be:
Money I pay in taxes
is money I won't give to worthy charities. I
didn't
buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That
Rob said:
So.you admit you hate America.
Am I missing a reference here because this hating America stuff
doesn't seem to make any sense whatsoever to me?
Rich
GCU Perpetually Confused
___
On 7 Sep 2009, at 21:44, Dave Land wrote:
On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 Sep 2009, at 19:06, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 Aug 2009, at 23:46, Mauro Diotallevi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 8:05 PM, William T
On Sep 7, 2009, at 4:17 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 7 Sep 2009, at 21:44, Dave Land wrote:
On Sep 4, 2009, at 6:53 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 1 Sep 2009, at 19:06, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 31, 2009, at 5:18 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 6 Aug 2009, at 23:46, Mauro Diotallevi
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
Your argument seemed to be: Money I pay in taxes
is money I won't give to worthy charities. I didn't
buy the ARGUMENT, for obvious reasons. That was not
an attack on your views.
It is not an
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
If you are giving that much to charity, that's good.
But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about.
Possibly irrelevant, but you were the one that brought it up, saying
you were prepared to take money away from me
Original Message:
-
From: Rceeberger rceeber...@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 17:29:35 -0500
To: brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: DeLong on health insurance reform
On 9/7/2009 4:06:38 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 1:31 PM, David
John Williams wrote:
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 7:55 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
If you are giving that much to charity, that's good.
But it's mostly irrelevant to what we were talking about.
Possibly irrelevant, but you were the one that brought it up, saying
you were prepared to
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:20 PM, John Williams jwilliams4...@gmail.comwrote:
Then we have a fundamental disagreement, because either way you say
it, the consequences of your statement are that you, personally, think
that you have a right to decide how my money should be spent. I
suspect that
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Nick Arnettnick.arn...@gmail.com wrote:
That's democracy, which I
haven't heard you say a bad word about,
We discussed some of the bad points of democracies here recently. I
posted a list.
___
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:31 PM, David Hobbyhob...@newpaltz.edu wrote:
No, I didn't bring it up. Would you prefer the
statement I am prepared to make everybody in
America pay their share to keep people from
dying because they can't afford to pay for basic
health care.?
Then we have a
28 matches
Mail list logo
