From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b9idnZ2tz8rAIqPWnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3eb6ef$0$19465$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>>
>>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am
>>> in favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone
>>> should have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay for,
>>> with or without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some doctor
>>> to have control over you or your body? He should be paid for his advice,
>>> and not for his power.
>>>
>>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers
>>> we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over
>>> whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not
>>> my fault.
>>>
>>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are forced
>>> to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you would
>>> not be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you anything
>>> if I broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for anyone who
>>> is carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It is not my
>>> doing. Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by
>>> scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under
>>> their skin. We don't have to take care of people who are here illegally,
>>> or who who refuse to buy health insurance. If you want to take care of
>>> these irresponsible people, then do so, but please don't charge me for
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
>>> control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would
>>> you like to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's
>>> morality? then go there......I would like to control my own morality,
>>> thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you
>>> care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to
>>> preventing you from doing something that you would like to do, and stop
>>> it by taxing the hell out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they
>>> will decide that pastrami sandwiches or egg cr�mes are bad for you.
>>> Anything that most of them don't regularly do, as a matter of
>>> fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles without their helmets, so
>>> it is easy for them to make a law against it.......I don't see them
>>> making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on the golf course......You
>>> can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why not? Is it because golf
>>> is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play it......Oh, no.....That
>>> can't be the reason......:^)
>>
>> Your problem is that you would let a poor person die in the streets. Does
>> having compassion for others = morality, you bet it does. Does a failure
>> to have compassion for others = a lack of morality, same answer.
>>
>> You never answered what would you do about the person who becomes sick,
>> through nobody's fault. I say we have a moral obligation to take care of
>> them. You claim no. If I understand what you are saying that is what we
>> disagree about. If that is not, please explain your position on the
>> above.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter
> I don't claim "no" to that at all. I believe the government should take
> care of those who, through no fault of their own are destitute. That means
> if you are born with some defect, such that you can't care for yourself,
> or need special care, the taxpayers should foot the bill for it. But the
> operative phrase above is, "through no fault of their own". The ones who,
> when faced with the choice between health care and that Porsche, chose the
> car, should have to suffer for their choice. Right now, the state of
> California is destitute.....They are over 20 billion dollars in debt. Do
> you know why that is? Well, I know why. They have everybody and his
> brother on welfare whether they have all their fingers and toes or
> not.....Less than 1% of the people on welfare are unable to work. they are
> all sitting in front of the TV drinking beer on the California taxpayer's
> tab right now, when there is no reason on earth why they couldn't be out
> earning a living like I did for 40 years. I know this because I knew a lot
> of these people when I lived and worked down there. They lived in the
> apartment buildings that my wife and I lived in while I was working and
> saving my money to buy a house, and some of them lived in other houses in
> my neighborhood after I did buy a house. Take the guy that lived next door
> to me when I lived on Chester Street in Menlo Park. He had 13 children and
> he was on disability for a nervous problem. (It made him nervous to have
> to work for a living) He lived in a three bedroom house, and with 13 kids,
> he used one of the bedrooms for a trash dump.....After they moved out, it
> was full of empty beer cans, floor to ceiling. The guy who owned the house
> had his son fix it up after they moved out owing 5 months back rent, and
> he told me when I helped him install an new toilet in their bathroom. I
> saw that bedroom that was full of beer cans, so I know what I am talking
> about. These are the people who have broken the backs of California's
> taxpayers, and they are the ones that Shouldn't have been on the public
> dole. The ones who were born defective should be getting an average
> salary, and not the $25 discount on their taxes for being blind that was
> on California's form 1040 for many years.......


Did you report that guy for welfare fraud?

There is lots of anecdotal "evidence" of welfare cheats. I've hard far more
outrageous stories than yours, including people who are working off the
books while collecting and making babies. All that means is that the
administrators of these programs lack the political courage to properly
investigate and prosecute the cheats who are stealing our money. The concept
of welfare with dignity, is pure bullshit. BTW IIRC the statistics show that
the vast majority of people on welfare are there because of circumstances
beyond their control. More, after the third welfare child, they should be
sterilized. Similarly, the Medicaid cheats, including the doctors should be
prosecuted. As I have said before: the "need" for defensive medicine should
be eliminated through use of a screening panel for malpractice claims,
prescription drug costs should be negotiated at all levels. I should be able
to obtain my meds in Canada, etc.


Having said that, it seems to me that the drug dealer is more guilty than
the guy he seduces into the habit forming, mind killing, drug.


--
Peter

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:nIWdnaHfrs-sXaPWnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3eb7d7$0$19496$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:ut6dnQT77LUaMaPWnZ2dnUVZ_uWdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>
>>
>>> weg9 says: Yes. I am in favor of repealing the Marijuana laws.....I am
>>> in favor of repealing any laws against any and all drugs.....Everyone
>>> should have the right to ingest anything they have the money to pay for,
>>> with or without a doctor's prescription. Why would you want some doctor
>>> to have control over you or your body? He should be paid for his advice,
>>> and not for his power.
>>>
>>
>> That is hardly the position of the classic conservative.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yes. Bush ran up a deficit going to war...So have many other
>>> presidents.....Unfortunately, (or fortunately) that's one of the powers
>>> we give presidents. and, whenever they do, the nation is split over
>>> whether it is a good thing or not......Sorry about that, but it is not
>>> my fault.
>>>
>>> My riding a bike without a helmet only costs you money if you are forced
>>> to pay for my health or lack of it. In a libertarian world, you would
>>> not be responsible for my health care, and it wouldn't cost you anything
>>> if I broke my head. The law that forces hospitals to care for anyone who
>>> is carried in to them off the street is a liberal law.....It is not my
>>> doing. Today, we have the ability to identify anyone in a few seconds by
>>> scanning their eyeballs, fingerprints or DNA, or a chip implanted under
>>> their skin. We don't have to take care of people who are here illegally,
>>> or who who refuse to buy health insurance. If you want to take care of
>>> these irresponsible people, then do so, but please don't charge me for
>>> it.
>>>
>>> "We disagree?" about what? That the tax laws shouldn't be used to
>>> control people's morality? What kind of a liberal would say that? Would
>>> you like to live in Iran, where the government controls everyone's
>>> morality? then go there......I would like to control my own morality,
>>> thanks. If I want to drink or smoke myself to death, than why would you
>>> care? And, be careful.....Pretty soon the senate will get around to
>>> preventing you from doing something that you would like to do, and stop
>>> it by taxing the hell out of it....what will you do then? Maybe they
>>> will decide that pastrami sandwiches or egg cr�mes are bad for you.
>>> Anything that most of them don't regularly do, as a matter of
>>> fact.....They don't like to rice motorcycles without their helmets, so
>>> it is easy for them to make a law against it.......I don't see them
>>> making any laws forcing you to wear a helmet on the golf course......You
>>> can get a broken head there, too. I wonder why not? Is it because golf
>>> is an old geezers game, and a lot of them play it......Oh, no.....That
>>> can't be the reason......:^)
>>
>>
>> You obviously know nothing about golf,
>>
>> Tiger the Geezer.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course wearing
> a helmet.

Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)

>
> And, I am not a "classic conservative". I am not even a conservative. I am
> a libertarian.

Your postings have demonstrated your lack of adherence to conservative
principles.

For an interesting read see:

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/LIBERTAR.htm

How consistent is that article with your views?


--
Peter

From: Funny Typos on
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 10:29:40 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
wrote:

>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:nIWdnaHfrs-sXaPWnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>>
>> weg9 says: I know that I've never seen anyone on a golf course wearing
>> a helmet.
>
>Not even the workers dong repair work? :-)
>

Why are you interested in someone's reconstructive surgery? How odd. But
then again, with you having grown up with your name, I can understand why
you might be obsessed with that part of the male anatomy.

From: NameHere on
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 21:31:04 -0600, Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 22:16:39 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>>If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes harm,
>>should that be illegal?
>
>That means your own government is illegal. I believe the "right to bear
>arms" should also include nuclear weaponry. If someone else can have one
>that automatically gives me the right to have one. If only they weren't so
>expensive. No one person is more worthy of defending themselves than any
>other person on earth. Why are others any more responsible with a nuclear
>bomb than I will be? They aren't. They never will be. To believe someone
>else is always more responsible with weapons of mass destruction only makes
>you into a fool.

Long ago I pondered how it would be if every person on earth was given a
nuclear bomb as a birth-present to carry with them to use at any time
during their life. Imagine how much more respectfully everyone would treat
each other their whole lives. No silly government control-freaks passing
silly laws as their own imaginary security-blankets, governments and
country borders would become useless human inventions, no neighbor telling
you what you can or cannot do unless they themselves wanted to die with
you. Pure freedom or pure annihilation. Your choice.

'Twould make for an interesting sci-fi book or movie if nothing else.

From: Robert Coe on
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 19:17:30 -0600, Gary Theilsen <nocontact(a)spamfree.com>
wrote:
: On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:38:41 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
: wrote:
:
: >If you want to smoke, that's your business. But, don't screw up my lungs
: >with your second hand smoke.
:
: You need to watch Penn & Teller's cable show called "Bullshit!", the
: episode where they cover this issue. Are you aware that not even ONE person
: has ever died from second-hand smoke? All of this started by one biased and
: badly done research paper ...

I can't refute that, and I have to admit that you may very well be right. But
I can tell you this: I was born in 1937. At least through young adulthood, I
was prone to getting frequent splitting headaches for no apparent reason. But
as smoking was banned in more and more places that I frequented, the frequency
of my headaches lessened dramatically. Now except for one guy I walk past most
mornings on the commuter rail platform, I almost never encounter a smoker. And
I literally can't remember the last time I had a headache. Is that proof of
cause and effect? No. Do I believe it's cause and effect? You bet. So would
you, if you were in my shoes. And you would most certainly want the legal
system to help you avoid smokers for the rest of your life, as do I. And
whenever the opportunity presents itself, I'll vote to make that happen.

I have been a registered Republican since 1958. You can look it up (in the
party records in Connecticut and Massachusetts). So don't even think of
referring to me as a "liberal".

Bob