Re: Medicare Means Test

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 12 Nov 2003 14:18:29 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
>Rubin) wrote:

>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:25:38 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:


>>>>"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 16:15:36 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> wrote:


>>>>> >"Gretchen Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> >> On Sun, 9 Nov 2003 02:26:54 -0700, "Founding Father" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>>> >> wrote:

>>>>> >> >"Bettina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

                        .......................


>I'd certainly agree with your statement that the current
>administration has walked all over the Constitution in the name of
>'Homeland Security', etc., and also that simple appeasement isn't the
>answer. But let's not forget the current administrations offer of
>financial aid, etc.,  to North Korea in return for their 'promise' not
>to develop WMD's.  Isn't that appeasement?

One can deal with governments in most cases.

>There appears that little can be done to properly control the Muslin
>terrorists and this was well known before our jumping into this
>fiasco.  We should not have taken the steps we did, and the only
>solution is to get out of that area.. and quickly.  Let them clean up
>their own mess. 

The US did a good job with the South Vietnamese guerrillas,
probably the best that had been done.  But give the North
Vietnamese Army the capability to act that way, without
fear of retaliation, and take away the will; the US was
not defeated on the battlefield, but on the propaganda field.

Afghanistan is somewhat as expected; nobody expected the
Iraqi collapse and subsequent guerrilla warfare with the
pile of weapons made available by the collapse.

>>BTW, I would include the currently non-violent terrorists,
>>such as religious fanatics of any religion, whether or not
>>it has a deity or deities, which would impose the dicta of
>>their religion on behavior, or threaten people with dire
>>consequences if they do not observe the religion.  Notice
>>that this includes all evangelists.  Libertarians do not
>>tell you to do anything as long as you do not force others.


>Going a bit far aren't we, Herman?  who falls into your grouping of a
>'religious fanatic'?  Would the Pope be in that group? The Archbishop
>of Canterbury?, Billy Graham?  I feel certain that somewhere, somehow,
>somone would consider each of them a 'fanatic'. 

The Pope is in that group; whether he would continue if
that behavior was subject to penalty is unclear.  The Pope
no longer takes the position that those who do not accept
Catholic dogma are doomed to hell.  I do not think the
Archbishop would go anywhere near that far, either.  Billy
Graham, yes, and he would not dispute it.  It is attempting
to force others, not what the individual believes, which is
the major offense.

>The 'pie in the sky' sounds lovely until it's put to the test of
>realism. 

Why not try it?  We do not need the Divine right of
governments; in fact, the Declaration of Independence
argues against it.  Until recently, the US opposed all
attempts at secession; lately, it has not.







-- 
This address is for information only.  I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         Phone: (765)494-6054   FAX: (765)494-0558