Re: Medicare Means Test

On 16 Nov 2003 13:31:08 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
Rubin) wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Gretchen Evans  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 15 Nov 2003 17:19:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Herman
>>Rubin) wrote:
>
>>>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]
>
>                       .......................
>
>
>
>
>>Strange that you'd make that statement since there are several reports
>>floating around that predict that guerrilla action would flourish in
>>Iraq and that we would not be able to control it. 
>
>If the military conquest had been slower, the Iraqi weapons
>would be mostly under a fair amount of control, instead of
>just lying around.

So the plan should have been to 'win' at a slower pace?  Now there's a
novel idea.  
>
>>>>>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.
>
>>So you dislike all forms of religion, all forms of government and the
>>associated regulation, etc.  Could it be that you simply dislike what
>>passes for civilization these days?
>
>I said nothing of the sort.  I have no objection to people
>practicing whatever religion they wish, as long as there is
>no trampling on the rights and freedoms of others.  From the
>little I have seen of Wicca, there rede is libertarian.
>
You included then in your grouping of 'non violent terrorists'.  Is
that a term of endearment to you?

>Libertarians are generally minarchist; governments can 
>protect people from the forcible actions of others.  The
>US was largely libertarian until the Civil War, and even
>to a considerable extent until the end of the 19th century.
>
>Civilization results from the efforts of the few who are 
>generally considered not to be "right thinkers".  As George
>Bernard Shaw, who was philosophically a Fabian socialist,
>stated, "Therefore, progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>It was the thinkers and entrepreneurs who were responsible
>for human progress.
>
But NOT all of them were libertarians, Herman.  Far from it

>>>>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.
>
>>Because no one has been foolish to advocate secession.  Let an
>>organized group arise and I feel quite certain that they would be
>>quashed.. and rightly so. 
>
>I meant secession anywhere.  There has been a movement to
>have enough libertarians settle in New Hampshire to put in
>libertarian legislation; unfortunately, the federal government
>will put in too many roadblocks, such as mandating "enough"
>low-income housing and other welfare schemes.
>
You're claiming that low-income housing and 'welfare schemes' has
prevented the spread of libertarianism in NH?  If it's such a
desirable form of government why no popular vote to bring that form
into being?

>>Try it??  Try what?  There's nothing to 'try', it's simply pie in the
>>sky thinking. 
>
>It is not pie in the sky thinking; it is what you totalitarians
>cannot understand.  I doubt that YOU could adapt to a libertarian
>society; you cannot accept full responsibility.

Yeah, right, Herman.  What utter nonsense.. And you claim to be an
educated individual.  It's certainly difficult to ascertain that form
your comments.  No wonder Purdue requires the disclaimer. 

pixie