Tiller Killer May Claim Justifiable Homicide
Scott Roeder has pleaded “not guilty” in the killing of abortion provider George Tiller, and has told the AP that the killing was justified to “save the lives of the unborn.” Now, Roeder is looking to bring on attorney Michael Hirsch, who defended Paul Hill in his appeal on killing an abortion provider and his bodyguard in 1994. Hill was executed in 2003 after the court rejected his efforts to claim to a jury that his actions were justified to prevent abortions.
The Florida Supreme Court ruled in denying Hill’s appeal that his motivation would not change the outcome of the case. “As a practical matter, permitting a defendant to vindicate his or her criminal activity in this manner would be an invitation for lawlessness,” the justices wrote.
But Hirsh discounted the suggestion that if a jury acquitted Roeder of murder based on such a defense, it would lead to an open season on abortion doctors.
“It has been open season on unborn children for over 30 years. I think on abortionists there will be a bag limit,” Hirsh said in a phone interview this week from his Kennesaw, Ga., office.
The trial begins September 21, and public defender Mark Rudy says he expects to file for a continuance.
Richard Levy, a professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, said such defenses can work, but not necessarily in the context of abortion. The law requires that the threat be imminent, the force reasonable in response and the activity involved unlawful.
But Roeder has his defenders.
Dave Leach, an anti-abortion activist in Des Moines, Iowa, who in 1996 reprinted the Army of God manual that lists ways to damage abortion clinics, recently wrote a legal brief for Roeder’s case on the “necessity defense.” He argued that had the alleged shooter not acted, the killing of hundreds of babies every week would have continued. He sent it to Roeder’s public defenders, but they have not responded.
Roe V. Wade has been passed in the 70’s, it should be up to the women who wants a baby or not, not anyone else or the Government. I am Pro-Choice; these right-wingers don’t want big Government in their lives and neither does some Pro-Choice People. Telling women that THEY have to give birth.
Lets put it this way, IF Roe V. Wade is ever overturned, there will be once again, backstreet abortionist performing sloppy abortions or young women trying to abort by sticking a coat hanger into their Uterus. This is what will happen. This subject should be a womans decision, not dictated by the Government.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I agree, all the way. I dont believe Roe v Wade will ever be overturned, for the same reasons I believe the above defense attempt of Roeder wont work: Doing either of the 2 legalizes organized crime.
Lee Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:17 am
For the record I’m on the fence when it comes to abortion and have never completely made my mind up either way (and as you imply, my opinion probably shouldn’t matter anyway).
However, I find your predictions interesting..
Playing Devils’s Advocate here, if abortion was made illegal, do you still think women would seek ‘backstreet abortionists’ or homemade attempts regardless of the incentives for not doing so.
For example, suppose abortion was indeed considered murder and could lead to many years in jail? Or on the flip-side, suppose legislation was introduced to protect the pregnant women from retribution from employers, education establishments etc and public money was used to support them until such time they chose to give birth and keep the child, or else give it to an adoption agency/orphanage?
I’m not stating it would be right to take such measures particularly as equating it to murder would be somewhat Orwellian. However, I wonder if there is a solution that would appease both pro-choice and pro-life?
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:35 am
“However, I wonder if there is a solution that would appease both pro-choice and pro-life?”
Yeah, the solution is to get men to grow wombs and the ability to have a baby with the same risk to their life as a woman.
We’ll see the pro-life group and pro-choice group merge into one, except the pro-lifers will now rebrand themselves pro-my-life.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 3:26 pm
However, I find your predictions interesting..
Playing Devils’s Advocate here, if abortion was made illegal, do you still think women would seek ‘backstreet abortionists’ or homemade attempts regardless of the incentives for not doing so.
Yes Lee, I do, many women has had them done. Before Roe v. Wade, the people surrounding New York, where Abortion was legal and if you were able and afford to go. The horror stories from many women who had gone to a back street abortionist and self aborting could be deadly. Well there are herbs that can cause a miscarriage, how safe is this, I cannot say.
I can agree with adoptions, but with our adoption laws? If a single mother who does not believe in abortion, but adoption and what if the father who does not know about the baby until after a year or so and that child is bonding and flourishing. The said father could and would go to court, get a DNA test done and try to up heave this child from a very loving family. How do you feel about that?
EricG Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Lee – “For the record I’m on the fence when it comes to abortion and have never completely made my mind up either way”
Hmm, I dunno what to think about that…
You are for a woman’s right to chose or not. It’s kind of simple.
There is a larger issue of course.
I like to phrase it like this:
Are we talking about souls or cells?
If it’s discussion on purely scientific and social standards then I have a very straight forward and simple stance.
But if you wan to talk about souls and when life begins and all that then it gets really confusing.
I also think this is the tool by which the right wing keeps this issue from being understood by many. They start talking about the souls when it starts to be clear how absurd what they propose is. And that’s called ‘pulling heart strings’ and frankly it’s pretty low.
Lee Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:09 am
“Hmm, I dunno what to think about that…
You are for a woman’s right to chose or not. It’s kind of simple.”
No, it’s simplistic to judge things black and white when the world consists of a lot more shades of gray. This for me is one of those cases.
On the one hand, a foetus can pass biological tests to prove it is alive at quite an early stage of pregnancy. So you can argue that if you value human life, it should be preserved at all costs (bar taking another life).
On the other hand, there are two points in particular that trouble me:
1) Animals in nature often terminate pregnancies/offspring if the mother does not feel comfortable in the environment where the offspring are produced (e.g eating them shortly after birth when threatened etc).
2) Forcing someone to give birth against their will (and controlling their reproductive system) is morally repugnant. I’m not sure if even if you accept it as ’saving a life’ that the end justifies the means here.
I’m a proud, loving father of three but I’m still not particularly passionate about this issue. I find it more intriguing than anything, due to the moral questions raised. However, since I like (try) to form my opinions based on logic versus emotional reaction, I see validity in both sides and do not see why either position is ‘wrong’.
Um Cara Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 7:30 am
Animals in nature often terminate pregnancies/offspring if the mother does not feel comfortable in the environment where the offspring are produced (e.g eating them shortly after birth when threatened etc).
While I don’t generally enter into abortion debate, I can unequivocally state that I am against a woman’s right to eat her newborn baby.
Flap will be so proud.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 7:58 am
“I find it more intriguing than anything, due to the moral questions raised”
Lee: There isnt a moral issue here. THe issue is being obfuscated into a moral issue, to deny a citizen the right to self defense because she’s a woman, and men have no use for the right to self defense in that context.
As I said, if men could get pregnant,bear babies with the same risk to their own lives, this wouldnt ever be a moral issue, this would be projected as equivalent to gun ownership by no less than the same people who propose the moral arguments now.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 8:02 am
“I find it more intriguing than anything, due to the moral questions raised”
I mean, the same people who raise the moral argument can trust (a man) to own a gun, and NOT abuse that right to (own the gun &use it in self defense) , in a situation NOT in self defense.
And somehow they cant trust women with the same level of conscience (to not abuse the right to abortion, granted for self defense) as they give themselves credit. Even though (I believe) statistics (will) show it ought to be the other way round :-).
Lee Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 10:15 am
Karthik,
Of course it’s a moral question. Judging whether a course of action is right or wrong is pretty much the definition of morality.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that instead of making judgements and simply declaring a ’side’, maybe there is value in looking at why women choose abortions and find it the only viable solution to get on with their life.
I think if anti-abortionists are genuine about their concern for human life and not simply getting on their moral ‘high horse’ then they should spend more time, effort and money to provide women with an acceptable alternative for their situation.
I’m aware that there are pro-life groups who do this but I seem to hear/see/read much more of these people simply sitting in judgement and doing that is not to my knowledge stopping any abortions?
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 7:55 am
One more thing that I need to say about this man who assassinated Dr. Tiller, Abortion is legal and what he is claiming Jusifiable Homicide? He will see the needle just as fast as he pulled the trigger on his gun.
I would hate to be on the jury for this guy. I did Jury duty it was fun, but boring at times. We felt sorry for this little guy who we felt was being taken for a ride. Until the smoking gun. He bought his place of business before he asked for this Construction Company to check this out. Then during the deliberation, we asked why did he not go with a building inspector than go with the contractor to do the repairs? So we voted in favor of the Construction Company.
EricG Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“This subject should be a womans decision, not dictated by the Government.”
Welcome to the conservative / libertarian position.
See? Not so bad.
This is also why I say many of them are not conservatives anymore. They are a whole new brand of something that smells more like religious zealotry than it does like anything else. The same stuff that has killed countless innocents and ended lives in countless, horrific ways.
flap Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“religious zealotry”
Is developmental biology full of religious zealotry? It amazes me how people like you try to deflect the issue when your stance on late-term abortion is PURELY, PURELY political.
Anyone’s “decision” that impinges on someone else’s right to LIVE is not a “decision” that should be legal. If you “decide” to start killing conservatives, then that shouldn’t be legal.
August 30th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
I am logging off, and now I am saying Goodnight.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 30th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Goodnight take care CW :-)
August 30th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
George Roeder hiring Michael Hirsh to re-stage a previously failed legal defense is just another example of republikkkans resorting to the same strategies and techniques over and over and over no matter how many times they have proven to fail fail fail fail fail.
It’s absolute insanity. They are psychologically incapable of recognizing that their most cherished ideas lead to nothing but failure, one failure after another, time and time again.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:34 am
I guess you could say George Roeder aborted George Tiller.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 9:10 am
Not nice Daddio, that was premeditated murder, nothing more. The Prosecutor can and will ask for the death penalty, since he planned it out. I wonder if Bill O’Reilly will be held responsible for inciting the death of Dr. Tiller.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 9:13 am
“I wonder if Bill O’Reilly will be held responsible for inciting the death of Dr. Tiller.”
I hope he will be held responsible(Wishful thinking, of course).
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 9:12 am
“I guess you could say George Roeder aborted George Tiller.”
You could say anything you want, only makes you look demented.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 9:17 am
““I guess you could say George Roeder aborted George Tiller.”
You could say anything you want, only makes you look demented.”
Not only demented,Daddido, but logically impaired.
Abortion is legal. Murder is not legal.
Dr Tiller performed abortions. Roeder performed murder.
To suggest the 2 are the same requires a certain lunacy level, and congratulations on achieving it. Your biggest achievement to date, I speculate.
flap Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:01 pm
“Abortion is legal. Murder is not legal.”
Was the legality of slavery under Dred Scott a proper justification? Legality does not equal humane, moral, or ethical.
“To suggest the 2 are the same requires a certain lunacy level”
Where are your facts to support this? I say it requires a certain lunacy level to not understand the biological reality of a late-term abortion terminating a human life. Why is a late-term fetus not a human being? Because of its position? Have you studied embryology? Is that lunacy? Seems a lot more reality-based and non-loony than what you’re speaking of.
Let’s say a woman wanted to have an abortion but waited until right after the baby was born until killing it. Or she delivered it and then killed it, which is essentially what a partial-birth abortion is doing. Why should she be charged with murder when it is in essence the SAME DAMN thing?
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:11 pm
“I say it requires a certain lunacy level to not understand the biological reality of a late-term abortion terminating a human life”
Yes, it does require a certain level of lunacy to be blinded to the probability of the mother’s life being at risk, and the odds of the fetus surviving.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
“Why is a late-term fetus not a human being? ”
Because the law of the land awards citizenship,rights only when the fetus is born.
THe law of the land is something I know you find hard to respect uniformly,Flap, but give it a try, you can do it.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Flap:
Dont even try to waste our times with the “moral argument” here. If it is immoral to take a fetus’s life(possibly to defend the mother’s life, possibly frivolously), it is immoral to take another person’s life to protect your own. Give up your right to gun ownership, it is on the exact same moral plane as abortion is.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:47 pm
” Wrong. The fetus has no choice or control over the circumstances surrounding his potential death”
1.The fetus is causing risk to the mother’s life.
2.The fetus is not a person,is not a citizen.
The fetus has no right guaranteed to those outside the womb, because it is not a person.
“It is the aborted fetus who has been denied this right guaranteed to all those outside the womb.THATS what is immoral… ”
You’re wrong. The fetus has no right to expect the mother to bear the fetus to term. That is the biggest gift a woman can give her offspring, but that does NOT make it an obligation for the mother to carry to term. And there is NOTHING immoral about a mother taking the choice to not give the above gift to the fetus.
And needless to say, nothing illegal about it,either.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:58 pm
“An attacker has a choice to attack you or not. Once he makes that choice you have the choice of whether to defend yourself or not”
And can you guarantee me every use of the gun CLAIMED in self defense was actually preceded by an attack?
Why dont you give your fellow living citizen the same benefit of doubt you accord to the unborn fetus?
If you cant digest the fact that some fetuses get aborted for no rhyme or reason,how can you digest the fact that gun ownership allows some people to be killed under the pretext of self defense, when they didnt even attack the person who shot them to death?
Shifting morals is fun,Kregg and Flap. Atleast you’re being brave,Kregg,trying to brazen it out,Kregg. Flap is a coward, arguing morality for the woman and arguing constitutionality for the gun. Atleast you dared to step into the quagmire, I give you credit for that.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 2:01 pm
“Kar said: You’re wrong. The fetus has no right to expect the mother to bear the fetus to term. That is the biggest gift a woman can give her offspring, but that does NOT make it an obligation for the mother to carry to term.
K: Talk about ‘death panels’
”
As I said once before, the gift given by the mother is her CHOICE. It is NOT her obligation. I dare say, only those who wish to imprison women in the dark ages mode would try to pretend its their moral obligation.And every male who does that is a coward,who would re-own this right to choice if they had to bear the child themselves, with the same risk to their own lives.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
“It may not be her legal obligation to do so but a large part of society believes that a woman who chooses to conceive a child has a moral responsibility”
Even granting your hypothesis, which is a big stretch…
If society also by and large believes those who have are morally responsible to help those who dont have….
Would you then give up your right to own what you produce?
Rights to ourselves are fun, responsibilities on others are even more fun. Having both is funnest,who says you cant have your cake and eat it too?
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
That is okay Kregg, my husband works to put that white stuff in your kiddies belly’s; GOT MILK! :)
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“Not so much a stretch as you might wish. Why is there STILL a rabid abortion debate in this country 40 years AFTER the SCOTUS made it legal?”
As long as there exist people who wont accept a court ruling as final, as long as there exist people who believe a religious book’s law is higher than the law of the land, no court ruling can end the debate on an issue. Doesnt make the stretch made by those people not a stretch.
“Society, in large part, DOES believe in a moral responsibility to care for those who have little, and a large part of society DOES give from it’s plenty to those who are needy. And, it does so WITHOUT ‘giving up the right to own what they produce’”
Society by and large gives it is NOT the point. If caring for the unborn fetus’s rights is obligatory by morality, then charity must be obligatory,not optional. Charity in a quantum deemed by society,not you. There goes right to property.
Of course, I dont expect you to accept this, the same way I dont expect you to accept there is no moral obligation on the woman. You’re double standards were apparent when you took up this debate, and they continue to be double standards.
When you accept a moral society determined obligation to charity, and no right to gun ownership, we’ll discuss abortion. Until then,stay out of women’s rights to abortion,its their right.
flap Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 10:02 pm
“As long as there exist people who wont accept a court ruling as final”
Yeah, why didn’t we accept Dred Scott as final? Wasn’t that good law? Legality does not mean it’s good law. People are blinded by a lot of different things…the factual scientific REALITY is that mid-to-late term abortion is taking a human life. Doesn’t matter what sort of political or rhetorical nonsense you use, it is taking a human life. Now, if you are heartless enough to want to–in the guise of “reproductive rights”–to keep that completely legal, that’s fine, but let’s not play word games when we all know a human life is being snuffed out at its genesis.
“Flap is a coward, arguing morality for the woman and arguing constitutionality for the gun.”
Are you a blithering idiot? How in the hell do you connect gun ownership and abortion? Guns are objects. Abortion (late-term) is taking a human life. It’s not even a similar issue. And I’m not even a huge gun guy anyway…so I don’t know what you’re talking about other than trying in vain to win the losing side of the abortion debate.
Conservatives may be wrong about a lot of things…abortion isn’t one of them.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 7:52 am
“Are you a blithering idiot? How in the hell do you connect gun ownership and abortion? Guns are objects. Abortion (late-term) is taking a human life.”
A gun is an object used to take a human life.
Many human human lives are taken through gun ownership (the right being given INTENDED for self defense) in acts NOT in self defense. That is somehow less immoral to Flap, as I said, because he’s a coward.
Its OK by Flap-Morality to have someone killed “under the pretext of self defense” without it being self defense. However, even if the mother’s life is actually at risk, she shouldnt have the right to abort the fetus even to save her own life, perhaps because her life is worth less than Flap’s life.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 7:54 am
“Conservatives may be wrong about a lot of things…abortion isn’t one of them.”
Abortion is THE issue that will cause the disintegration of the Republican party as it used to be.
Abortion is THE issue which will cause fiscal conservatives to drift to the Libertarian party.
Because, Abortion is THE issue on which conservatives are dead wrong.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“Why should she be charged with murder when it is in essence the SAME DAMN thing”
Fair point.
Killing someone in self defense is murder, too.
Why give it lesser punishment?
Further, you are yet to give a counterargument that supports your right to gun ownership, that doesnt fit the above argument I used for abortion:
“It is legal”.
So, give up your right to gun ownership, I will happily concede the right to abortion for a woman.
Until then,try obey the law,loser.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“K: No. Its not. Killing someone in self-defense is NOT murder.”
If you cant definitively prove the act was in self defense, it should be murder.
How often do you NOT have a corroboration other than the aggressor’s story?
And if that frequency is acceptable, the frequency of women aborting the fetus ‘on a whim’ is a much lower % than those aborting out of a genuine risk to their own life.
I leave it to you to show some courage and cede the woman’s right to abortion in the interest of her right to protect her own life.
EricG Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Kregg – “You pull out your pocket knife and get lucky by hitting him in the jugular, whereupon he dies within a couple of minutes. Do you believe you should be charged with unlawful premeditated homocide if you cannot prove that he tried to hit you over the head before you defended yourself?”
Lucky!?!
How about all life is sacred? Not even a mugger deserves to die alone in an alley, bleeding out over the piles of trash.
–
To your point, that’s obviously not premeditation and I think you are fully aware of that fact.
This is all beside the point.
If liberals held this kind of logic we would have killed Cheney and Bush by now. Found a way to do it or just sacrificed one of our own to do one of these “church killings” that the right wing seems to enjoy committing.
It’s frightening. Are you Christians? Americans?
If so then please stop this. All of it. Stop talking like this. Stop defending this murdering terrorist. Stop looking to abortion doctors to be your vent for your unhappiness and hatred.
And I will always be here to remind you that your hatred for the doctor is unfounded and (unfortunately so) if you really believe all these things you would want to kill the WOMAN not the doctor and that’s where the whole thing starts getting a little tough to explain for people coming from this sick and demented perspective. If you want to do this, then be straight with us. You have to want to at least lock up women if you want to kill doctors. That or be a hypocrite.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“What aggressor? The bad guy or the guy who defends himself? What makes a self-defender an ‘aggressor’?”
If you’re going to assume he’s defending himself on trust of his word, trust the woman’s word that her life is at risk. Uh oh, double standards showing up again,Kregg.Different level of trust for different situations.
” I believe stats will show that most fetuses are aborted out of convenience to the mother rather than true danger to her health.”
I will research this . I believe it is exactly the opposite. But I dont have the stats now. However I believe if your stat is true,OReilly would have mentioned it a few million times by now. By evidence of the dog that didnt bark,I believe you’re wrong, but I’ll wait for my research on the topic. You’re free to research it too.
“The real problem is the casual killing of developing human life for convenience – a position you seem to support.”
I do not support casual killing of any human life, including fetuses. But where its not my call to make, I defer to the law of the land.
The only thing I do, and intend to do about this is to not do the same myself,i.e. not abort or cause a casual abortion myself. Others are in control of their lives, and the constitution allows casual abortions, the constitution allows people to be killed in the name of self defense without sufficient proof,the constitution isnt and wont ever be perfect, life’s like that.
I am not the judge of anyone. I am not qualified to be a judge of moral character of any other person’s choices other than myself.
Will continue later.Got some work.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
if you kill someone by mistake, that would be 2nd degree murder, “Depraved indifference.” and it can be a couple of years in prison and Justifiable Homicide; well that has to be proven in a Court of Law and with Bill O’Reilly encouraging George Roeder, well all they have to do is go back to the Fox News and get all the his rants on Dr.Tiller.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 11:26 am
“Not even a mugger deserves to die alone in an alley, bleeding out over the piles of trash.
K: But his victim does?
”
So the “unborn fetus” deserves an opportunity to survive, but not the mother who’s life is at risk?
You should know by now I have drawn a 1 to 1 parallel between abortion and gun ownership. Every argument you present for gun ownership IS an argument for abortion right to exist.
“KAR was the one advocating that uncorroborated self-defense be considered murder!!!”
If abortion is considered murder,without looking at the probability of the life of the mother is at threat, then using the above 1 to 1 parallel,uncorroborated self defense should be considered murder.
Why are you taking away the context of my statement Kregg?I expect better from you(dont know why).
Celticwitch Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 11:37 am
Kregg, No matter how you cut the proverbial Pie, it is taken someone’s life, you are depriving someone of their life. Murder is murder. Whether it is premeditated and to manslaughter to vehicular homicide. You took someone’s life.
Depraved indifference now you have to make me look at a law dictionary… This sucks….
Um Cara Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 11:41 am
No matter how you cut the proverbial Pie, it is taken someone’s life, you are depriving someone of their life. Murder is murder. Whether it is premeditated and to manslaughter to vehicular homicide. You took someone’s life.
Jesus frigging Christ on a stick people…
Specific words have specific meanings. ‘Murder’ has a specific statutory definition separate and distinct from manslaughter.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Quoting Flap-The-Moral-Cop from the thread:
http://www.alan.com/2009/08/24/another-baptist-preacher-prays-for-obama-to-die/#comments
how does murdering late-term unborn children in the name of “reproductive rights” make you a good doctor?
Here you go. Flap calls Abortion “taking of a human life”, now. But whenever its convenient, Flap calls it murder.
I didnt call it murder, I was refuting Flap’s ridiculous characterization of abortion is murder.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm
“I believe stats will show that most fetuses are aborted out of convenience to the mother rather than true danger to her health”
“Hows that research coming? ”
I havent had time. Went home from work at midnight last night.
I will need to ask you to qualify “convenience”.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I dont know why I went 4 threads back:
Quoting flap from this thread:
“You disgust me for supporting someone like George Tiller while he butchered so many babies…..and Tiller was a murderer many times over”
So, it is Flap and apparently, Drk H who need a dictionary, to understand what the word murder means.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I notice you copy-pasted an online dictionary. You need to teach me how to use them.
I asked you to qualify it for good reason, as shown by the definition you pasted.
The definition you pasted will include abortions for rape victims, since that fits the dictionary meaning you pasted.
Please try to make the qualification in the context of the discussion,Kregg. You’re wasting time otherwise, and allowing yourself to be accused of obfuscation.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Of course it does. There are certainly ‘necessary’ abortions performed. Its the ones performed out of convenience that I believe people are up in arms about.”
Is an abortion on a rape victim ‘necessary’?
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Statistics do bear out(I believe,from hearsay) that most late term abortions are with the mother’s life at risk.Is that a ‘necessary’ abortion?
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:20 pm
“K: I would certainly consider it to be a ‘necessary’ or ‘appropriate’ abortion.”
So, do I have to dig it out of you for every special circumstance?
This special circumstance definitely fits the dictionary definition of “convenience” you gave; I dont consider it convenience. Do you?
Or, are you going to qualify what you consider as “convenience abortions” on your own?
EricG Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“I guess you could say George Roeder aborted George Tiller.”
You disgust me.
You and all these pro-death psychopaths screaming about children in the womb and then leaving people out in the rain the second they come out of that birth canal.
Hypocrites? Yes.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Hey Eric, you are not the only one I heard that from. Yes, these women are on there own after they come out of the womb. It is like, Now you are on your own B*t*h.
EricG Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I get extra angry because I want to protect and defend all life and quite often I MIGHT be in agreement with some element of what conservatives are saying but it’s all about how they want to get there.
Involving the state and turning away any and all social programs unless they are religious in nature; it’s absurdity. Also anyone on the ground and in the streets with this issue knows that no person who is impregnated when they don’t wish to be are often victims of rape or sexual abuse. So they are not quick to jump up and tell all about it to their clergy but they will tell anonymous non-profit group workers. And yet the conservatives want to literally bomb Planned Parenthood buildings and kill people like myself who will stand up and speak the truth.
If “Pro-Life” was actually that and had some sane positions and goals I could easily stand behind the sentiment if not be active in a group. But as it stands it’s all an excuse to do murder and hate women that these people wish they could control utterly.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Eric, I do understand, you speak about Planned Parenthood, where does a woman who without Medical insurance go to get her annual exam? Does these right wingers think about that? They actually do not perform abortions there, well not in my area. I am pro-choice, it is the right of the woman, not the Government. I know what you had said about a comment I posted. These right wing nuts complain about big Government, but forget the right to Privacy which is the ninth amendment! We should have that call, to end an Pregnancy.
Look at that woman who was abducted at 11 and has two daughters by her captors. Think about how she feels. She is not quite 30 and she has a 15 and 11 year old. Look at the cost of therapy she is going to have. Is she suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome?
flap Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 10:09 pm
“You disgust me.”
You disgust me for supporting someone like George Tiller while he butchered so many babies. As long as you extreme leftists continue to support or condone late-term abortion, people on the right won’t shut up and are not going to cede ground just because of idiots like Roeder who do things they shouldn’t be doing.
Roeder and Tiller are both murderers…and Tiller was a murderer many times over.
Do “you libs” actually know what a late-term abortion entails, by the way, or are you speaking out of ignorance? If someone murdered your newly born child you’d call them a psychopath, but if someone murdered your late-term baby you’d call them a hero! Strange times we live in.
“screaming about children in the womb and then leaving people out in the rain”
So I must be able to provide for all children or I should be in FAVOR of them being purposefully killed off? Complete care or death are the two options? That’s ludicrous and illogical, as usual.
Drk H Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Flap way to go. The idea they are purporting is absoultly false on 2 fronts.
1. The difference for the pro-abortionist is what, 5 minutes, 10, 30. That is the difference between when it is considered a baby and a fetus. That is a totally idiotic stance for anybody to take. Disingenous to say the least. Hypocrissy, come on if that is not the very definition then I don’t know what is.
2. The idea that someone else’s irresponsibility obligates us to do terrible things.
Why not evaluate what we see as wrong, leaving babies out in the rain, work to make adoption more available to those who can and are willing to help the weakest in our society. I don’t think anybody would find that wrong or something we would not want to do.
OldLefty Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
We make the same claim about an unnecessary war.
Meanwhile, I LOVE the self righteousness.
Kansas’ post-viability abortion restriction provides that no abortion may be performed after viability unless the attending physician and another financially and legally independent physician determine that an abortion is necessary to preserve the woman’s life or continuation of the pregnancy would cause a “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” of the of the of the woman. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 65-6703(a) (Enacted 1992; Last Amended 1998).
Perhaps when YOU suffer from any of the rare conditions, (including incest), like, twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome with Maternal Mirror Syndrome, In the case of intrauterine fetal death, there is Severe shoulder dystocia, uterine dehiscence, (where there is already scarring from previous C section, endomyometritis, development of DIC, EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA, LETHAL ACANTHOLYTIC. Or lethal osteogenesis imperfecta….perhaps THEN you can be the moral judge of others.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“So I must be able to provide for all children or I should be in FAVOR of them being purposefully killed off? Complete care or death are the two options? That’s ludicrous and illogical, as usual”
You’re the one being disingenuous ,Flap.
Complete care or stay out of that woman’s business is your choice. The law determines if her action is legal or not. Its legal.
“As long as you extreme leftists continue to support or condone late-term abortion”
And it is pathetic that late term abortions are illegal in many states. If any abortions must be illegal,it should be the early term ones, where nearly every casual abortion occurs. Even that needs to be qualified, as it will then be a deterrent on rape victims. Instead of qualifying the law to rule out the clear cases of convenience abortions, you’re going after a helpless woman(through the late term abortions law). Shows how illogical YOU are.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:02 am
You could say that about every murder and killing in the world, from serial killers, to deaths in war.
Daddio Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 8:15 am
You could also say that about politicians who do not get re-elected. Only their political careers were aborted.
Daddio Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 8:25 am
We should abort about 435 House members and every Senate member up for re-election next year. That sounds like a brilliant idea. That would shock the living daylights out of the DC crowd.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Morning Kregg, Well you want the entire Congress with Republicans? Damn their goes the middle and poverty class of people, since we get screwed in the end.
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:02 am
Drudge is reporting that 57% of the American people would vote to replace the entire congress right now…
That really doesn’t mean much – folks are always happy to replace other people’s congressmen. I’m sure the percentage on that particular metric is quite often fairly high.
What would be interesting would be a nationwide poll on the percentage of people who wish to replace their own congressmen.
Actually, to be perfectly honest, polls are not all that interesting to me personally, ever. Elections, sure – polls, not so much.
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:17 am
I think the article said the ENTIRE congress which would necessarily mean their own reps too.
Right, but it has been shown in the past that even people who respond in this way tend to continue to vote for their own reps (one example, all the people in favor of term limits, yet support their own representatives.
Like I said, though no polls particularly interest me, a moderately more interesting one would be where the respondents were asked about their own reps, instead of everyone elses.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:18 am
Kregg, I think the middle and poverty class of people do get screwed. I do understand that Bush out of the goodness of his heart, helped the Elderly with Medicare part D, to help with prescriptions. I also know when my mom was dying and she was home for a week before she went back into the hospital to die, my dad paid almost $600.00 in Prescriptions for her. Yes he could send it into Medicare to be reimbursed, but he also told me that he does not get back what they spent.
Kregg, I was talking about the amount of taxes that the middle and poverty class has to pay. Poverty is the ones who makes minimal wages. During the Republican reign, millionaires has a little tax free safe haven in the Swiss Bank accounts and the Cayman Islands. Obama is changing that, by making them pay their fair share. If you think that is wrong, I really do pity you. Seriously why can’t the ones who have the money help out. I can tell you why, it is called Greed.
OldLefty Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:32 am
“I think the article said the ENTIRE congress which would necessarily mean their own reps too”
……………..
Many people vote or volunteer for a candidate in the primaries, who is closer to their values, then vote or volunteer for the winner.
Many in my state did just that for the more liberal Chuck Pennacchio , but when he lost, we supported Casey over Santorum.
Those of us who are more liberal would replace our Democratic congressman with one who is more liberal, but when election time came we would not put in a conservative.
In other words, we would not let ‘The perfect be the enemy of the good.’
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Why should Um pay more taxes so you can get something free from the govt?
I’ll list a few reasons I should pay more taxes than a poor / lower middle class / middle class person should (almost everyone considers themselves ‘middle class’ – I’d call myself upper middle class).
- I reap far more benefits from the US infrastructure, and should pay commiserate with those benefits
- A much lower percentage of my salary is spent on ’stuff’ needed to get by, thus I can more easily afford to pay more taxes
- There just isn’t room in the economy for everyone to be wealthy/upper middle class, it isn’t possible (the old ‘the world needs ditch diggers too’ statement), but it is good to live in a society where everyone has a reasonable standard of living (take a look at Rio de Janerio if you want to see what happens when the worlds of the very wealthy and the very poor collide)
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:38 am
Kregg, I am NOT getting anything free, by the way. I DO have insurance. You just love to twist up words. Now please listen! I said during the Republicans reign, the wealthy gets a huge tax break and the middle and poverty class has to pay a higher tax to compensate what the wealthy is not paying. I also noticed that when I was working, during the Clinton Presidency, I was getting more in my paycheck, but when Bush Presidency, I was making more and getting less. THAT is what I am talking about.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:43 am
Another thing Kregg, IF I get back to work and I KNEW my TAX money was to help the poor, I would not mind. I do know what it is like to have nothing, and I would be awfully happy to help them. When you loose everything Kregg, let me know, until then listen to people who went through foreclosures, when they lost everything. I never went through a foreclosure, but a bankrupcy Kregg.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:43 am
“Um said: – I reap far more benefits from the US infrastructure, and should pay commiserate with those benefits
K: Do you consume more benefits from the US infrastructure than does a poor or middle class individual?
”
Oh, here we go again: “Um reaps more benefits and consumes the SAME benefits from the US infrastructure ….because Um is smarter than the poor or middle class individual…there is NO possibility Um is consuming more benefits, lets just guess no, and the fact that Um makes more money is purely on account of his smartness and not on account of higher consumption of US infrastructure… and lets just pretend that’s the answer”.
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:45 am
Do you consume more benefits from the US infrastructure than does a poor or middle class individual? I”m figuring the answer is ‘no’. So, you simply pay more for the same services. The ‘benefits’ you reap are a result of your own inputs, Um, and not some special gift from the govt.
My inputs have a high multiplier due to the US infra. I am benefiting more from that multiplier than a pizza delivery dude.
Chipping in a few bucks to keep that multiplier high is in my own interest. I’m a selfish b%stard, which is why I don’t mind paying high taxes.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:52 am
“My inputs have a high multiplier due to the US infra. I am benefiting more from that multiplier than a pizza delivery dude.”
Does the higher multiplier not translate to a higher utilization/consumption of infrastructure?Is it a result of higher consumption of infrastructure, or your smarts?YOUR opinion pls Um?
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Does the higher multiplier not translate to a higher utilization/consumption of infrastructure?Is it a result of higher consumption of infrastructure, or your smarts?YOUR opinion pls Um?
I would not phrase it as ‘consumption’ of infrastructure, which is why I talk about the multiplier. I ‘consume’ relatively little US infra (especially considering I do not live there).
A good example would be schools. I only ‘consumed’ my own school experience, since I don’t have kids – as compared to Ocotomom (for example).
However, I do benefit from living in an educated society. An educated society is one of those things that feeds into the ‘multiplier’, as I phrased it.
So even though I do not consume public school resources, I benefit from them.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:01 pm
“The multiplier benefits both equally. You benefit from your inputs minus whatever is taken from you to pay for the pizza boy’s benefits”
Chicken or egg argument?
AFTER paying more(for the pizza boy’s benefit), you benefit equally?BEFORE Tax argument suddenly becomes After Tax Argument?
In any case, even the after tax argument is flawed,Kregg. Um retains more after tax than the Pizza boy, and so do I and you.
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
No, you’re not. The multiplier benefits both equally. You benefit from your inputs minus whatever is taken from you to pay for the pizza boy’s benefits.
I benefit from a great number of things on one side of the equation (was raised right, strong family support, good health, good genetics, good luck, and yes – a good work ethic and the ability to deny myself things in the present with an eye towards the future).
Once all that runs into the multiplier afforded me by living in a society with such strong infrastructure, a small increase (or decrease) in that multiplier affects me much more significantly than someone with less to multiply by.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 12:39 pm
“What is different is what you both choose to DO”
This is unsound,Kregg.
By your argument, Rich man owns a car,can drive on the highway. Poor man doesnt own a car, and cant use the highway. The opportunity to use is there for both,equally, from the government. So their choice to not use the highway shouldnt cause rich man to owe a greater % of the highway tax than the poor man, by your argument.
This is not the first time someone has presented to me a bogus argument to make a case for flat taxation. It is unsound, and it comes from an unsound economic framework. It is rooted in dishonesty(the argument that they both have equal opportunity to use it is unsound). And I refuse to accept it because its rooted in dishonesty.
Um Cara Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
No, the ‘multiplier’ is constant between you and the pizza boy.
But the effect is not, so it is in my own selfish interest to pay more to keep that infra level high.
Like I said, I’m a greedy b@st@rd – so I don’t mind paying higher taxes.
I’m still working on this ‘multiplier’ metaphor, I haven’t expressed things in this manner in the past (though I have thought of it in this way) – so it may take a while for me to properly express what I am trying to say (or I may end up abandoning the metaphor).
But it makes sense to me, anyway.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:14 pm
“The “argument” that both have equal opportunity is not an argument but fact.”
There is no equal opportunity.
A Taxi Service owner with 10000000 cars and 1 worker employed for each car has more opportunity to use the above roads than a private car owning dude with 1 car.
If there were just 2 *entities* using roads, and 1 was the above Taxi Service owner, the other the private car owner, I expect the taxi service owner to have to cough up much much more than the private car owning dude; Because he is going to be using the roads more.
Income tax is merely an approximate extrapolation of the above.
The equal opportunity argument continues to be bogus, as I already said.Your argument is socialism for the rich: Make the people who wont use the facility as much to pay a disproportionately higher % of the cost, and tell them “you’re not smart enough to own 10000000 cars, so its your fault you arent getting the same benefit out of the road”.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:24 pm
“you’re not smart enough to own 10000000 cars, so its your fault you arent getting the same benefit out of the road”
Actually,is a little worse than that:
Since you own 1 car and he owns 10000000 cars, you must have a lower IQ, and its only “fair” that you share the costs in a way that makes you pay a disproportionately higher amount compared to your benefit or usage.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Actually, this is exactly why I called the justifications for ridiculous wars under the name of National Security as selective socialism.
Dude 1 owning a business with corporate HQ in a NY skyscraper has more probability of financial loss in the event of a terrorist attack than Dude 2 living by the countryside growing chicken and barely make ends meet. The distribution of benefit out of the war is automatically unequal because of these probabilities. The cost sharing was of course spread out “equally” through currency printing, since we didnt have the money for the (Iraq) war.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Ohh, Since you usually demand a full logical path,Kregg:
In the above circumstance, its always Dude 1 telling Dude 2 we need to fight this war, and pay for it.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:48 am
“The opportunity is a fixed value”
No it is NOT a fixed value.
The value of the opportunity to someone with 100000 Cars is more. The value of the opportunity to someone with 0 cars is 0.
You’re equal opportunity argument is plain wrong.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 9:51 am
I already went over the above.
THe probability of financial loss because of a terrorist attack for someone with a NY corporate HQ is higher than someone who works by the countryside growing chicken.
Your equal opportunity argument is very flawed. It comes from a socialist mindset where you want to pretend both the rich guy and the poor guy derive the same value from the opportunity, where the reality is, every infrastructure investment has a value distribution over its potential users.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
“Maybe you’d like to think this true so you can blame one man’s lack of effort ”
THis is so childish,Kregg.
You’re lumping the economies of scale effect into effort.
Economies of scale effect makes the value distribution non uniform. You’re the one who needs to be paying me tuition for my efforts to help you understand this simple concept.
Effort is 1 factor that can affect outcome, and so is economies of scale. Economies of scale effect MUST influence price. Differential pricing is quite fair, and correct, from the seller’s perspective.
Now to specifics.
“Without the opportunity offered by the road’s existence the taxi guy would not buy his cars. Get it?”
The taxi guy had the money to buy 1000000 cars, and the pizza guy didnt. Fair enough, its the result of their PAST work. But to use that to argue the value they derive out of the road is same is plain absurd. Why should the pizza guy pay ANYTHING? He chooses to walk and deliver pizzas. His value from the road is ZERO. Value is affected by economies of scale,something you refuse to acknowledge, I suspect because given you’re a business owner, it would bump up the estimates of what the fair price of the taxes YOU ought to pay would be.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 am
“The opportunities that derive from being an American are the same for each and every one of us. Some take more advantage of those opportunities while others do not.”
The value of the opportunity is not the same. I have already proved it. The value not being same, price cannot be uniformly shared. Its the same argument as YOU use to complain about the UHC proposals.
So, you see, you ARE a socialist at the core. You do want someone who doesnt use the roads to pay for the roads you will use, just because he’s an American like you, with some naive “he has the opportunity to use the road too” logic that wont sell past even a kid.
So, get off your moral high horse about “I earned more money and he’s snatching it from me”. You’re doing the exact same thing by spreading the cost of the infrastructure that earned you the above money, over people who had no value for it, and didnt use it.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:36 am
“Exedrin headache #295 – Kar’s economic theory”
I understand it can be galling, and give you a headache when you’re confronted with the facts that show other people have been subsidizing your earnings, by charging them “equally” for things you had the ability to use more, through economies of scale.
Economies of scale IS the rationale for progressive taxation.
Please dont waste our times discussing progressive taxation without discussing economies of scale; That is a fraudulent, disingenuous argument, and I do not have the time to waste on an obviously disingenuous argument.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:43 am
“Two men stand side by side, you give them each an apple you paid $1/each for: One man eats the apple, the other doesn’t. Does the uneaten apple still have a value of $1?”
Here’s a tip: Price and Value arent the same thing. The value of the apple to those 2 individuals, neither you nor I has a clue about.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:49 am
“You’re all tangled up. No one is talking about price, Kar. Its not part of the argument.”
I AM talking of price: Tax is the price of the infrastructure. THe price must be borne proportional to value. It is differential pricing, but it is fair.
“no way of focusing your attention on the actual argument of the innate value of being american ”
The innate value is NOT constant!!! It is NOT uniform!!! I AM on the topic!!! Its you who are trying to force an absurd position which you cant even defend.
The value of being an American is NOT the same for Bill Gates as it is for a homeless man.
If Bill Gates chose to instead be a Chinese citien, his “money value” will (say) depreciate by X.Original Money Value=Y. Utility Loss=Utility(Y)-Utility(X)(Law of diminishing marginal utility cannot be forgotten here).
Likewise, for the homeless man, similar argument.
You dont understand the concept of Utility, Value.
And you’re trying hard to obfuscate, to avoid facing the core truth:
Utility distributions vary for the same infrastructure, and charging an arbitrary “uniform” price is ALWAYS going to be socialism.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:52 am
“It’s opportunity value is fixed in that it exists for anyone to use and, therefore, that ‘opportunity value’ is the same to one as it is to another”
That’s not true.
The value is a very individual estimate. A rich person has more value out of the road than a poor person.
Likewise,a poor person has more value out of a public school than a rich person.
etc etc.
You’re confusing “equal opportunity” with “value of the equal opportunity”. When you manage to get past that, you will see pretty much everything I said above makes sense.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 am
“Where you are blowing it is that you consider the opportunity value of the road to be what each individual values it as – but this makes no difference”
Kregg, where do you live?(dont answer)
Lets say you live in town X. I live in town Y.Both in continental America.
Town X and TOwn Y have a road between them already.THey’re 2000 miles apart,though.
I propose a bridge in town Y from my home to my workplace. There is a road to my home. So you and I have “equal opportunity” to use this bridge. So we share the cost equally. Fair? Opportunity is equal after all.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:14 am
Anyone wants to call this game?
I incline to think I won this time round(obviously I lost last time,since I admitted Kregg was right,in that discussion).
Any referee around?
p.s:Why do we need a referee so often, to call the game when a “conservative” appears to be losing?
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:19 am
“But, while we are looking up definitions take a look at ‘utility’ – “the quality or condition of being useful”
Utility has the meaning “usefulness” also. THat is the meaning it is used with,in Economics. Because economics deals with measurements, not absolute measurements “it is useful or it isnt”. Economics deals with utility being 1 unit,2 units, etc. So, we ARE talking of the quantum of utility. WHich you’re somehow trying to obfuscate into a meaning of the word “utility” that is NOT relevant in the topic in discussion.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:21 am
OK, Kregg:
Lets build a bridge from my home to my workplace. Lets share the cost uniformly. We both have the opportunity to use it, and your choice to not use it doesnt affect the value of the opportunity to use the bridge.
Lets go for it.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 am
” So, why would YOU be calling for a referee if I thought I was losing the argument? ;-)”
Because statistically, it appears conservatives never admit they’re wrong. THat’s why the referee is needed.
While we’re here, when are you paying for the bridge to my workplace Kregg? Why arent you paying for it?Its equal opportunity and equal value.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
“And, while THEY may not value the opportunity, those opportunities remain in place equally for all”
The opportunity had a cost. that cost is being borne by all: Including those who have no value of it. A La UHC.
So, let me ask again, when did you turn socialist?Were you always a socialist?Or is this the selective socialism of conservatives showing up?
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
“K: Correct. Thank you for making my argument”
What argument was made?
You agree to this bridge? Then why complain about UHC? The public option is there for everyone to use, whether they choose it or not.
In any case, the converse isnt true. If you propose a bridge from your home to your workplace, I sure as hell dont wanna pay for it.
That IS socialism, asking someone else to pay the cost of what you have more utility,use for.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
” I didn’t agree to the bridge at all – only that it’s ‘opportunity value’ is the same for all because it is available equally to all”
Opportunity is same. Opportunity value depends on the individual/entity who proposes to use it. Opportunity value is defined ON the individual using it.
Further, I find this interesting: You wont pay for the bridge, but want us to share the highway cost equally if you’re the taxi service owner? Gee. And I thought you were a socialist. Didnt figure you to be a crook.
August 31st, 2009 at 8:12 am
“You could say that about every murder and killing in the world, from serial killers, to deaths in war.”
“You could also say that about politicians who do not get re-elected. Only their political careers were aborted.”
And with the typial sleight of hand, the topic is changed from holding Roeder accountable for his murder, to how “bad things happen around us all over the world,everyday”.
Good job Kregg,Daddido.Obfuscate away.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:38 am
“We should abort about 435 House members and every Senate member up for re-election next year. That sounds like a brilliant idea.”
No, it sounds like a moron’s idea of a brilliant idea. “Let’s throw the bums out.” “Let’s nuke’em.” It’s from the wailing-infant-with-a-dirty-diaper school of political analysis. And the truth is republikkkans need to get the hell out of the way so the rest of us, the adults, can repair the damage from Bush and try to salvage whatever is left of our future.
karthiks030977 Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 11:46 am
“We should abort about 435 House members and every Senate member up for re-election next year”
Here’s a hint for you Daddido.
Even if you do the above “abortion”, Republicans are NOT getting control of the House/Senate. Here’s a less subtle hint: You lost the election,learn to deal with it.
August 31st, 2009 at 11:39 am
I am still here. Just was talking to my daughter. BTW, Kregg I hate to have anyone help me, even when I need it. I guess my up bringing, but my parents always taught us, to help the ones who is less fortunate than us.
One question to anyone who can answer this. This is for both Democrats and Republican: Well I have been reading all the posting, pros and cons of UHC. I am wondering why such a huge fuss? If other countries carry this, than why can’t the US. Are we that insensitive to the needs of the poor and middleclass citizens who cannot afford Health Insurance and yes it can cost the middle and poverty class people.
When I paid, Fed, State and Local taxes, I never minded that I could help the needy, I did give to Toys for Tots, Easter seal, I supported the Breast Cancer research, Diabetes research, (since that is what caused the death of my mother.) I actually hated to bail-out Wall Street and the Auto Industry. They screwed up, not us. The Auto Industry never looked to the Foreign cars and how they are built, all the recalls that they had done, and just resently.
Celticwitch Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Ok two different answers, Still confused about this, some fear that the Private Companies would faulter and leave. Remember when HMO come on the scene? I remember my mother and her nurse cronies all taking about that it would be the demise of our Blue Cross and Blue Shield. Well it is still around and Most Companies do carry this for their Employees.
What about the ones who cannot afford Health Insurance. Are they going to give up, food or heat to buy this? Just asking, I am talking about the ones who ARE not living with Parents, My daughter live with us.
Lee Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:43 am
“insurance companies who are denied the opportunity to make a profit on their product will falter and leave the industry”
To achieve profit is not just about efficiency or cost of the product. You can easily have a government ‘business’ and successful private versions in the same sector (as the much maligned post office proves).
Generally speaking, if you are a business and want to be successful you have 3 different niches where you can play. Either one can be very profitable if you play it right.
The first is overall brand leader, the second is performance leader and the third is value leader.
If a public option was successful, the government could well occupy the brand leader spot. But even if that happened, Insurance companies could always have the ‘performance’ niche where you pay more for better service, e.g maybe streamlined access to specialists/surgery, more generous benefits etc. A value niche may or may not also be available depending on how the public option was implemented.
This is just simple Business 101 and this is not theory but fact. This idea that businesses could not compete with the government is just another baseless piece of fearmongering that has been propagated predominantly by the Right.
Lee Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
“K: There are literally millions of successful businesses that are none of these…”
I didn’t imply there weren’t. However, all these companies should aspire to one of the three models I mentioned above to maximise profit and growth.
This is your free business/marketing lesson for today.
Drk H Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 am
Celti – The problem we have with UHC is very simple
1. it is unconstitutional on several points
2. We can no longer afford expenses such as this, at least at this time
3. Historicaly, these types of programs never work out as planned are as cost predicted
4. All the countries that have UHC,are working to deal with the problems of balloning costs & rationintg.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am
Drk H:
You’re wrong on many fronts:
“1. it is unconstitutional on several points”
Show me the line in the constitution that says the Gov must NOT do this.
“2. We can no longer afford expenses such as this, at least at this time”
The fiscal status is bad because of the stupid war BushCo sent us into. Add back the unnecessary expense of the Iraq war, and we will be able to afford itnow. So, dont blame the timing on the UHC proposal, the timing is off because of BushCo’s excesses in Iraq.
Now, on an absolute level,”we” can afford it. “we” actually expect to end up paying less for healthcare head by head than your definition of “we”. So, your definition of “we” definitely loses the opportunity to pay more for Healthcare, but this “cant afford expenses like this” argument is also shown to be absurd.
Drk H Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 am
Karth –
1. It is unconstitutional to force anyone to purchase something. Also, it breaks the 10th amendment of states rights.
2. The fact you don’t like the war, does not change the facts. One we are carring a massive debt, that Obama has quadrupled, For whatever reason, does not matter. We have gone beyond any point of reasonable spending, and it must be stopped. Take out the war, and you still are broke, because of medicare/medicaid & social security.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
“1.It is unconstitutional to force anyone to purchase something. Also, it breaks the 10th amendment of states rights. ”
Show me where the UHC proposals force anyone to purchase anything.
You’re just repeating the nonsense Hannity Rush and Beck spew out,without corroboration. Repeating that nonsense wont make it fact, wont make folks believe it, definitely not me.
“We have gone beyond any point of reasonable spending, and it must be stopped.”
Fair point. I agree with that.
“Take out the war, and you still are broke, because of medicare/medicaid & social security.”
I am not sure of the estimates, but I agree its possible the above are headed towards bankruptcy sooner or later. Fair point.
However, what’s the connection between these 2 and UHC? If you can make the case it adds to the debt, that would be a good case. “I know how all Gov programs go” doesnt make the case. Random numbers pulled out of Rush’s a$$(I’ll give you credit for not pulling them out of your own a$$) doesnt make a case either.Show me why you expect UCH to add to the debt. If you cant, you come across as saying “Oh, fire burnt us last time, so lets not play soccer.”
Drk H Reply:
September 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Karth – UHC forces everybody to purchase insurance. Not a problem if the states pass these laws, big problem for Fed to chose who and what gets sold and bought in U.S.
2nd. Proof of UHC will be overly expensive. A. CBO estamites of 1Trillion. B. You show me any fed program that runs on budget, or is cost efficient. There is no single gov’t program that works as originally funded or planned.
August 31st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“the UHC as currently stands will bankrupt a lot of people”
Mostly fat-cat Insurance companies surviving on a monopoly stranglehold. No regrets there.
“why not develop a small govt plan to help THOSE people instead of ruining what is working for the massive majority?”
What is working for the massive majority is being paid for by the majority, through their noses. This is expected reduce the bleeding.
There is a small % of those already with Health Insurance, who want to keep paying high prices.I feel sorry for those people, their freedom to pay high prices being taken away. But, end of the day, my wallet will be happier for the lowered premiums I expect to pay.
August 31st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Kart wrote, “But, end of the day, my wallet will be happier for the lowered premiums I expect to pay.”
Kart, your wallet may be happier but I wonder if you will be happier. I am referring to what obama said about the post office compared to UPS an FedEx.
Remeber Kart the gov will run you health care and I don’t think it will be cheap. The post office has a seven billion short fall for just this year and guess who will make up this short fall? Bingo, your correct, the tax payer.
This is what obama said about private vs public options.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XTi-WdOu2s
OldLefty Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Obama makes an excellent case for the public option.
And don’t forget the US Post Office is NOT taxpayer funded, and their greatest competition really has been e mail, and you still get a lot of bang for your buck, and it is often cheaper.
JFA Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Lefty, hello.
I wonder who do you think will make up the difference when this UHC project runs short of money?
Oh, one more thing. the post office is not tax payer funded? Where will the USPS get the seven billion bucks to stay in operation?
OldLefty Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
JFA,
Do you realize that in the public option, people who choose it on the exchange pay into it?
This is as opposed to medicare and medicaid, which has to pick up the slack when private companies drop you once you are sick.
I prefer a tax payer funded single payer which will, of course raise taxes, but ultimately, no one has to pay premiums AND small and large businesses are free from having to provide it.
As for the Post Office, they will have to raise their costs, or cut out one day.
August 31st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Lefty you wrote that you are in favor of a single payer. That is what they Have in Canada, no? Did you know that there is an agreement between Canada and the Henry Ford health Care System in Detroit that when they have a patient that they cannot treat properly or in a timely manner that the patient is sent to a hospital in Detroit for the needed treatment. Check it out yourself.
You also said that if the USPS will have to raise their costs, or cut out one day. Does that mean that the USPS can’t compete with the private sector?
OldLefty Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 3:41 pm
JFA,
I don’t know if what you say is true or not, (I can find it only under blogs, ), but really , so what?
Have you checked into medical tourism?:
NACO, Mexico, Aug 13 (Reuters) – Retired police officer Bob Ritz has health insurance that covers his medical and dental care in the United States.
But every few months he drives from his home in Tombstone, Arizona, to this small town in northern Mexico to avoid the healthcare costs that aren’t paid by insurance.
“I pay $400 a month for my health insurance, and it’s still cheaper to come to Mexico,” says Ritz, 60, as he stood outside a sun-bleached pharmacy in Naco, a few hours drive southeast of Phoenix.
Medical Tourism for Insured Patients at a Glance
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 23, 2009
Filed at 2:38 p.m. ET
Health insurers trying to tame rising medical costs have started offering medical care in other countries as a money-saving solution.
As for USPS, I think it IS harder to compete with e mail.
I still remember one letter to Australia, UPS $ 78:00, USPS; $ 8:60
UPS shoes to St Louis, $17;00, USPS; $ 4 ;??
JFA Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
lefty, I do know about medical tourism and have checked into myself. But I am not aware of anybody going to Canada for the treatment that they can’t get here, are you?
“Health insurers trying to tame rising medical costs have started offering medical care in other countries as a money-saving solution.”
Why not? Are we not in a global economy now?
As for the USPS competing with email, do you think that they are not able to keep up with technology? Remember the people who used to make buggy whips?
I used to use the USPS for overseas shipments but found it took longer and the packages I sent were damaged on arrival, maybe not their fault. I have for many years now sent different items to many parts of the world and have found that DHL is the best bang for the buck. I know thay have stopped their internal US operation though. I have more to say but I have to go for awhile. later.
OldLefty Reply:
August 31st, 2009 at 5:08 pm
JFA,
I’m not aware of anyone from Canada coming here for a better price in drugs, either.
The reason that I think it is not relevant is that we have many more large cities and thusly medical centers than Canada. Nobody argues that we have excellent care for those who can afford it. If you can afford it, there is no reason you would go to Canada. The difference is payment.
Again, people here go to Mexico.
As for global economy, that’s what the few who benefit from it tell us, ( not those from every country who lose THEIR jobs).
Would you want to face serious complications (for how long, far from home…and family?)
Do you want the USPS to chare for e mail in order to compete??
E mail may make them obsolete in letter writing and bill collecting….but as for packages, if they go out, what happens when the private companies no longer find it profitable to deliver to the remote little Podunk?
What are you going to do?
We send a lot of international stuff, and never had a bad experience with ANYONE, USPS or private.
I think there is room for the library AND the book store.
August 31st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
What unbelievable arrogance.
We should try this man as a terrorist. Nothing less.
August 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm
“The govt cannot run things as efficiently as can private enterprise”
It’s exactly that kind of absurd, completely false axiom that allows Medical Insurance companies to laugh at the gullibility and stupidity of many Americans. They continue to rip us off on a daily basis and have amazingly achieved another win/win situation with the healthcare reform talks, as is.
I at least appreciate when people adopt a different philosophy (e.g “I don’t want to help others, let them help themselves”). However when people adopt positions based on lies/incorrect assumptions and simply refuse to accept the truth, it’s easy to see why achieving real healthcare reform is so difficult in this country.
September 1st, 2009 at 3:29 am
“The govt cannot run things as efficiently as can private enterprise”
………………
Between, (just 2 examples in Iraq),
“With the award January, 2008 of a federal contract worth as much as nearly $300 million, the company, AEY Inc., which operates out of an unmarked office in Miami Beach, became the main supplier of munitions to Afghanistan’s army and police forces.
Since then, the company has provided ammunition that is more than 40 years old and in decomposing packaging.
Much of the ammunition comes from the aging stockpiles of the old Communist bloc, including stockpiles that the State Department and NATO have determined to be unreliable and obsolete, and have spent millions of dollars to have destroyed.”
The U.S. government paid a California contractor $142 million to build prisons, fire stations and police facilities in Iraq, that it never built or finished, according to audits by a watchdog office.
Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, etc, private health insurance companies who drop people the minute they become really sick, THREE 24 hour cable news networks who will ALL cover Michael Jackson exclusively, while covering very little about the rest of the world….
I’m not impressed, although it doesn’t mean that ALL private companies are so incompetent, just those who pay the most top play.
September 1st, 2009 at 7:36 am
“K: Exactly, you are selfishly voting to have someone else pay your way in life.”
I am forcing the cartel to lower prices for me. If you want lower prices, you wouldnt be complaining.
If you are complaining about your right to pay a higher price for “the same service” being taken away, well,am sorry,but life’s a b*tch.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:05 am
Good Morning Karth; Still on this Abortion stuff; We all could argue about this sensitive issue, but it SHOULD be the up to the woman and I will include the father also. Sometimes people don’t think that the mother might not be ready, or isn’t secure financially or they just hate children. Sometimes the father just does not want to pay child support and wants the mother to abort. There is alot of reasons for a woman to abort her baby. I heard them all, from it will wreck my figure, to I still have a lot of partying to do, I still have to finish college. Some are really stupid, yes. I always said, IF you don’t want a baby, but you want to have sex, there is protection out there to stop an unwanted pregnancy.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:12 am
Celtic:
G M.
As I said before, the right to abortion can,will be abused same way right to own a gun can be,is abused.
Doesnt take away the case for that right, for the people who’s lives by chance fall genuinely at risk, through an attack by another person,or through a pregnancy.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:20 am
Absolutely, Damn taking a gun to a Obama Townhall meeting does worry the Secret Service, our Taxes are working the way they should. I did hear last night about the session of Texas, It is illegal. Alot of this had to do with the Civil War. Texas can become five States, is what I heard. How stupid can they be. There is no protection by the Government, especially when these Drug Lords come walking into Texas to take it over… They don’t think too far.
September 1st, 2009 at 8:26 am
Maybe if we could have an open dialogue on family planning, birth control, out of control reproduction, poor parenting, etc. without religiosity clouding the issue, abortion perhaps would be unnecessary. But of course, no issue in this country can gain forward momentum because of the right wing religio-fascists that continue to be a rock around the neck of humanity.
Celticwitch Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 11:46 am
Good mid-morning Phillip, I totally agree with what you are saying. Everyone needs to be responsible for his or hers actions, but the right-wing fanatics will say birth-control is really evil! Bringing an unwanted child in this world is just as evil. Children sense when they are not wanted, Our adoption laws are not the way they used to be. Where you never see your baby, don’t know the sex and who their family would be. Now, if the father does not know and when they do, and they want the child? How is this going to reflect on the said child, does the Biological father have feelings and let the child be, or being a well creep and disrupts his routine, just a thought.
Drk H Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Celti – I don’t see many people wanting to get rid of the “pill”. Those that belive it is immoral to use, can chose not to use it. Also there is the day after pill, that would cause even less angst in the society, since that is even further removed from the idea of an actual life. As for fathers coming back later in life, that is a travisty, caused by the mother by not telling the father. Courts have the responsibility to the child before the father. I believe it is inhumane to take a child from adoptive parents for this reason. The adoptive parents have a lot of expended lots of emotion to try and do a very good thing, the baby gains alot, the system gains alot by making adoptions available. The father loses, but can be a part of the childs life somehow thru the courts. I see no reason to overturn all these good things for the sake of the father solely. As for adoption’s are hard in the U.S. sounds like we need to work to decrease these hardships as well.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“I totally agree with what you are saying. Everyone needs to be responsible for his or hers actions, but the right-wing fanatics will say birth-control is really evil!”
The right-wing anti-abortion movement is rooted not even in the bible, but in a twisted interpretation. Geez, this isnt the 4th century where “increasing the size of your flock” was needed to have a religion “flourish”. The real reason I believe they’re after abortion,BC is an irrational belief coming from the “flock size” perspective.
Celticwitch Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Thanks Drk and Karth, I really do appreciate your honesty. You read and hear about Adoptions!
I have a cousin who adopted a baby girl, they told them they had six months, and after that the mother cannot have nothing to do with child and this was way back in the late 60’s early 70’s. The truth is this little baby girl looked idenical to the adopted mother. My cousin’s wife kept having miscarriages and after they adopted she became pregnant and went to term and delivered a son. Happy ending.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I love stories with happy endings.
Just teasing CW :-).
Celticwitch Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Karth this was a really beautiful. The two are married with their own families.
I can remember when they would go to our family reunions, how the Matriarch of the family once said. She looks so much like her adopted mother. She is part of us.
September 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
“The Eric said: What unbelievable arrogance. We should try this man as a terrorist. Nothing less.”
Kregg, is this your attempt at being funny?
Karthik is arrogant is fact.
ROeder is arrogant is a debatable topic.
From all I can tell,Eric said nothing to suggest he was refering to me as the arrogant bloke to be tried as a terrorist.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:06 pm
While the Libs screw around indiscriminately and abort their ‘mistakes’ out of convenience… ~ kregg
You have got the smallest brain I have ever seen.
Do you really believe that or are you being an azzwhole?
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Kregg: There goes your proposal. Am sorry dude, but you made a good try for a while. Have to admit this post:
“While the Libs screw around indiscriminately and abort their ‘mistakes’ out of convenience…”
was an asinine idea of yours.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 2:54 pm
“If Libs didn’t practice ‘indiscriminate’ – defined as “done at random or without careful judgment” – sex then there would be no “unwanted” babies, would there? If sex took place only after ‘careful judgment’ – that judgment determining that a child conceived could be raised appropriately – then there would be no need to abort.”
2 separate things wrong with the above:
1.Libs dont hold a monopoly over that “bad judgement leading to an unwanted pregnancy”. The decision to have the baby AFTER getting pregnant does NOT imply the baby was not “unwanted” before getting pregnant.
2.Your argument’s absurdity is shown in a circumstance where A and B make the above considerations, and A dumps B after B gets pregnant. Now,hindsight is 20-20, and in hindsight, any idiot can argue its a case of “bad judgement”. Nobody,leave alone society or government has a locus standi on B’s decision in this circumstance.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“That should give you some time to consider the meaning of ‘convenient abortion’ and how repugnant it really is – or at least ought to be to you.”
Puhleeez.
The thing that I find repugnant is being ever ready to make moral judgements without understanding the specifics of the circumstance. That, and being told what I ought to find repugnant. Preach me a sermon,Kregg.
karthiks030977 Reply:
September 1st, 2009 at 6:19 pm
“And, here I thought I’d given you some pretty specific circumstances, Kar…”
I will never be able to act like you,Kregg. Lets face it. I am not the kind to make moral judgements on the specific circumstances presented on hearsay. My usual M.O. for forming such a judgement involves talking to or atleast listening to the person in question (if I can),first hand, and understanding their Point of View. If I cant do that, I cant make that judgement. That’s the way I function, that’s who I am,like it or not.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Kregg,
Abortions are not just for so “careless” libs. I would be willing to bet the daughters of so called conservatives have a higher abort rate. And of course, like you and Flap always do, you sweep rape and incest under the rug like it’s just some pesky little matter that does not warrant any attention.
I would like to examine a conservative brain some day. I imagine it would be pretty tiny.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
here is something to read,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Ireland -
September 1st, 2009 at 1:28 pm
No doofey, I went to lunch. And your statements never make sense in liberaland. Maybe in conservativeland, but not here.
September 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm