"...your assumption that we want to see people die for lack of health care shows ..."
I did not say that you WANT people to die for lack of health care.
I am pointing out that for many, the imposition of a tax to prevent that from happening is seen as an oppressive theft of liberty. It becomes a matter of priority. Some of you believe that your "liberty" to be free of any taxation in order to prevent people from dying because of a lack of access to healthcare is precisely the choice that many are wiling to make.
I see that a a very fine point, and one that ignores the reality of the situation. No charity can absorb the costs involved, and to assume that it can is truly an exercise in fantasy.
If you have a solution to the problem I have pointed out, I'm still all ears, but so far I haven't heard one.
i have told you several times to look through the thread. you are CLEARLY now ignoring some of the solutions that have been presented. there is no easy solution. to assume that there can be one simple fix is again grossly over simplifying it.
but here is a list. DONT IGNORE IT: tort reform heath care being sold across state lines using insurance for its intended purpose ONLY Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost
revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles
if you want other reforms in addition to those i just mentioned they should follow these rules as to not cause further violations of rights and higher government largess :
No new government boards, agencies or commissions.
No new government spending.
No new taxes, fees or fines.
No criminal punishment for choosing not to buy insurance.
No new federal employees.
No special deals, pay-offs or exclusions for anyone. We must require the same deal for all citizens, whether they have political pull or not.
If you have a solution to the problem I have pointed out, I'm still all ears, but so far I haven't heard one.
i have told you several times to look through the thread. you are CLEARLY now ignoring some of the solutions that have been presented. there is no easy solution. to assume that there can be one simple fix is again grossly over simplifying it.
but here is a list. DONT IGNORE IT: tort reform heath care being sold across state lines using insurance for its intended purpose ONLY Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost
revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles
if you want other reforms in addition to those i just mentioned they should follow these rules as to not cause further violations of rights and higher government largess :
No new government boards, agencies or commissions.
No new government spending.
No new taxes, fees or fines.
No criminal punishment for choosing not to buy insurance.
No new federal employees.
No special deals, pay-offs or exclusions for anyone. We must require the same deal for all citizens, whether they have political pull or not.
With all due respect, I don't see how any of that (except the tax deductible charitable contributions) will assist those who cannot afford to purchase health insurance. You can't get blood out of a rock, and no amount of finagling with tax loopholes, or tax incentives, or tort reform, or the elimination of State Regulation of insurance companies will get it done. If somebody cannot afford to buy health insurance, making an HSA more attractive still just makes it a more attractive option that isn't avaliable to too many.
I do agree that some, or much of what you point out should be strongly considered, but I do not believe these measures will come close to getting the job done.
and on the same note, i feel that this health care bill to get all the poor people insurance will end the same way the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on hunger, etc, ended. there has been no society in the history of man that has been able to regulate out any aspect of poverty. there are and always will be the people either cannot be or that choose not to be a part of society. there will always be people that cannot, or will not conform to social norms, are unemployable, dont want employment, dont want to stop drinking, doing drugs or any of the other thousands or millions of issues that cannot be foreseen. it will end up the same way all government programs end up: helping some but not all, while spending ever increasingly larger amounts of taxpayer money and a general burden to society at large. is this burden worse than the burden we have now? maybe. if we did the things i listed would the burden we have now be less? probably.
If you have a solution to the problem I have pointed out, I'm still all ears, but so far I haven't heard one.
i have told you several times to look through the thread. you are CLEARLY now ignoring some of the solutions that have been presented. there is no easy solution. to assume that there can be one simple fix is again grossly over simplifying it.
but here is a list. DONT IGNORE IT: tort reform heath care being sold across state lines using insurance for its intended purpose ONLY Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost
revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles
if you want other reforms in addition to those i just mentioned they should follow these rules as to not cause further violations of rights and higher government largess :
No new government boards, agencies or commissions.
No new government spending.
No new taxes, fees or fines.
No criminal punishment for choosing not to buy insurance.
No new federal employees.
No special deals, pay-offs or exclusions for anyone. We must require the same deal for all citizens, whether they have political pull or not.
With all due respect, I don't see how any of that (except the tax deductible charitable contributions) will assist those who cannot afford to purchase health insurance. You can't get blood out of a rock, and no amount of finagling with tax loopholes, or tax incentives, or tort reform, or the elimination of State Regulation of insurance companies will get it done. If somebody cannot afford to buy health insurance, making an HSA more attractive still just makes it a more attractive option that isn't avaliable to too many.
I do agree that some, or much of what you point out should be strongly considered, but I do not believe these measures will come close to getting the job done.
You just dismiss the suggestions made in this thread out of hand, without ever offering a reason for why they don't work. Sorry bud, but you're the one lacking ideas here - you can't just say "your idea doesn't work because I say it doesn't" and leave it at that.
You keep pressing people for details after they've already given them, but all you're advocating for is the status quo, leaving things as they are, and not offering any ideas of your own.
Sorry, but I haven't see many noted economists line up to endorse these suggestions as workable solutions, and I aint buying the snake oil that Dr. Paul's Traveling Medicine Show is peddling.
Sorry, but I haven't see many noted economists line up to endorse these suggestions as workable solutions, and I aint buying the snake oil that Dr. Paul's Traveling Medicine Show is peddling.
Aaaaand back to ignoring everyone and name-calling (calling us snake oil peddlers or quacks, in this case) again. Awesome.
Sorry, but I haven't see many noted economists line up to endorse these suggestions as workable solutions, and I aint buying the snake oil that Dr. Paul's Traveling Medicine Show is peddling.
Aaaaand back to ignoring everyone and name-calling (calling us snake oil peddlers or quacks, in this case) again. Awesome.
Sorry, but that's how I view Ron & Rand Paul, and most of these suggestions are being floated by those two.
He was walking about the Paul's ****....not you. Now, have you answered Pheebs query about how you enjoy your socialized healthcare?
I fail to see how it was even a question to begin with. Even if Pheebs did ask me a question about it, I fail to see how that applies to identifying the causes of the issues with insurance prices. Pheebs said that I should "appreciate" the socialized healthcare system (I think he's referring to the VA or Tricare) as a veteran, and then he started talking about how I somehow want more military spending, which is something that I never mentioned. There was no question in his post that you're referring to.
At sick call in the Army, all I got was Advil and maybe some Nyquil and a "get back to work" when the doc diagnosed me with something contagious like strep throat or bronchitis, leaving me to hack up mucus and infectious bacteria throughout the platoon. Yet if I went to a private clinic in my hometown or at my old university, the doc would prescribe some antibiotics.
If you're somehow referring to the Canadian healthcare system, then I can only interpret your question (since Pheebs didn't ask me anything about that) as a personal insult. I only have a work permit so far, since the Immigration Canada's bureaucrats are taking their sweet time in processing permanent residence. Even if I wanted to be part of a socialized healthcare system, I'm not allowed access to it since I'm not a citizen nor a permanent resident. Yet as soon as I start earning money, I'll have to pay into the system through income taxes. That's not even mentioning taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and the 13% sales tax. So how am I benefiting at all through socialized medicine? And again, how is this related to the main topic?
Sorry, but I haven't see many noted economists line up to endorse these suggestions as workable solutions...
the need to site "noted economists" is a classic logical fallacy. it is an Appeal to Authority. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
also what determines one to be an "authority" may also bring this call to authority into question. fallacy occurs when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isnt an authority at all, or isnt an authority on the subject about which theyre speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
however, if you feel the need to see "Noted Economists" that would endorse the above solutions as "workable" then here is a list
-Peter Schiff: President and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital
-Ralph R. Reiland: the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
-Thomas Sowell: American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author.
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, September 1980present
Professor of Economics, UCLA, July 1974June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, SeptemberDecember 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, AprilAugust 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, UCLA, September 1970June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., June 1964August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961August 1962
author of more than 30 books
- Walter E Williams: an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University He has previously been on the faculty of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, Temple University, and Grove City College. Williams was awarded an honorary degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquin. He also attended Suffolk County Community College in Brentwood NY.
-Northrup Buechner: Dr. Buechner is an Associate Professor of Economics at St. Johns University, New York
.... actually i am not going to go through this exercise of listing them. at some point it will become a battle of who can list more "experts" than the other (in other words, a pissing match), and you just stated:
JDH:
and I aint buying the snake oil that Dr. Paul's Traveling Medicine Show is peddling.
...even though he is well read in many areas of the economy. that statement just shows that if you dont like it, you "aint buying the snake oil" even if noted economists back the ideas.
this also brings up the question of what a "noted economist" is. outsiders opinions differ, not to mention that economists ideas differ. there are many schools of economics, i mean, there is the Chicago School, keynesian School, austrian school, etc...
those schools are all very different. what one is correct? of course everyone has their opinion on that.
You know those lines at the DMV? The highly skilled people who run it? Now just imagine the same at the insurance Exchange....... And the IRS.......... And the doctor's office................. And you're sick as a dog. I don't see how anyone in their right mind can imagine government having less overhead and/or being more efficient. Canadians come here for efficient care. Where will we go?
"......even though he is well read in many areas of the economy. that statement just shows that if you dont like it, you "aint buying the snake oil" even if noted economists back the ideas. ..."
Even though I agree with many of Dr. Paul's social views, I strongly disagree with his economic vision and philosophy. It is rooted in Social Darwinism, and I would not live in a country that he would make.
He was referring to VA benefits, we both know that. He was also posting a statement to draw a compairison to your concerns about govt run health care and the fact that you receive this same health care benefit already and do not seem to mind it in that respect. While the direct question as to your opinion may not have been made, it was certainly implied. As far as not being part of this thread, I could make another thread out of it----but I will not. Just as I will not make one about the "old white guys" who never complain about their Medicare.
Oh, you mean the VA health benefits that aren't applicable to me since there's no US VA office in Canada? And that VA health benefits means little to nothing here? The same VA, that even if I were back in the states would require a long wait time, since they've been severely backlogged by millions of claims every year? I think I'd rather have good insurance after the country actually deals with the problems that increase actual cost.
I also find it funny that since you have no actual input into the debate, you find some sort of hidden meaning that Pheebs never used in order to make a personal stab disguised as a question at me. If Pheebs actually has a question for me, he can ask me in a PM. I would also appreciate it if you did two things: stop disguising your personal barbs and mudslinging as a question that Pheebs neither asked nor pursued and stop trying to use my military service as a crude weapon to attack me with. By that line of logic, no one in the military is allowed an opinion nor the freedom of thought.
And of course I have input, Im just not spendingthe time to put it out there. My opinions are along the lines of JDH and Pheebs and I know they would meerely be criticized and contradicted every step of the way by personal feelings and opinion disguised as facts about theories that have never been put into practice. So whats the point?
Sorry, but I haven't see many noted economists line up to endorse these suggestions as workable solutions...
the need to site "noted economists" is a classic logical fallacy. it is an Appeal to Authority. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
also what determines one to be an "authority" may also bring this call to authority into question. fallacy occurs when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isnt an authority at all, or isnt an authority on the subject about which theyre speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
however, if you feel the need to see "Noted Economists" that would endorse the above solutions as "workable" then here is a list
-Peter Schiff: President and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital
-Ralph R. Reiland: the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
-Thomas Sowell: American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author.
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, September 1980present
Professor of Economics, UCLA, July 1974June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, SeptemberDecember 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, AprilAugust 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, UCLA, September 1970June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., June 1964August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961August 1962
author of more than 30 books
- Walter E Williams: an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University He has previously been on the faculty of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, Temple University, and Grove City College. Williams was awarded an honorary degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquin. He also attended Suffolk County Community College in Brentwood NY.
-Northrup Buechner: Dr. Buechner is an Associate Professor of Economics at St. Johns University, New York
.... actually i am not going to go through this exercise of listing them. at some point it will become a battle of who can list more "experts" than the other (in other words, a pissing match), and you just stated:
JDH:
and I aint buying the snake oil that Dr. Paul's Traveling Medicine Show is peddling.
...even though he is well read in many areas of the economy. that statement just shows that if you dont like it, you "aint buying the snake oil" even if noted economists back the ideas.
this also brings up the question of what a "noted economist" is. outsiders opinions differ, not to mention that economists ideas differ. there are many schools of economics, i mean, there is the Chicago School, keynesian School, austrian school, etc...
those schools are all very different. what one is correct? of course everyone has their opinion on that.
It seems that this post was ignored by some, so I'll just repost it.
It's funny, every step of the way, kuzi and wwhwang are posting thoughtful, intricate posts, and JDH and Vulchor seem to just sweep them aside with a tart little "well, I don't buy that"; instead of refuting the argument, they just ignore everything that doesn't jive with their world view. Cute way to debate, like a child that closes their ears and screams when they hear something they don't want to.
xmacro, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your assessment, and with Dr. Paul's economic theories, but I will not get personal over something this trivial.
xmacro, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your assessment, and with Dr. Paul's economic theories, but I will not get personal over something this trivial.
Too late for that, I want poor people and children to die, remember?
xmacro, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your assessment, and with Dr. Paul's economic theories, but I will not get personal over something this trivial.
Too late for that, I want poor people and children to die, remember?
I am sorry your anger prevented you from reading what I said instead of what you wanted to read. In the Words of A. Lincoln : If you go to your neighbors looking to find the worst in them, you certainly shall.
xmacro, you are entitled to your opinion. I disagree with your assessment, and with Dr. Paul's economic theories, but I will not get personal over something this trivial.
Too late for that, I want poor people and children to die, remember?
I am sorry your anger prevented you from reading what I said instead of what you wanted to read. In the Words of A. Lincoln : If you go to your neighbors looking to find the worst in them, you certainly shall.
Hey marco you sure you don't wanna debate me in the RP thread? Sorry bro couldn't resist lol.
Comments
I did not say that you WANT people to die for lack of health care.
I am pointing out that for many, the imposition of a tax to prevent that from happening is seen as an oppressive theft of liberty. It becomes a matter of priority. Some of you believe that your "liberty" to be free of any taxation in order to prevent people from dying because of a lack of access to healthcare is precisely the choice that many are wiling to make.
I see that a a very fine point, and one that ignores the reality of the situation. No charity can absorb the costs involved, and to assume that it can is truly an exercise in fantasy.
there is no easy solution. to assume that there can be one simple fix is again grossly over simplifying it.
but here is a list.
DONT IGNORE IT:
tort reform
heath care being sold across state lines
using insurance for its intended purpose ONLY
Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits
Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs)
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost
revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program
Make all medical services, insurance and personal savings for such expenses exempt from all federal, state and local income and payroll taxes.
Allow the purchase of basic health insurance with high deductibles and low premiums that covers major illness or injury and annual exams, in conjunction with tax-free accounts for out-of-pocket expenses, such as deductibles
if you want other reforms in addition to those i just mentioned they should follow these rules as to not cause further violations of rights and higher government largess : No new government boards, agencies or commissions.
No new government spending.
No new taxes, fees or fines.
No criminal punishment for choosing not to buy insurance.
No new federal employees.
No special deals, pay-offs or exclusions for anyone. We must require the same deal for all citizens, whether they have political pull or not.
I do agree that some, or much of what you point out should be strongly considered, but I do not believe these measures will come close to getting the job done.
there has been no society in the history of man that has been able to regulate out any aspect of poverty. there are and always will be the people either cannot be or that choose not to be a part of society. there will always be people that cannot, or will not conform to social norms, are unemployable, dont want employment, dont want to stop drinking, doing drugs or any of the other thousands or millions of issues that cannot be foreseen.
it will end up the same way all government programs end up: helping some but not all, while spending ever increasingly larger amounts of taxpayer money and a general burden to society at large.
is this burden worse than the burden we have now? maybe.
if we did the things i listed would the burden we have now be less? probably.
You keep pressing people for details after they've already given them, but all you're advocating for is the status quo, leaving things as they are, and not offering any ideas of your own.
At sick call in the Army, all I got was Advil and maybe some Nyquil and a "get back to work" when the doc diagnosed me with something contagious like strep throat or bronchitis, leaving me to hack up mucus and infectious bacteria throughout the platoon. Yet if I went to a private clinic in my hometown or at my old university, the doc would prescribe some antibiotics.
If you're somehow referring to the Canadian healthcare system, then I can only interpret your question (since Pheebs didn't ask me anything about that) as a personal insult. I only have a work permit so far, since the Immigration Canada's bureaucrats are taking their sweet time in processing permanent residence. Even if I wanted to be part of a socialized healthcare system, I'm not allowed access to it since I'm not a citizen nor a permanent resident. Yet as soon as I start earning money, I'll have to pay into the system through income taxes. That's not even mentioning taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and the 13% sales tax. So how am I benefiting at all through socialized medicine? And again, how is this related to the main topic?
the need to site "noted economists" is a classic logical fallacy. it is an Appeal to Authority. Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.
also what determines one to be an "authority" may also bring this call to authority into question. fallacy occurs when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isnt an authority at all, or isnt an authority on the subject about which theyre speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
however, if you feel the need to see "Noted Economists" that would endorse the above solutions as "workable" then here is a list
-Peter Schiff: President and Chief Global Strategist for Euro Pacific Capital
-Ralph R. Reiland: the B. Kenneth Simon professor of free enterprise at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh.
-Thomas Sowell: American economist, social theorist, political philosopher, and author.
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, September 1980present
Professor of Economics, UCLA, July 1974June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, SeptemberDecember 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, AprilAugust 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, UCLA, September 1970June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & Telegraph Co., June 1964August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961August 1962
author of more than 30 books
- Walter E Williams: an American economist, commentator, and academic. He is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University
He has previously been on the faculty of Los Angeles City College, California State University Los Angeles, Temple University, and Grove City College. Williams was awarded an honorary degree at Universidad Francisco Marroquin. He also attended Suffolk County Community College in Brentwood NY.
-Northrup Buechner: Dr. Buechner is an Associate Professor of Economics at St. Johns University, New York
.... actually i am not going to go through this exercise of listing them. at some point it will become a battle of who can list more "experts" than the other (in other words, a pissing match), and you just stated: ...even though he is well read in many areas of the economy. that statement just shows that if you dont like it, you "aint buying the snake oil" even if noted economists back the ideas.
this also brings up the question of what a "noted economist" is. outsiders opinions differ, not to mention that economists ideas differ. there are many schools of economics, i mean, there is the Chicago School, keynesian School, austrian school, etc...
those schools are all very different. what one is correct? of course everyone has their opinion on that.
Even though I agree with many of Dr. Paul's social views, I strongly disagree with his economic vision and philosophy. It is rooted in Social Darwinism, and I would not live in a country that he would make.
I also find it funny that since you have no actual input into the debate, you find some sort of hidden meaning that Pheebs never used in order to make a personal stab disguised as a question at me. If Pheebs actually has a question for me, he can ask me in a PM. I would also appreciate it if you did two things: stop disguising your personal barbs and mudslinging as a question that Pheebs neither asked nor pursued and stop trying to use my military service as a crude weapon to attack me with. By that line of logic, no one in the military is allowed an opinion nor the freedom of thought.
It's funny, every step of the way, kuzi and wwhwang are posting thoughtful, intricate posts, and JDH and Vulchor seem to just sweep them aside with a tart little "well, I don't buy that"; instead of refuting the argument, they just ignore everything that doesn't jive with their world view. Cute way to debate, like a child that closes their ears and screams when they hear something they don't want to.
Somebody should stop humping toads...