Lucky...

Totally agree. Systems that try to mainatain a pure system are usualy the FU'd ones. Look at pre-wall USSR, current N Korea and the US today.

People have an idea of how First Past the Post electoral systems function. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system OK, that only establishes how they get elected, the process, not the actual slight diff between Repubs and Libertarians. I don't see your point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States Education in the United States is mainly provided by the public sector, with control and funding coming from three levels: federal, state, and local. Child education is compulsory. A sub-type of compulsory education is public education. Do you have any data as to the proportion of expenses bore? I didn't see any, but the feds do pay and that goes on the rubber check. Look at the recent stimulus additon to pay someteachers salaries to keep them on. That's real nice and all, but I was rippewd and had to fend for myself as a kid; I basically had no parents, which is why I don'y pay hommage to the diddy rule. Also, I had to run away to the military when I was 17 and get my own education as an adult. So I envy your position, but in soooo many cases a little utopian. Well don't act as if the feds aren't involved, they are in big ways from a finacial aspect and a regulatory aspect. So to answer teh original question of: I wonder how many here received "free" public education but didn't care how it went. I would say I was one, as my parents didn't care/abandoned and no one was tehre locally or federally. So I had to take the concern for myself later on, but that isn't an ideal system. If the school was MORE involved then a lot of injustices wouldn't have happened. So I disagree, I want more involvement where it is necessary.

Oh sure, that's easy; there are millions of people w/o access to HC - need we say more? Not to people, like you, who have access to HC. What I find refreshing are guys with attitudes like Bill and Kallend who make in higher brkts and who have HC, but want it opened up for everyone. It's so American for people to say, "I have it, fuck those who don't; not my problem - personal responsibility, etc." Truth is virt all will do better if/when a public option is here. They will force your insurer to up or out. There's a lakefront or some nice place in Montana waiting for you. No one to fuck with you and if they do - shoot em. Just fade away from taxes and all that BS. But if you play in a civilized society, you must contribute to the defense and social svs pool and draw advantage from it if needed.

So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. I could say that people who will receive 'free' HC won't worry about how it's paid for as much as those who are actually paying for it. I wonder how many here received "free" public education but didn't care how it went. By the responses from the right: quite a few.

Why do we want people to be more involved in government? Good point, money over people every time. ??? You're saying < people in gov = better gov. When the issue is HC the < people in gov = more people in sickness and disorder. So since HC cost money and you don't want to see the gov spend that for teh sake of smaller gov; money over people.

So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor. I could say that people who will receive 'free' HC won't worry about how it's paid for as much as those who are actually paying for it. - Awesome, explain the method by which some will pay for what others get in the way of HC. - Who will pay? - How will they pay?

Actually, I have a freind as an RN and he runs this rhetoric too, I remind him that w/o these horrible illegals he would either assume a hige pay cut due to reduced work and an RN surplus, or lose his job altogether. I;m sure HMO's would be right up front and reduce premiums as costs fell. No, we just need to have a realistic grasp of the issue.

Why do we want people to be more involved in government? Good point, money over people every time.

the poor do have health care in the US. they just don't pay for it b and can only use it an case of emergencies, then the creditors ensure they stay poor and running by pursing them if they try to better themselves out of it. Fixed it

I vote Libertarian any time that; (a) my vote won't matter because the state I live in leans so heavily one way (California) or the other (Idaho), or; (b) the GOP candidate is from the "moral majority" segment of that party. I do vote for a fair number of Republicans. I've also (substantially less often) voted for some Democrats. But most of the time I end up voting for a Libertarian who has no chance of winning. And people poo-poo my assertion that Repubs and Libertarians are but a few degrees apart?????

Socialism and Communism don't work? Most of the world follows 1 of the 2 fiscal and social themes yet you like American Capitalism and say it's better? Communist China is the greatest creditor and we are the greatest debtor, but you say Capitalism works the best, huh?

HUH?

In general, Libertarianism is a recipe for some form of anarchy. W/o controls, intervention, etc, the strong will crush the weak.

But with 300 rats in the cage, how is that possible w/o anarchy? W/o a solid social system to ensure basic needs, how can you avoid despair? With virtually all the favor going to elite with our current system or with no regulation, don't you think the monopoly will escalate? the top 20% hold 93% of all cash, how is that not the foundation for anarchy? ***

\ Yes, Libertarians are disgruntled Repubs. Specifically 900B, but yea, same idea. And all in the name of necessity, as the commies were allegedly comming. Hell, in 1981 they werer trying to find food to eat and paper to wipe with, the last thing they wanted was a war with us. But R's have to find an enemy and if there isn't one they'll fabricate one. Exactly, tehy would be screaming little biches if their mad max world ever came to light.

Agree and Republicans are right behind thme. Sure, throw in a market that is largely unregulated and it becomes the playground of the rich and greedy. Well, it just redefines it in this case to be the fiscally strong vs the fiscally weak.

Right and the very same people declaring these places as shitholes are the ones saying complete deregulation and abolition of taxes are a good thing. This is what makes neo-cons so much fun to listen to/read.

So you could say that because the poor don't have basis HC as would every other NORMAL industrialized nation does, they don't have the same ownership feeling as they have been disenfranchised and don't care. I like your logic, counselor.

The original version, AS SPONSORED BY 3 REPUBLICANS, didn't have bipartisan support, then teh R's threw in some consumer beneift and more Desm climbed on board following the fish. It's so preceious to watch little ole you canstantly throw out the word, "ignorant" yet Ipost data and other relevant support, you're relegated to neo-con tactics of, "you're ignorant;" don't ever change little guy. Again, I'll post what I cited: The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[ I was busy debunking the rest of your mess while you were, revising your post, then you claim I avoided them. No, you avoided my citations that a cause and a catalyst can and are often 1 in the same; your binary logic just can't grasp that. NPR has an agenda, albeit not as bad as many, but what agenda does Wik have? That's my point. Now, go defend NPR or perhaps newsmax has a good read. Oh, are you denying Gramm was not the driver/sponsor of Gramm, Leach, Bliley? Sure, I did, now feel free to go back and revise away and then claim I'm avoiding. I jutst answerd them and as a good neo-con, as you are making apparent you are, you want me to make your argument. Make one and not just it was Gramm, so there. Make a comprehensive one if you have the intellect. No, sad is you not ever addressing the citations written by schoolars and giving some weak explanation via analogy. Why not address the citations I posted, neo-con? I mean you do illustrate binary logic by saying: either cause or catalyst - can't be both. We all know a revisionist like you does not by your acts, so I will answer them again. - Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let anyone who wanted to buy an insurance policy on John Doe's house do so? Answer: yes. - Do you understand why it would be a bad idea to let insurance companies sell insurance policies for which they are unable to pay the benefits if contractually required? Answer: yes. - Do you understand why the government allowed Lehman Brothers to fail while bailing out companies like AIG and Bear Stearns? - Answer: yes. Now if you want to to write a dissertation on your argument, not gonna do it. You're not 10% as slick as you think you are. If you want to produce an argument from the questions above, feel free, but I don't have to make your argument for you as you wish. So make your argument, I will read it and agree, disagree, or agree in part and explain why. So rephrase your quetions above to make a point, as I wrote before, you're not Socrates and I won't play if you want me to pretend you are.

NPR, yea, nice cite From your article: Ten years ago, when the Clinton administration proposed legislation to deregulate much of the financial services sector, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota voted against his own party, Byron is a Dem, only a few Dems voted for it, so NPR shows it's colors and it factual inaccuracy.. Senator Gramm was the driver of Gramm, Leach, Bliley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Gramm#2007_mortgage_and_2008_financial_.26_economic_crises Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis. And: Gramm was one of five co-sponsors of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 So your NPR article illustrates its bias against Clinton, misinformation and that Sen Byron considered it a Democrat thing. It was proposed by Republican Gramm and passed by the Republican-controlled House and Senate by far larger numbers than it has Dem support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent/Socialist 0–1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[ Perhaps Clinton signed it for political efficiency: This legislation (whose voting margins, if repeated, would easily have overcome any Presidential veto) was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[16] Certainly a bad idea. This was a Republican baby, just like bills like the Marriage Defense Act and NAFTA, Clinton stupidly signed them and has to be held accountable as with the hundreds of Republican Congress members who wrote and passed it. But the point is, your lovely NPR editorial states it was a Clinton baby, when, like NAFTA, it was a Republican dream come true. Actually it's dishonesty on your part, disguised by an error and later justified. You posted, I replied immediately and then you claimed I intentionally avoided this part. That's dishonest to change a post after someone replied to it and whine they didn't address that change. Sure I do, make a point and I will address it. How can I respond to an argument you haven't yet made? So have you addressed the everyday act of a cause and a catalyst being the same element or just some whitewash BS analogy? Socrates you're not, but obviously you think you are. Superior intellects are best displayed with arguments and not empty arrogance.

I'm about to get jacked off by this shell game; I'll bite. (rolls eyes) Not to me, I know the slim but stark diffs. That's right. I've taken several Biology, earth science, anatomy and physiology, microbiology and other science classes. I saw the diffs immedialtely, really enjoy your attempt to condescend me. Yawn. I understand sciences well, even tho I suck at mathematic-based classes, I understand concepts and theories well. One I use which you can pretend to already know is cosine error with dopler radar guns and speeding tickets. basically other than straight line radar measuring creastes this cosine error. Point of that was to establish to you that I understand well. And like significant digits? I am so impressed with you. I learned the shit you're trying to impress me with years ago while I was learning subjects that required me to learn the subjects I majored in. And there inlies your attempted out; you backdoor admit you fucked up by thinking the catalyst(s) and the cause(s) were all different elements. I don't think the cause and the catalyst were all that different, I think the int rates would have played havoc in virtually any system. Gramm could be classified as a co-cause or an aggravator. Again, IMO Gramm alone wouldn't have done this, the int rates alone would have and the application of the low rates were the catalyst, but since absent them, IMO, they are also the cause. Splitting hairs won't relieve you of the fact that in many events the cause and the catalyst are the same thing. Right, it was one or the other, so go sign up with the RNC and vote Republican, you are now of the binary thinkiers. In fact, there were probably many more things to blame, we are oversimplifying it for the sake of finding primary causes. Low int rates: - Can cause inflation (and they did with the mortgage mess) - Devalue the US Dollar We all agree that under Clinton we had a great economy causing the most growth in US history, and what were teh int rates? I bought my hiouse in 98 at 7.25. The USD was 1 USD to 1.55 as Clinton left office and that disparity was felt all over the world as the dollar soared. I don't see any reaosning from you for your argument that low rates are good. Low rates are often an indicator that the economy is in bad shape and the gov is trying to motivate spending on big items. In this case it was the cause, just a subbordinate cause to the low int rates. Oh really? YOU DIDN'T EVEN POST MY CITATIONS OR ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF WHETHER A CAUSE AND A CATALYST CAN BE 1 IN THE SAME.

Do you understand what catalyst means? If they were a catalyst (and they were), they weren't causal; they increased the rate of a reaction that was already occurring or was imminent. Good, we're in agreement, the most compelling feature of this mess were the low int rates. No, that's not what I said, nor was it what you said in the text that I quoted. Right, in the absence of a catalyst, the problem would have been occurring at a slow enough rate that there would not have been a significant threat of systemic failure in the financial system. The root cause was insufficient regulation. The low interest rates were the catalyst. It didn't matter how or why the interest rates reached such low levels. Had Greenspan played his hand differently and not kept the rates so low for so long, the low rates (or some other catalyst) would have eventually happened anyway, for some other reason, artificially or via market pressure. Without sufficient regulation, we would have the crisis at that time instead of the past year. With sufficient regulation, the low interest rates wouldn't have been such a problem. Good analysis. I agree in part. Altho I think the low int rates were the root cause and the catalyst. Even with the former system before Gramm, if teh rates were dropped that low for that low and that quickly, we would have endured approximately the same mess. It was mostly artificial principal replacing the interest that propagated the spiralling prices. Gramm merely aggravated it.

Miscommunication both ways - we're all good. I just wanted to clarify it for the sake of argument. Oh brother, just because you didn't read it and screwd up, don't off it on me. Look, we're having an argument over semantics that neo-cons pose when they can't argue substance; let's not. BTW, adding clarification is not altering it, alterning is changing, I didn't change it, I enhanced it by clarifying it - don't be dishonest. That is so weak. How many definitions have you read that have parenthesis in them? I have never read one, not saying they aren't there, so the obvious reaction would be to investigate further. Alter = change Clarify = bring more specific definition Those are off the top of my head, but pretty close to the dictionary, so unless I changed the meaning of any words then I clarified. You fucked up, you obviously didn't read my definition, you jumped out and said I altered it and now you're trying to bury it on me. Then you accused me of not addressing part of your post, but you revised, altered, edited it as I was repsonding to it, then acccused me of not addressing it. W/o looking further, I'm guessing you haven't addressed my evidence that a cause and a catalyst can be 1 in the same and not necessarily different elements. Oh, the one where you edited, altered, revised after I responded to the original? Sure, I will get right on that.