TomAiello

If you do them all simultaneously, the FFL only has to call in and say "handgun," "long gun" or "both." There's no need for them to total a number of firearms. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Health care, or health "insurance" coverage? Those are two very different things. Regardless, to address your underlying question: What injustices do I see in imposing such a system on people who do not wish to be part of it? I believe in a fundamental human right to self-determination. That means that people ought to be given the choice of doing whatever they wish to do, so long as they do not hurt other people. Forcing people into a national healthcare system affronts their right to personal choice. This is unjust. The injustice is much greater for those individuals who work in the healthcare sector. Forcing them to work for the government essentially removes their choice of employer, which is a major life decision in modern society. Any expenditure of taxpayer dollars imposes upon individual choice. When people are forced to spend their money to purchase something they otherwise would not, they have lost their fundamental right to free choice. This is unjust. Any borrowing in the name of someone, without their consent, imposes upon them a duty to repay, again without their consent. Government borrowing imposes a duty upon the citizens to repay the debt. This imposes upon the citizens free choice, by forcing upon them a burden they did not choose. This is unjust. I find it interesting that you focus on the financial value to prove injustice. Your demand that I show how it will "cost me a dime" seems illogical. Must injustice have a dollar figure attached to be real injustice? Still, to respond to that part; Regardless, I do not believe that any national healthcare system, and certainly not any along the lines currently under consideration, can be implemented without additional taxes. In fact, the most recent plan in the House called for additional taxes on anyone earning more than $250k/yr. Should such a proposal be passed, I'm certain that tax increase will cost me more than a dime. Then there's the question of lost income. I believe that any such proposal will stifle economic activity, particularly in the healthcare sector, leading to a huge loss of productive income. That will likely reverberate through the economy, and we'll be able to argue all day about dollars "created or saved" versus "destroyed or lost." There will be no way to know who's right there, of course (which is why this tactic is a favorite of politicians generally) because we'll have no way to compare with the state of affairs had we passed a different proposal. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

You're not paying attention to my posts, then. I think the US has a hugely overgrown, imperial military machine. We use it to promote our imperial agenda in various far flung parts of the world. It's insanely expensive, and I'm sick of paying for it. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear on this forum before, on several occasions. I'd prefer to live in a Republic, with either no standing army or a very small standing army, and a populace generally comfortable with arms. This would cost the taxpayers very little, and would provide us a means of defense (or more likely, guerrilla insurrection) should we be invaded, but would leave us without the means to build (or maintain) our empire of client states. Which, in my view, would be an enormously good thing. Please try to argue with my actual positions, rather than making up positions I do not hold, to use as straw men. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

From what I saw, the crowd was about 80% caucasian. The most heavily represented minority group appeared to be Indians (as distinct from Native Americans, although I was surprised by the number of those, as well, many of them in traditional garments). There was also a fair number of other Asians, but only a smattering of African Americans and Hispanics. That's all just my subjective observations, though. As far as I know, no one did any kind of demographical data gathering. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

When a crash victim is taken to a hospital and dies there despite the best efforts of the staff, it does not reflect on the hospitals quality of care. If you could show that crash victims in one place are more likely to die than in another place, that would say something about care. Saying that one place has more crash deaths, though, mostly just shows that it has more crashes. Regardless of the underlying cause, most people will die in a hospital. In fact, most of them will die in bed. This does not mean that beds in the USA are inherently more dangerous than beds anywhere else in the world. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I read "fall on his sword" as a metaphorical, rather than a literal, statement. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

None of those are measures of healthcare. They're measures of lifestyle choice. Americans have very unhealthy lifestyles. We eat a lot of crap (and I mean a lot). We engage in more risky recreation (ATV's and snowmobiles are pretty much tools outside of North America). We have laxer car seat standards. None of those things are part of the healthcare system, and none of them reflect (positive or negative) on it. But they drive some of the variables you're referring to. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Does it have to do with the length of the fireplace pokers? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It assumes there are two major sides. I've honestly concluded that the two "sides" we see in DC (and in the media) aren't actually representative of where the majority of Americans really fall. I bet that if you could accurately survey every American (not just voters) you'd discover that there are a lot more people outside the party system than there are who fall fully within the party viewpoints. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I doubt there were 3 million there. I looked at the NPS diagram that estimates attendance at capitol mall events, and compared it (from memory) with the areas that I know were full of people. My best guess is around 1 million. Of course, that's just a guess, and, as I said, I'd believe anything from 500,000 to 1.5 million. But 3 million sounds out of line, to me. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/12/yes-the-picture-is-real-nutroots/ -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Please, please, please, I'm begging you to provide a definition of "uni-care." I am not familiar with the term, and I want to know what, specifically, you are talking about. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

In the short term. Even in the middle to long term, if you happen to be a large, powerful and wealthy nation. But in the end, debts do, actually, have to be repaid. How much you spend on a credit card need not be tied to your income in the short term. But in the long run, the bills will come due. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not saying those people weren't there, and I did see a few like the ones in that video. But I was there, and in any crowd that size (a million or so people) you're going to find a few ranters. The fact is that most of the people present were pretty much just normal folks who weren't screaming, chanting, or haranguing the crowd. The total normalcy of most attendees was actually quite striking. I'm sure you can dig around Youtube and find video of various wild-eyed folks ranting on various sides of any issue. That doesn't make them valid representatives of the average person holding this or that viewpoint. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The fact that President Barack Obama couldn't get a new Assault Weapons Ban through the United States Senate is no proof that he does not, in fact, wish to pass a new Assault Weapons Ban. In fact, most of the evidence (his past voting record, his public statements, and most of all his own campaign platform) appear to indicate that he does wish to pass such legislation. edit to add: You were the one who brought in the phrase "grab all your guns," which I took as a simplification of the (already explicitly stated) effort to ban assault rifles. No one was discussing an outright confiscation of all guns, and I had assumed that you weren't either. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't agree. Using them while proclaiming that you should not be charged for them, and do not wish to purchase them, is a pretty morally defensible position. I read a proclamation that you do not wish to be charged for them as a de facto statement that you'd prefer not to use them, but have no choice. Clearly you've read it as a wish to get something without paying for it. I submit that we've read enough of Lawrocket's (and my own) opinions that you're reading something there that wasn't actually present, and you know that. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Wow. Ok. I guess that you guys really read that as some kind of reference to being willing to die. I had just read it as a metaphor, rather than a literal comparison to someone willing to die for something or other. Fair enough. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

My point was that you seemed to assume there were two "sides" and that each had it's own bias reflected in at least one news source. I don't think that's the case, and I think that assuming it boils down to two "sides" does a disservice to those who hold views more complex than just a parenthetical (R) or (D) behind their name. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Where are you looking? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The fact that he can't get that through the Senate is no proof of his virtue. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Right. Two separate choices that do not imply anything about each other. Sure. Because if I choose not to purchase the vastly overpriced bundle of government services, I'm sure no one is going to object to that, right? Certainly no men with guns will show up to lock me away unless I agree to pay, right? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes. Which makes it straight up insane that people are trying to pass a law requiring every American to purchase their products, and contribute to their bottom line. And some people even want the government to pay directly into their bottom line with taxpayer dollars. How's that a good idea? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

No. If you want to discuss the injustices of "uni-care" I'd like you to define the term before we start. And that makes it ok? Once a problem has gone on long enough, it's no longer a problem? Heck, we had slavery for hundreds of years. I can't imagine why anyone thought it was a problem. The scope of our borrowing to pay for regular spending in the last 30 years is unprecedented in American history. Probably in world history, actually. Yep. And guess what, we actually paid it back, after the wars were over. Exactly my point. The magnitude of the debt before 1980 is tiny compared with where we are now. These levels of debt are unsustainable. Pointing to 200 years of much smaller debt as evidence that we can sustain this is misleading at best. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, the proof I'd offer is Obama's own statements, made on record on his campaign web site (among other places). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Ah, so my choice is either; (a) pay exorbitant rates (taxes) to pay for services that are clearly not worth that much, or; (b) pay the exorbitant rates and then not use the services I've (over-) paid for? I'm being forced to (over-) pay for something, and you contend that by trying to squeeze any value I can out of it I've lost the moral ground to complain about being forced to buy it? If I had a choice not to overpay for it then I wouldn't use it. As I am forced to overpay for it, my use of it hardly constitutes an acceptance of the underlying bargain. If I held a gun to your head and forced you to pay $100k for a 1984 datsun pickup, could I then claim that I was justified in doing so based on your driving it? No, you were still forced to overpay for the vehicle. The fact that you are trying to get something out of it does not impair your complaint about nature of the original transaction. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com