Another Question.

But did RR approve of it?

 

Answer the question: Live or die?

Couldn't tell you and it is irrelevant to the question I am asking you. He didn't try to get rid of it. I don't remember any speeches he gave about it. Don't have a clue what he thought about it.

Again, once more, answer the question: Live or die?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I refuse your Hobson's Choice, Joseph. Comprehensive medical savings accounts would eliminate any such decision from having to be made and would reduce federal government involvement in our medical care.

 

CMSA's. Ok...now there is an actual alternative solution. Would you require everyone to have one, or would that conflict with your libertarian philosophy of personal freedom of each individual from the government's regulation?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I would prefer it to be entirely voluntary but given the political climate at the moment I would take what I could get and that would mean I would have to accept making it a requirement.

 

Ok. Thanks. To sum up, Ken, the libertarian, would not take federal money for health care and would not allow the government to regulate personal behavior because he believes in personal freedom and independence from the government. He would, however, set up, I am guessing, government run beauracracy for MSA, making the government larger than it was before, and then require everyone to participate in this larger government intrusion on their personal freedom as a compromise to his deeply held beliefs because of the political climate. Either way, the bottom line always end with playing political games with the lives of others, regardless of his deepest held beliefs. Anything to correct or add?

Joseph Botwinick

 

LINK

 

Hey Ken,

If the government is going to force us to have an MSA, logic tells us that they will regulate them also, creating a massive monster of goevernment.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Read the link to enhance your understanding.

 

Another boring link that takes 12 pages to get to a point? Why don't you just give me the bottom line and cut out all the gibberish? If the government is gonna require everyone to own MSA's, are they not going to have to excercise oversight over it, creating a new monsterous beauracracy? If you don't think so, then tell me why not.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Sorry, Joseph, but that is a major problem in political discourse in this country - people want everything in a mere soundbite or in bumper sticker sloganeering.

Good night. Sleep tight.

 

No, Ken. The problem with politics is that anytime the elitists want to ram through their agenda, they bury it deep in twelve to hundreds of pages of documents and only tell them what they want them to know. They also use language that is foreign to the common person and then are not willing to answer simple questions with simple answers. The problem with major political discourse is that most people are simply playing politics with other people's lives and have no real convictions. They will compromise anything and everything to get what they want regardless of the consequences, but when someone else does the same thing, they act as if they are so shocked and offended. They are playing games with other people's lives all for their own selfish interest, and they don't want to be held accountable for what they do, say, accuse, etc...

A prime example of this would be the wiretapping story. No evidence. Unidentified sources. Pure speculation through and through. Yet, those who oppose the president and the war on terror are slaivating to use it to smear the president for their own political gain. Why can't you answer a simple question with a simple answer?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Okay. The answer is that the proposal at the LINK I provided would reduce the role of the federal government in health care.

Now nighty night - at last.

 

Yes, they're constitutional. No one individual or class of individuals is targeted.

 

I agree with sobriety checkpoints and wish they would do more of them all of the time. I understand, however, that funding can be prohibitive in doing that, sometimes. When you drive drunk, you endanger everyone around you, not just yourself. I also have the right not to be run over by some idiot who doesn't understand how dangerous it is to drink and drive.

Joseph Botwinick

 

So, poncho, is your question whether those checkpoints violate the U.S. Constitution or various state constitutions? I answered that I don't believe it violates the U.S. Constitution(I just said Constitution, but I meant U.S.) and then you responded that eleven states have decided it violates their own constitutions. Surely you understand that violation of a state constitution doesn't mean that the U.S. Constitution is violated, right?

 

If your statistics are true, Poncho, it doesn't tell us the likelihood of all those before MADD organized and strengthened DWI & DUI laws. Being drunk used to be considered a legitimate excuse for vehicular homicide, pre-MADD.

I admit that while I do have reservations on the legality of the checkpoints, I am grateful for them on the holiday nights I'm on the road.