No More Insurance for TRT

[2Sox]

[/B]
In Red

[/B]
In Red

First: Please, enough with the red bold print. How about blue? It's a nice, relaxing color. (My favorite, actually)

Second, I'm going to agree with your statement about the FDA. The revolving door policy has been documented, is common knowledge and has to stop. There is no doubt about this.

Now about your remark citing Obama as stating that "the constitution is a document of negative liberties." I don't want to think that you were being intentionally disingenuous - because if you research this statement, it's easy to find what the President did say and the context in which he said it. He was in an interview in 2001, while he was a senator, talking about the Warren court - not his views. I would suggest you stop believing everything you hear or read on the right wing blogs and do your homework. The facts are out there. I would be happy to provide you with this one link:

Obama’s “Redistribution of Wealth� Quote In Context | The Moderate Voice

I'm tired so you find some others yourself.

Now about Thomas Paine and his important "Common Sense". I'm in the process of reading it now and I'll get back to you on it, but before I do, is there anything you like to change about what you wrote concerning this work?

Oh, one more thing. As someone who studied law and the Constitution you ought to know - as every kid in grade school learns very early - there is absolutely no mention of God in the constitution and one of the basic tenets on which this county was founded has been the separation of church and state.

[Metalject]

First: Please, enough with the red bold print. How about blue? It's a nice, relaxing color. (My favorite, actually)

The Red bold print, I don't know why I always pick red...subconscious favorite color maybe? I don't know. Nothing more than that to add there.

Second, I'm going to agree with your statement about the FDA. The revolving door policy has been documented, is common knowledge and has to stop. There is no doubt about this.

Glad we could agree. Most of the time when I've brought this up people just sort of stare blankly.

Now about your remark citing Obama as stating that "the constitution is a document of negative liberties." I don't want to think that you were being intentionally disingenuous - because if you research this statement, it's easy to find what the President did say and the context in which he said it. He was in an interview in 2001, while he was a senator, talking about the Warren court. I would suggest you stop believing everything you hear or read on the right wing blogs and do your homework. The facts are out there. I would be happy to provide you with this one link:

Obama’s “Redistribution of Wealth� Quote In Context | The Moderate Voice


I'm tired so you find some others yourself.

The comment on negative liberties and the Obama interview that came from, the comment about his belief in affirmative rights was the main point, in that government has the responsibility to right the wrongs of society rather than society righting the wrongs and government protecting the ability for it to do so. Yes, we can argue that if left to its own that society would trample this...the strong would destroy the weak. I recognize that, but that cannot happen if we remember what we talked about before...those in society (individuals) cannot do anything that tramples the life and liberty of another. That's governments role, but I believe president Obama sees it as more than that. Can I prove that as absolute fact? No, no one can either way; you would have to unequivocally know his heart and mind. I can only base my opinion on how I perceive what's in front of me.

Now about Thomas Paine and his important "Common Sense". I'm in the process of reading it now and I'll get back to you on it, but before I do, is there anything you like to change about what you wrote concerning this work?

I'm not sure what you're after here. Are you asking if I feel I may have misspoke or if I'd like to add more?

Oh, one more thing. As someone who studied law and the Constitution you ought to know - as every kid in grade school learns very early - there is absolutely no mention of God in the constitution and one of the basic tenets on which this county was founded has been the separation of church and state.

The separation of church and state, you are correct, that is a basic tenet. Which I believe was put in place so that there would be no state religion nor prohibition of one in private. But the idea of separating it completely is an impossible idea. I've said this before in another thread...a man's religious beliefs or lack thereof define how he sees the world, they make up a large part of who he is and his decisions will largely be influenced by that. It is impossible to separate that part of a man from himself, religious or not.

In any case, if we read the letters, diaries and countless books written by those who wrote the constitution, this topic is discussed at great length. The constitution itself is more or less a bullet point instruction of the role of government free from any emotional basis, while the declaration of independence is the opposite. Further, the founders believed it was for each man to determine his faith, that does not require constitutional persuasion nor should it prohibit it in any way.

Lastly, I have always found it confusing that so many in education have tried to paint the founders as atheist or deist at best. The idea that they were anything else seems to bother a lot of people and I don't understand why. Read Washington's diary sometime or if you're really feeling fancy, read Jefferson's. I think you'll find that the educators in America are either idiots or sheep. I'm not saying that radical fire and brimstone preachers are right but the opposite most certainly is dead wrong.

[2Sox]

The Red bold print, I don't know why I always pick red...subconscious favorite color maybe? I don't know. Nothing more than that to add there.


Glad we could agree. Most of the time when I've brought this up people just sort of stare blankly.



The comment on negative liberties and the Obama interview that came from, the comment about his belief in affirmative rights was the main point, in that government has the responsibility to right the wrongs of society rather than society righting the wrongs and government protecting the ability for it to do so. Yes, we can argue that if left to its own that society would trample this...the strong would destroy the weak. I recognize that, but that cannot happen if we remember what we talked about before...those in society (individuals) cannot do anything that tramples the life and liberty of another. That's governments role, but I believe president Obama sees it as more than that. Can I prove that as absolute fact? No, no one can either way; you would have to unequivocally know his heart and mind. I can only base my opinion on how I perceive what's in front of me.



I'm not sure what you're after here. Are you asking if I feel I may have misspoke or if I'd like to add more?



The separation of church and state, you are correct, that is a basic tenet. Which I believe was put in place so that there would be no state religion nor prohibition of one in private. But the idea of separating it completely is an impossible idea. I've said this before in another thread...a man's religious beliefs or lack thereof define how he sees the world, they make up a large part of who he is and his decisions will largely be influenced by that. It is impossible to separate that part of a man from himself, religious or not.

In any case, if we read the letters, diaries and countless books written by those who wrote the constitution, this topic is discussed at great length. The constitution itself is more or less a bullet point instruction of the role of government free from any emotional basis, while the declaration of independence is the opposite. Further, the founders believed it was for each man to determine his faith, that does not require constitutional persuasion nor should it prohibit it in any way.

Lastly, I have always found it confusing that so many in education have tried to paint the founders as atheist or deist at best. The idea that they were anything else seems to bother a lot of people and I don't understand why. Read Washington's diary sometime or if you're really feeling fancy, read Jefferson's. I think you'll find that the educators in America are either idiots or sheep. I'm not saying that radical fire and brimstone preachers are right but the opposite most certainly is dead wrong.

I respect how you write here. I believe you've made some very good points. There are some points that I take exception to but these are fine details, and rather than commenting, I'll just leave it at that.

One small point I'll disagree with. I'm a retired educator - spent 30 years in the classroom - and I was privileged to meet some of the finest, most brilliant people I have ever known. The few bad ones I've met along the way didn't last long.

[2Sox]

Posted by Metalject: I'm not sure what you're after here. Are you asking if I feel I may have misspoke or if I'd like to add more?

You might have misspoken but I think that it was more that I was unclear on exactly what you were saying about Thomas Paine and God in referencing "Common Sense". I believe you may have confused "Common Sense" with his "Age of Reason" - in which he essentially expresses that organized religion is an abomination - even while being a Deist himself - and says it has absolutely not place in government. Of course, this is how I understand it from what I have read - but it seems pretty clear to me.

I'm very grateful for this discussion because it has given me the opportunity to research and learn new things. Gets the blood moving.

[Metalject]

Posted by Metalject: I'm not sure what you're after here. Are you asking if I feel I may have misspoke or if I'd like to add more?

You might have misspoken but I think that it was more that I was unclear on exactly what you were saying about Thomas Paine and God in referencing "Common Sense". I believe you may have confused "Common Sense" with his "Age of Reason" - in which he essentially expresses that organized religion is an abomination - even while being a Deist himself - and says it has absolutely not place in government. Of course, this is how I understand it from what I have read - but it seems pretty clear to me.

I'm very grateful for this discussion because it has given me the opportunity to research and learn new things. Gets the blood moving.

I may have gotten confused...you may be right. It's been years since I've ready anything by Paine, so you could be correct. I do recall, however, reading where Paine discussed Hamilton and Washington's basis of the separation of powers on the book of Jeremiah, the branches of government on the book of Isaiah. Even article 4 comes straight from the book of Exodus. And Paine discusses these matters, how he came to terms with it despite his overall lack of faith. The basis of his acceptance was simple, faith or not these principles are basic common sense any man should be able to hold to.

Regardless of our personal beliefs, the idea that much of the constitution directly reflects biblical text, in my opinion this isn't something anyone should be threatened by. Religious or not, the bible says murder is bad; would any of us argue otherwise just because we do not share christian faith? I would hope not; I would hope we could all agree that such things are common sense despite where they come from.