I may reconsider my position on this.

[Beretta92FSLady]

(1)Yes, how could I forget your mindless call to envy and class warfare...



(2)Wrong. The whole point of insurance is that the individual paying premium does not have to pay the full cost for coverage. Let's say her contraception is $20/month. If her co-pay is $10, the other $10 is picked up not just by the employer, but by the other members of the risk pool who aren't making use of that coverage.



(3)They are non-profits, you twit.

(4)Unfortunately, if a religious institution wants to open up a hospital to provide not-for-profit medical services, people like you still step in to inflict your own (terrible) ideas about "how things should be." Good job.

(1) I don't envy the wealthy, I have never wanted to be wealthy.

(2) Interesting argument.

(3) You can't seem to help yourself when it comes to name calling and accusations of drug use. Is there anything constructive you wish to add?

(4) Kind of like how you impose your ideas on how things ought to be? Interesting how you, and me are doing the same exact thing.

 

[ManInBlack]

(1) I don't envy the wealthy, I have never wanted to be wealthy.

You're right. You just envy what they own. You want to be an angry, mask-wearing, Leninist radical, fighting the man at every opportunity.

You just want the man to pay for it.

 

[ManInBlack]

(4) Kind of like how you impose your ideas on how things ought to be? Interesting how you, and me are doing the same exact thing.

My whole argument is that government should get the hell out and private individuals should do as they please with their own property. I seek to impose my ideas on no one.

 

[rscottie]

I didn't state that I wanted your pay. I have stated on a number of ocassions that Corporations and the wealthy ought to have the piss taxed out of them.

You aren't paying for the contraception, the female who is paying for the insurance is paying for a bundle of medical coverages, including contraception.

When a Religious Institution makes its way into the Private Sector, then they have to abide by Government mandates like all other Corporations. If Religious Institutions don't like it, they can stay where they belong, a Religious Institution (that is supposed to be non-profit).

Um, small problem with your logic here. Corporations do not "pay" taxes in the same sense that citizens do. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase for their product or by cutting expenses through reductions in labor.

This means that we pay more for the Corporations goods and services and if we happen to work for said Corporation, we may just lose our job.

Neither of the above is good for the citizens that work for a living in this country.

 

[Citizen]

Appealing to Authority is a fallacy. Are there any thoughts that you might have of your own?

You are the one appealing to Authority, not me. I do plenty of reading, and rarely quote one person, there is a reason for that.

With regard to Coercion, that is how the Power of Government is wielded.

Ummmm. OK. I'm sorry. I should have realized who I was talking to.

Yes, you can take my words as appealing to authority. My fault for leaving open that possible interpretation.

However, a careful reader can also take my words as referring to the actual writings of the named men--their ideas. And, a careful reader can take my words as showing that I have read their works and decided for myself whether their ideas are worth anything. And, a careful reader can take my words as showing I have adopted certain of their ideas based on my own evaluation.

Naming those guys is really just another way of saying, "I've got these ideas. I'm crediting the originators because I'm not conceited enough to claim I thought them up myself." (I mean really, who among men is so good and so original a thinker as to independently think up all those ideas himself. History has how many examples of such men or women?)

Of course, I also overlooked that my intended reader would also have to have actually read some of those named to have any recognition that I was actually doing something besides merely appealing to authority. And, I should have realized my intended reader might overlook that sarcasm for the sake of sarcasm isn't really intended to be persuasive and thus really couldn't be a genuine appeal to authority.

All my fault. I apologize.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

(1)You're right. You just envy what they own. (2)You want to be an angry, mask-wearing, Leninist radical, fighting the man at every opportunity.

(3)You just want the man to pay for it.

(1)All you have to do is ask, and I will answer you. To answer another one of your inaccurate assertions about myself: I do not want to own much, just a roof over my head, some food in my stomach, and plenty to read.

(2) You have me pegged

(3) I am not sure who 'the man' is.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

My whole argument is that government should get the hell out and private individuals should do as they please with their own property. I seek to impose my ideas on no one.

I give you props for your initiative but your notion, Socially, is a fallacy. That is not how Society, and Government work. Sorry to break the news to you.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP With regard to Coercion, that is how the Power of Government is wielded.

This is a tautology. And, here, pointless.

Are you saying government power should be wielded to expropriate funds from the unwilling to pay for contraception? This is really what it boils down to, I think. Forcing people to pay. Are you saying this is an appropriate exercise of government power?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Um, small problem with your logic here. Corporations do not "pay" taxes in the same sense that citizens do. They pass on any tax increase as a price increase for their product or by cutting expenses through reductions in labor.

This means that we pay more for the Corporations goods and services and if we happen to work for said Corporation, we may just loose our job.

Neither of the above is good for the citizens that work for a living in this country.

I agree with you regarding Corporations. Corporations are not people; as Romney has argued.

 

[ManInBlack]

To answer another one of your inaccurate assertions about myself: I do not want to own much, just a roof over my head, some food in my stomach, and plenty to read.

"...and contraception, and health care, and education, etc., etc., etc. Oh yeah, and I want someone else to pay for it!"

How about this: you only deserve to own that which you have acquired without the use of force, including government force.

 

[ManInBlack]

I give you props for your initiative but your notion, Socially, is a fallacy. That is not how Society, and Government work. Sorry to break the news to you.

The government was supposed to be bound to the limits of the Constitution, before people like you came along and perverted it.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Ummmm. OK. I'm sorry. I should have realized who I was talking to.

Yes, you can take my words as appealing to authority. My fault for leaving open that possible interpretation.

However, a careful reader can also take my words as referring to the actual writings of the named men--their ideas. And, a careful reader can take my words as showing that I have read their works and decided for myself whether their ideas are worth anything. And, a careful reader can take my words as showing I have adopted certain of their ideas based on my own evaluation.

Naming those guys is really just another way of saying, "I've got these ideas. I'm crediting the originators because I'm not conceited enough to claim I thought them up myself." (I mean really, who among men is so good and so original a thinker as to independently think up all those ideas himself. History has how many examples of such men or women?)

Of course, I also overlooked that my intended reader would also have to have actually read some of those named to have any recognition that I was actually doing something besides merely appealing to authority. And, I should have realized my intended reader might overlook that sarcasm for the sake of sarcasm isn't really intended to be persuasive and thus really couldn't be a genuine appeal to authority.

All my fault. I apologize.

I think it is wonderful that I have just learned that I am not the only one who has reade Lock, Jefferson, etc. Naturally, IMO, reading a variety of works does have an impression on an individual who gives thought to the knowledge they are consuming.

You can use whatever ideas you prefer; I merely stated that I prefer to read yours.

 

[ManInBlack]

(1)All you have to do is ask, and I will answer you. To answer another one of your inaccurate assertions about myself: I do not want to own much, just a roof over my head, some food in my stomach, and plenty to read.

One more thing about this: just because other people want more than that, are willing to work hard to achieve it, and are successful, does not give you any legitimate claim to any part of what they have.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The government was supposed to be bound to the limits of the Constitution, before people like you came along and perverted it.

Yes, people like me have perverted it. If you don't believe me, ask Rush.

 

[ManInBlack]

Yes, people like me have perverted it. If you don't believe me, ask Rush.

I believe you. People like Rush have perverted it as well, just in different ways...

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

One more thing about this: just because other people want more than that, are willing to work hard to achieve it, and are successful, does not give you any legitimate claim to any part of what they have.

I disagree with your premise. I do agree though, I do have no legitimate claim to their success; I do not support equal outcome.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

I believe you. People like Rush have perverted it as well, just in different ways...

Well then, my forum friend, you are surrounded by perverts.

 

[ManInBlack]

I disagree with your premise. I do agree though, I do have no legitimate claim to their success; I do not support equal outcome.

No, I'm not even talking about equal outcomes. I am saying that you do not have the right to one penny of anyone else's wealth, whether that person is Bill Gates or a homeless person talking to himself on the street.

Since you obviously didn't learn it growing up: KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF. IF IT DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU, DON'T TOUCH IT.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

There are two consequences to referring to the President in a derogatory way: (1) contributing to the eroding of the political system; (2) the party engaging in the behavior will pay a price politically--if you don't believe me, watch on November 6th, 2012.

You mean like the way we saw in 2004 when President Bush was called a monkey, simpleton, cowboy, idiot, Hitler and all the other epithets from the kind, compassionate left?
Is that what you meant?

 

[Citizen]

SNIPPED

Do you believe it is an appropriate use of government power to force others to pay for contraception?