For my Libertarian friends

Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Ironically, your position lines the pockets of insurance company fat cats who make their living in the fear market. Insurance is about spreading out risk.  Good regulation can keep the fat cats thin.

And I do not wish to bear the risk of people who are not my family, and would not want others doing the same for me.  Simple as that.

Robbing one group to pay the other is still robbery.

I'm with llama.  I have no problem with the notion of insurance, but I do not think people should be forced to participate in a policy.

The one exception to this I believe is automotive insurance, which serves as a protection for others who may be harmed by the driver's negligence.

Back in 1863 Abraham Lincoln delivered his brilliant Gettysburg Address. In it he spoke of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." My fellow Americans, there is no big government...only your government. You pay taxes, and government, your government, owes you something in return. It owes you the promise that it will help you when you're down and in need, and it owes you the assurance that it will intervene and help prop up the economy when grave circumstances threaten your well-being. It does not have the right, as the Republicans would love, to turn its back on you and represent only the wealthy and big corporate interests. Remember, "government of the people, by the people, for the people..."   The Ostroy Report.

I've seen flak at FDR, Wilson...how about Lincoln!

Installed a, temporary, income tax. Suspended habeus corpus, overstepped a lot of boundaries and conventions.
Lincoln, the first big government President!


I've seen Thurgood Marshall demonized, why not Lincoln!

Im off for now, want a sub, but screw subway! Gunna go to my local place, and so much fresher food too.

thellama73 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Back in 1863 Abraham Lincoln delivered his brilliant Gettysburg Address. In it he spoke of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." My fellow Americans, there is no big government...only your government. You pay taxes, and government, your government, owes you something in return. It owes you the promise that it will help you when you're down and in need, and it owes you the assurance that it will intervene and help prop up the economy when grave circumstances threaten your well-being. It does not have the right, as the Republicans would love, to turn its back on you and represent only the wealthy and big corporate interests. Remember, "government of the people, by the people, for the people..."   The Ostroy Report. That's very generous of it, but I didn't ask it to do those things for me, and indeed I would prefer if it didn't.

The government is for the people.

My income is not.

Slartibartfast wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^I quite agree with you, JJ. I have never been a fan of Lincoln, and if you think the Civil War was about "freeing the slaves" then you're dreaming. If you think the slavery issue was not at least a major part of the US civil war, what reality are you inhabiting?  Don't let facts fly in the face of your dogma.

I'm not interested in getting into a history debate. My point was simply that Lincoln is always presented as this great hero who freed the slaves, but that's an overly simplistic view.

The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Back in 1863 Abraham Lincoln delivered his brilliant Gettysburg Address. In it he spoke of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." My fellow Americans, there is no big government...only your government. You pay taxes, and government, your government, owes you something in return. It owes you the promise that it will help you when you're down and in need, and it owes you the assurance that it will intervene and help prop up the economy when grave circumstances threaten your well-being. It does not have the right, as the Republicans would love, to turn its back on you and represent only the wealthy and big corporate interests. Remember, "government of the people, by the people, for the people..."   The Ostroy Report. That's very generous of it, but I didn't ask it to do those things for me, and indeed I would prefer if it didn't. The government is for the people.My income is not. It's all about income and taxes in the end isn't it?

It's all about freedom in the end. Having the freedom to do what you want with your money is a big part of it. Also, cutting back the government's revenue by lot greatly reduces the harm they can cause.
Additionally, we've already discussed a lot of the civil liberties issues. Don't pretend you didn't notice.

^I got signed up for the Democratic Party mailing list when I was trying to get Stephen Colbert on the ballot and never bothered to remove myself. Yesterday I got an email
From: Barack Obama
Subject: Change

I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Man does that guy have a one track mind.

thellama73 wrote: ^I quite agree with you, JJ. I have never been a fan of Lincoln, and if you think the Civil War was about "freeing the slaves" then you're dreaming.

thellama73 wrote: The T wrote: Epignosis wrote: thellama73 wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Back in 1863 Abraham Lincoln delivered his brilliant Gettysburg Address. In it he spoke of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." My fellow Americans, there is no big government...only your government. You pay taxes, and government, your government, owes you something in return. It owes you the promise that it will help you when you're down and in need, and it owes you the assurance that it will intervene and help prop up the economy when grave circumstances threaten your well-being. It does not have the right, as the Republicans would love, to turn its back on you and represent only the wealthy and big corporate interests. Remember, "government of the people, by the people, for the people..."   The Ostroy Report. That's very generous of it, but I didn't ask it to do those things for me, and indeed I would prefer if it didn't. The government is for the people.My income is not. It's all about income and taxes in the end isn't it? It's all about freedom in the end. Having the freedom to do what you want with your money is a big part of it. Also, cutting back the government's revenue by lot greatly reduces the harm they can cause. Additionally, we've already discussed a lot of the civil liberties issues. Don't pretend you didn't notice.

When the question is about if the government can take my income by force or not, then yes, it's all about income.

Oh wait, no it isn't.  It's about preserving the freedoms and rights of individuals rather than treating us as mere resources.

If the government has given itself a right to 15% of your income, it can give itself the right to all of it.

Slartibartfast wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: thellama73 wrote: ^I quite agree with you, JJ. I have never been a fan of Lincoln, and if you think the Civil War was about "freeing the slaves" then you're dreaming. Here Here I agree with the both of you. He was a racist bloody tyrant. One of my least favorite presidents. ??? Jefferson Davis was a saint. Nathan Pederast Forrest a god...

OK, no need for silly, purposely over the top statements, I thought you were above that Slarti! You're the cartoon guy
I would't say Lincoln was a bloody tyrant, or one of my least favorite but he WAS racist. Of course freeing the slaves was good, do we need to clarify that? and f*ck the KKK but Lincoln was racist. I believe his hope was to eventually send all the freedmen to Liberia...

It's a sticky wicket, what makes a President "good" or "bad". No one can deny that freeing the slaves was a good thing, except maybe Ron Paul but that was not the original intent of the Civil War.
In my one class we read some personal diaries and alot of northern, racist troops did become honest believers in setting them free when they saw first hand what was happening. Reminded me of when we saw what happened to the Jews when we got to Germany. Does the end result make him "good"? Even if it wasnt really his main conern? And he did overstep boundaries at the time, but because "it was a time of war"

I wonder if George W Bush was smarter than I thought......