8/14/2007

A Reminder

A commenter over at Dave's place reminds us how fortunate we are to live here.

28 comments:

david said...

The comment that Sally left was great -- looks like she fell in love with Great Falls just as quickly as I did!

Anonymous said...

We weren't born in Great Falls, let alone Montana, but got there as soon as we could.

Anonymous said...

OK, I admit it. I go to Dave's site just to renew my faith in human decency now and then. We need sites like Greater Falls to maintain our sanity. And of course, the people extolling the good things about GF are right. That's why I fight like hell to KEEP it that way. And I suspect the new people moving here will too.

LK

Anonymous said...

The last best place will always be under attack.

Anonymous said...

Yeah... attacks on Montana by those seeking to diminish unalienable rights at the expense of taxpayers.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I believe that the term is "inalienable" rights. Use it. You'll sound smarter.

LK

Anonymous said...

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Anonymous said...

Ed for Mayor

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess that T. Jefferson MISSPELLED it then, right? (because he spelled it inalienable)

LK

Anonymous said...

I also looked on line for a transcription of the Declaration of Independence (www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html)and it does read . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right, . . .

However, both words are in the on-line dictionary. Adjectives

I'm not saying you are wrong LK, but where did you find the information that T.Jefferson spelled the word as "inalienable." Curious on my part only.

PoPP

Anonymous said...

Well, I have never heard it termed "unalienable" rights, so I googled it. A site from U. of Virginia I believe came up displayed the Declaration of I. as "orginally written" by Jefferson, and there it was. So, I dunno. Again, I have never heard "unalienable" used. Seems kinda strange to me. But maybe it's an accepted alternate usage.

LK

Anonymous said...

"In" or "Un" makes no difference.

At the end of the day, my rights come from God, not the government, so they can just go pound sand.

Anonymous said...

God?? Oh, you mean Allah, don't you? Or which god are you refering to? You see, there's a whole bunch of gods out there. For you see, Jefferson did NOT share that same God that you do. He was a diest. Sorry.

LK

Anonymous said...

I have never heard it termed "unalienable" rights

Yes, that was rather obvious by your commentary, LK.

As for what Thomas Jefferson believed, perhaps it is more important not believe what people claim he believed.

Reading the rough draft of the first draft of history might tell you what you need to know about what Jefferson believed:

THE MORALS OF JESUS
To Dr. Benjamin Rush, with a Syllabus
Washington, Apr. 21, 1803
1803042

DEAR SIR, -- In some of the delightful conversations with you, in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you, that one day or other, would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry & reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing ofmy opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; & believing he never claimed any other.

You might read this and find

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gifts of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever. Commerce between master and slave is depostism. Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate that these people are to be free."

Anonymous said...

LK:

Thank you so much for your information. I appreciate you responding. Gives me another place to research.

Popp

Anonymous said...

Anon, how could Jefferson be considered a "Christian" when he ABSOLUTELY denied the divinity of Jesus??? Oh sure, he was quite fond of Jesus as a teacher of moral principles, but on divinity? Nope! Jesus was just a regular guy. I know that pains you greatly, but I suspect that ANY truth that you disagree with does. In fact, you're probably in pain nearly most ALL of the time! You're barkin' up the wrong tree, pal. Jefferson detested guys like you. True story. Hell, he never even went to church! He was considered a diest who like Unitarianism. Do some research. Hey, I'm never wrong.

LK

Anonymous said...

LK,

I am not pained in the least that you do not understand.

Live long and prosper.

klingon said...

Ragardless of what Jefferson believed (he also believed it was okay to keep human beings as slaves), that doesn't mean there is a god who gave us any rights.

Anonymous said...

Another reminder why America has a better health care system than socialists can provide.....

Anonymous said...

Anon, you have health care????? You lucky stiff! Give me HILLARY CARE any day to NO CARE!

LK

Anonymous said...

"A comprehensive market-based approach to controlling health care costs was first developed by Cato’s scholars in the 1980s and set forth in a book in 1992 called Patient Power: Solving America's Health Care Crisis. The condensed version of Patient Power sold 300,000 copies and is credited with playing a pivotal role in the defeat of the Clinton administration's plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Cato scholars took the initiative to outline the health care reform debate before the Clinton administration issued its proposal, thus helping to avert a national policy disaster.

Other Cato publications have focused on the right and wrong ways to reform Medicare, tax treatment of employer-provided health insurance, and prescription drug costs. In particular, Cato has been a longtime advocate of deregulating the health care industry so that consumers can afford the health care insurance and treatment of their choice. Various Cato publications have documented the heavy costs associated with government regulation of insurance, drugs and medical devices, health care professionals, hospitals and clinics, and the medical malpractice system. A recent Cato Policy Analysis, "Health Care Regulation: A $169 Billion Hidden Tax," by Duke University professor Christopher J. Conover found that the costs of health care regulation outweigh the benefits by two-to-one and make health insurance unaffordable for roughly 7.5 million Americans."

GeeGuy said...

Oh, come on Larry. You have no health care? Gimme a freakin' break.

Tell me the last time you needed serious health care and, for lack of socialized medicine, you stayed in your house and died.

Anonymous said...

"Cato scholars"?? That's a joke. Dereg and free markets have worked just SO well that that should be imitated! Yikes! Cato is a rightwing think tank. And Gee G., I have been without health care many times in the past. I have seen health care in this country deteriorate badly under the supposed "Cato scholars" plans. The insurance industry is one of the biggest criminal syndicates in the country. Hell, even the doctors have done an about face on health insurance for all. You see, what anon doesn't understand is that there's a HUGE difference between socialized medicine and national health insurance, which is very doable and would provide at LEAST basic health insurance for all our folks. Every OTHER industrialized country in the world takes care of ALL their citizens. Why not the U.S.?? We are a laughing stock, simply because we have a large number of people who vote against their own best interests, like anon. But we DO have the most powerful media controlled propaganda system ever devised, which includes groups like the rightwing think tank the Cato group! Pull up the organizations FUNDING any of these rightwing think tanks and you'll see it damn sure ain't any group that advocates on behalf of the average citizen!

LK

LK

GeeGuy said...

You've been without health care many times? Define health care.

Also, who's going to pay for this national health insurance?

WolfPack said...

We’re the laughing stock? Didn't this topic start with the fact that Canada can't take care of their own sick babies? Calgary is 20 times larger than GF and has an median family income 50% higher than ours. Yet who takes care of whose sick babies? The anti-American crap gets old. LK, move to Canada and where the at risk babies are allowed to die for lack of resources if you’re tired of being laughed at.

Anonymous said...

LK -

CATO is a Libertarian think-tank.

PL

Anonymous said...

Whatever. But, seriously, just WHO do you think FUNDS all these "think tanks"? Have you EVER heard of a people's think tank? Doesn't exist. These think tanks are a relatively new phenomenon. Cato is simply one of many. They have somehow earned a degree of legitimacy that they do NOT deserve. They are ADVOCACY, pure and simple for the large corporations. We even have them here in Montana. PERC and FREE come to mind. Check out the donor list for THESE two fine organizations. And you know, if the truth be told, multinational corporations do NOT have the best interests of the country in mind. Their allegiance lies NOT with the U.S., but with profit, pure and simple. And as to funding national health insurance, it's simple. Couple'a B1 bombers less oughta do the trick. Seriously though, the military industrial complex has run amok. We could start there. When we have GENERALS appearing before congress, as has happened, begging congress NOT to give them any more money for boondoggle programs, you just KNOW that theres some money to be saved! But there are ways to fund it, just as California has funded auto insurance for everyone that drives there. Again, we are the laughing stock of the industrialized world simply becuase we can NOT even provide basic health insurance for care for ALL our citizens. And if you've read the current reports, our health indicators show that we lag behind even countries such as CUBA for God's sake in infant mortality, etc. I'm old, and I've seen the availability of health care decline dramatically in my lifetime. Why? Why are we marching backwards? And that's what's happening. Now, because of the screwed up nature of our system, people have to resort the emergency room for health care. And this is hugely expensive. I know it's complicated, but the worst case scenario is now happening, and doctors will tell you too. The medical profession has been taken out of medical decisions, and the insurance industry now calls the shots. That was NOT the case thirty years ago. So again, why are we marching backwards? Some of the younger posters probably won't understand what I'm talking about. But thirty years ago, nearly everyone had health insurance through their employer, and it worked very well. Let's try foward marching for a change.

LK

Anonymous said...

But seriously, call yourself a social-communist if you support Hillary-scare.