Odumbocare web site hacked

Ricter said:
I've argued before that the manifest differences between liberal and conservative all go back to core ontological differences. Is Man's true nature more individual or social? Is Man basically good, or evil? Is change ordinarily good, or bad? Since these questions are answered, like the question of light's "true" nature, in accordance with the instrument observing them, they cannot ultimately be answered, not with finality. So in that sense, I believe progressives and conservatives, liberals and libertarians, democrats and republicans, Labor and Capital, and so on, will be with us forever. Even more, I believe it essential these viewpoints are always represented--they are sides on the same coin, elimination of one is destruction of all.
More...

Too bad we don't have Post of the Month, but even if we did, it's not likely that nominations would be accepted from the P&R Forum.

I've said much the same thing with regard to the social contract, but no one has ever pursued it, or even picked up on it.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an amalgamation of differing viewpoints. And for two hundred years, we muddled through reasonably well (we were at least the deciding factor in winning two world wars). That's why we're a federation. Unfortunately we are now in a phase where a seemingly-large portion of the population seeks a more feudal form, though it is more likely the case that that portion just happens to have the microphone. But we've been through this before post-1870. And it didn't last, at least not in that form.

But this isn't 1789, and I doubt that the public will be as patient. We'll just have to see.
 
dbphoenix said:
I've said much the same thing with regard to the social contract, but no one has ever pursued it, or even picked up on it.
More...


The “Social Contract” Is a Fraud; Anyone Trying to Enforce It Is Acting Criminally



"The granddaddy of all the “social” scams, however, is the “social contract.” That’s what replaced the “divine right of kings” in the 17th and 18th centuries, when it was falling apart. This is, in Wikipedia’s (slightly edited) words,

a theory or model that addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.

In other words, this was the new explanation of why it’s right for one group of men to rule over other men. Wikipedia continues:

Arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.

So, a group of rulers gets to ignore our rights, take away our money (continually), punish us when it wishes, and even send us off to war. And that’s all okay because we somehow agreed to the deal. It’s a “contract,” after all."​

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/09/paul-rosenberg/the-justification-for-government-is-a-fraud/
 
Richter,

The article you posted is a POS. I won't tear apart the entire thing ...

Not only has the hoped-for premium shock failed to materialize

Rates have yet to be published so the above is garbage.

Odumbo won't release the true numbers of those who signed up.
Millions have data on citizenship and wages that can't be verified.
90% of those who signed up are getting subsidies.

Bottom line is this is an extension to Medicaid since most people will pay almost nothing for their coverage.

But responsible taxpayers will foot the bill.
 
fhl said:
The “Social Contract” Is a Fraud; Anyone Trying to Enforce It Is Acting Criminally
More...

The social contract is the basis upon which the society is built. To say that it is a fraud is -- to put it generously -- a non sequitur. Ours stems from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, documents with which you are no doubt familiar.

One could, of course, argue that these two documents are frauds, but he would have to elaborate on that.
 
dbphoenix said:
The social contract is the basis upon which the society is built. To say that it is a fraud is -- to put it generously -- a non sequitur. Ours stems from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, documents with which you are no doubt familiar.

One could, of course, argue that these two documents are frauds, but he would have to elaborate on that.
More...

Calling it a contract is an absolute fraud. None of the requirements of contract law have been met, as was shown in the article i referenced.
 
dbphoenix said:
The social contract is the basis upon which the society is built. To say that it is a fraud is -- to put it generously -- a non sequitur. Ours stems from the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, documents with which you are no doubt familiar.
More...
Bull Shit
The constitution was written to protect individual rights not the governments rights. A near polar opposite of the social contract concept that claims individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
 
Employee Health Insurance Costs Barely Increased This Year
Posted: 09/10/2014 10:01 am EDT Updated: 38 minutes ago

For a change, the cost of the health insurance you get at work didn't go up much this year.

The cost of job-based health benefits stayed nearly flat in 2014, according to survey results released Wednesday. This year's figures continue a trend of slow growth in premiums for health insurance provided by employers.

The average annual premium for a family plan rose 3 percent to $16,834, and the average price for a single worker increased 2 percent to $6,025, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and the American Hospital Association's Health Research and Educational Trust found. Workers on family plans are paying an average 29 percent of that cost, while single employees are paying 18 percent of it. The groups polled more than 2,000 small and large employers for their report.

More>>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top