- I disagree with you …
You don’t even comprehend half of what’s written here. The notion that you could “disagree” is laughable.

– … so you presume I am not interested in debate.
No, I observe – as others have – that you are incapable of debate. Therefore you can not possibly be posting here to engage in same.

- That’s the old Bush doctrine …
Ah… what would a Zippy comment be without a desperate, pathetic deflection to his arch-Nemesis… Evil W. Bush! Funny how Clueless Blue Lemmings™ seem so utterly obsessed with Bush. It’ll no doubt continue long after he’s gone.

Oh… wait! HE IS GONE!

- … of “with us or against us” rearing its ugly head.
LOL!!!! You can’t even get basic facts straight, Zippy. Bush didn’t say “with us or against us”. I’m pretty sure I’ve schooled you on this before. That was Hillary Clinton – days before GWB uttered the famous words…

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

[emph. added for Zippy]

On that day, truer words were not spoken. Don’t feel so bad – no doubt it was the rough, grammatical similitude that fooled you. Again.

- I’m most certainly here for debate …
Lie.

– … but your refusal to support your arguments …
Projection, unsupported (ironically, to boot). #1.

- … indicates that you don’t understand what debate is, …
More projection, still no support. #2.

- … so your confusion is understandable.
Still more projection, no support again. #3!

Damn – three for three! Talk to a mirror, Zippy – you’ll reduce your carbon footprint from all this useless posting.

- Much like Bush’s.
More deflection. When you can fly an F-102 without killing yourself and anyone within a square mile of the crash site, get back to us, Zippy. Just take off and land safely. We look forward to your report.

- I need not cite jurisprudence regarding stop-loss …
No. You CAN not cite such jurisprudence, Zippy. It doesn’t exist.

- I never claimed it was slavery, …
Congratulations! You’re full of sh!t again, Zippy!

You obviously don’t have any idea WHAT you claimed and didn’t even bother to look back at what you posted. Here’s a quote from your #89: “… involuntary service is slavery, regardless of whether it is stop-loss or the draft.”

I’m sure two days of partying simply dulled your memory. Next you’ll write that you never claimed tyranny was right-wing by nature.

Oh wait… I thought I heard something else. Yes… it was…

“… leftist ≠ authoritarian … Tyranny is, by nature, a right-wing, top-down system.“.

Bwaaahaaahaaaaaahahahahaha!!!

Just so those of us here who are unfamiliar with the willy ways of lawyers, I sat in on a monthly meeting of the Denver chapter of Mensa some years ago. At the meeting a professor of Constitutional Law from Denver University came and addressed us on various matters.

The most interesting ‘matter’ she discussed was her idea that there are “no such things as constitutional rights”. They, in her opinion, are just ‘textual rights’.

You change the ‘text’ and you change the ‘right’.

From there you get the idea that people like her and, as I see him, David S are quite adept at screwing things up. Especially the way the lawyers in Congress are making ‘law’ with THIS administration.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. -- George Washington]

But go ahead and keep jumping to unjustified conclusions. — David S

More projection. And little substance to back up any and, apparently, all claims on his part.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Regarding employment….

As far as my employment – I’ve never posted here on anybody’s clock but my own. — David S

…all attorneys, not directly employed by a corporate or government agency, ‘clock’ their own time….

….and bill it to someone else, e.g., a client.

David S comes across as an attorney to me, i.e., able to twist English into anything he wishes to, for the unwary to swallow.

[Lawyer, n., One skilled at circumventing the law. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]

P.P.S. The usually use confusing words as ’smoke and mirrors’ to accomplish their nefarious tricks.

I disagree with you – so you presume I am not interested in debate. That’s the old Bush doctrine of “with us or against us” rearing its ugly head. I’m most certainly here for debate – but your refusal to support your arguments indicates that you don’t understand what debate is, so your confusion is understandable. Much like Bush’s.

My absences here result from the fact that I have a life – I snowboard regularly, have musical rehearsals, an active social life with my partner, etc. Your comments on my personal life only demonstrate your lack of same.

I need not cite jurisprudence regarding stop-loss – I never claimed it was slavery, just much more like slavery than universal health care – a point which you can’t refute, because it is true.

As far as my employment – I’ve never posted here on anybody’s clock but my own. The fact that my previous employer took months to remove my name from their website is a consequence of the fact that I was the corporate webmaster before I left the company.

But go ahead and keep jumping to unjustified conclusions. After all, that’s what you are best at.

Peace.

DS

Yeah, he’s made that pretty clear. And his site makes no bones about where he’s coming from, either.

I’m sure this short respite from his drivel is because he’s either canvassing as part of OFA or still hunting for ‘jurisprudence’ that supports his idiocy about stop-loss and slavery. That’ll take a while.

Or… maybe his boss got wind he was spending all day posting here – I just noticed that his name’s been completely removed from his (former?) employer’s list of Account Managers.

….stop-loss and selective service really are tantamount to slavery. — David S

This character has absolutely no clue about military service and probably is as ignorant about ’slavery’ too.

It becomes more and more apparent that he IS a paid mouth-piece for the ‘progressive’ agenda as he is here so frequently and spouts such interesting mis/dis-information. As exemplified by his comments here.

Case in point….

….since when have ‘press-gangs’ roamed the streets to drag the unsuspecting/unwitting into military service in this country? Go on. Tell me…..I defy you. And yet David S[tupid]…or much worse….makes statements like….

….stop-loss and selective service really are tantamount to slavery. — David S

This guy is not here for debate. He’s here to spout the most outrageous lies I’ve seen posted in this venue.

I wouldn’t be surprised to discover he is in the direct employ of the White House.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. I know ALL about the selective service and stop-loss. I’ve trained for it for 10 years of my 27 years of military service. I even exercised stop-loss and Operation CERTAIN SAGE for JCS exercises.

Universal health care is a safety net – nobody is going to burst your private health care balloon. — David S

I find it an interesting indicator that David S can claim people prop up strawmen and yet he cannot cite the provisions to support his claims.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Prevaricator, n., a liar in the maggot stage of development.]

Regardless of the inhumane costs of such a proposal, proponents of socialist health care would like us all to believe that their system will be much more effective than our current system without harmful effects on incentive and innovation. I guess this would explain why the US has created more cures, technology, and theories to help advance the medical field…however we should destroy our system for a slower Canadian-like system which is bankrupting the country? Need proof that such a system is harmful…note that California’s economy is larger than that of Canada on the whole…Cali’s medical expenditures are less but they provide faster and more efficient health care while simultaneously having a much larger GDP and average income. Way to fail, Canada

No, the only favor comprehensive health insurance companies receive from government is being allowed to remain in business, despite the fact that they force us into bankruptcy and social discord due to the skyrocketing health care costs they promote.

You seem fixated on insurance rates. Insurance rates are NOT a valid excuse to foist ‘universal’ health care onto the people. No one purchases insurance to cover the costs of food, utilities, gas, clothing or other commodities. If health care costs themselves weren’t through the roof, the average person could forgo insurance altogether and pay for health care out-of-pocket just like we do everything else – just like we used to when I was a kid, with no undue financial hardship. But these days most people can’t justify paying $200-300 for a twenty minute physical for each member of their family, plus hundreds of dollars for standard diagnostic blood tests, etc., let alone twice as much for any sort of specialized health care. And the costs of prescription medicine is correspondingly exorbitant.

- I agree that today’s insurance companies are crooked as hell…

?? I’m not sure what you’re agreeing with regarding insurance companies being “crooked” – I never claimed they were. What they often are – at least based on my experience having worked for them – is enormously inefficient. Also, like other large businesses, they’re adversely affected by government regulations – specifically HIPAA and Sarbanes-Oxley, both of which impose enormous costs on business. Insurance companies simply pass the costs of this inefficiency and regulation overhead on to the premium payer, which is a captive customer (thus the monopoly aspect). They also completely distort the pricing control model, as I’ve pointed out, which would normally keep the vast majority of health care costs affordable. In distorting that model, they’ve caused those costs to skyrocket.

The ‘Ponzi’ nature of the comprehensive insurance scam involves the fact that enormous sums of money are paid into the system by the consumer, who receives no real value in return. The argument that this sort of insurance offers the value of “managing risk” falls flat when we realize that the vast majority of “covered” medical services would not entail any risk if the costs had not been driven so high due to the broken economics in the first place.

Why is it right to violate the rights of executives?