Netanyahu Slams Ban Ki-Moon's 'Occupation' Remarks

Apr 19, 2015 23:31:57 GMT pjohns1873 said:

A worker who signs his (or her) time card while "at home drinking martinis"--or simply not at work, whatever the specifics of the case might be--is acting illegally. And if it can be proven, then he (or she) should be immediately disciplined.

I am not at all certain what you consider illegal, however, about the actions taken under Senate rules...

Why is it that when a worker misrepresents that they're working when they're not by falsifying the record (i.e. their time card) they're committing an illegal act but when the Senate claims it's working when it's not by falsifying the (Congressional) record it's not illegal? Neither is actually working and both are falsifying an official record but for one it's illegal while for the other it's not. That makes no sense IMHO.

Apr 22, 2015 18:19:55 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Well, for one thing, the worker who claims that he is working when he is not, is being intentionally deceptive.

On the other hand, there is no deceit involved in the Senate's representing itself as being in session.  Everyone was well aware of its status--just as you were. 

I'm willing to make a gentlemen's wager that if I ask 50 people whether the Senate is: "A) In Session conducting government business; B) In Session not conducting government business; C) Not in Session; or D) Don't Know" that the majority will answer "D" or be wrong because rarely do the people know when the Senate is actually in session and conducting government business.

I only know about the fact that the Senate was in session but not conducting government business because of "after the fact" reporting based upon the lawsuit. It would be like finding out the employee was falsifying their time card after they were busted for doing it.

Apr 27, 2015 0:50:05 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I completely agree that the majority--or, at least, a strong plurality--would answer (D) to the question posed (i.e. that they just do not know). You and I may be political junkies (albeit at opposite ends of the political spectrum); but many people do not know the Senate chamber from a chamber pot. 

But that simply does not prove your analogy, as concerning falsification... 

I don't think were juxtaposed in our political ideology. We just have different opinions on how to address the problems of today where I typically want to be very proactive in addressing the problems where you tend to not want to address the problems.

I still find it equally objectionable for an employee to claim they're working when they're not and the Senate claiming it's working when it's not. Both represent fraud IMHO.

In the Clint Eastwood movie "The Outlaw Josey Wales" there's a line that says, "Don't 'urinate' on my back and tell me it's raining" and when the Senate says it's conducting the business of government by being "In Session" when it's not then it's 'urinating' on our back and calling it rain.

Apr 29, 2015 17:34:19 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Our political-philosophy differences are not rooted in my not wanting to "address the problems of today"; rather, they are rooted in your insistence upon addressing so-called "root causes." 

No, the Senate was clearly not conducting business.  But it was officially in session.  And that is certainly not the practical equivalent of urinating upon anyone, and then calling it rain.     

If we don't address the root cause of the problem then we never reduce or eliminate it. In industry this is called "root cause analysis" when there is a problem with the enterprise. Addressing the symptoms never fixes the problem and it often allows the problem to become worse over time.

I'm more than willing to address what the "problem" is with you until we reach agreement on the root cause so we can fix it. For example would you agree or disagree with the following statement:

If poverty did not exist then there would be no necessity for welfare assistance or charity.

If we reduce poverty, the root cause of the problem, then inherently it reduces any necessity for welfare assistance or charity.

The person filling out their time card is "on the clock" and is "officially working" but if they're not conducting business then it's fraud.  

May 3, 2015 20:39:23 GMT pjohns1873 said:

Liberals and conservatives often do not agree with what the "root cause" is, anyway.  For instance, take the very recent Baltimore riots.  Liberals may claim that the "root cause" of these riots is poverty.  But many poor people--both black and white--do not riot.  Rather, it seems more like an economic poverty coupled with a poverty of values that has led to these riots.  (The left often thinks, it seems, that this anarchic zeal is a good thing, whenever the object of the rioters' hatred is "the system" as we know it.)

I would suggest that if agreement cannot be reached it's probably because the root cause hasn't been identified but instead symptoms are being identified.What is unique to the "poverty" in the black community, what lead to the "poverty of values" of those involved, is this even unique to Baltimore, and how does the killing of unarmed blacks by law enforcement tie into all of this? Superficial reviews and political opinions rarely identify the root cause of a problem.

For several years I was involved as a member Material Review Board team comprised of a mechanical engineer, quality engineer, and manufacturing engineer and we were tasked with addressing cause and corrective action related to nonconformances in manufacturing. There is actually a scientific methodology for determining the root cause of a problem even in cases of high complexity. The first step to finding the root cause is to leave all prior assumptions at the door when you walk into the conference room and trust in the scientific methodology because it actually works.    

While pragmatically impossible to eliminate all poverty or all illness it is very possible to dramatically reduce both poverty and illness.

For example when I was a young child polio was still prevalent and there were clinics dedicated to this one desease but how many polio clinics exist today? If science was to come up with a magical vaccine for cancer how many cancer clinics would close?

We will never cure all illness or eliminate all poverty so the necessity for hospitals and welfare assistance will never go away but we can pragmatically reduce illness and poverty and that reduces the necessity for the hospitals and the welfare assistance.

Another interesting analogy between poverty and illness. If there was an outbreak of illness would you support closing the hospitals that treat the illness?

May 7, 2015 20:11:08 GMT pjohns1873 said:

I support closing anything that is the child of Big Government. But just about all hospitals (that I know of, anyway) are private entities.

And if science were to produce "a magical vaccine for cancer," I would be thoroughly excited about it. But that is (again) the result of private research. 

The US military is a "child of Big Government" so do you support substantially shutting it down?

US hospitals and medical research are both highly funded by the government. For example roughly 50% of all medical services are paid for by the US government under Medicare/Medicaid.

You might also remember that my proposal for privatizing Social Security eliminated the need for Medicare completely because the household would have the income at retirement to purchase private health insurance and pay for their own medical services. I reduce the size of government by responsibly reducing the necessity for the government program as opposed to irresponsibly ignoring the compelling necessity for the program.   

May 11, 2015 21:14:11 GMT pjohns1873 said:

The American military is designed to protect the American people--both their persons and their interests. That is a core function of government. Acting as a European-style, democratic-socialist state, clearly, is not.

Just because a hospital accepts all sorts of payments--including Medicaid and Medicare--does not automatically mean that it is "highly funded" (or funded to any extent) by the US government.  As a rough analogy, just because a supermarket accepts food stamps (a.k.a. "EBT cards"), there is no evidence that it is "highly funded" by the government. 

You keep mentioning your plan to privatize Social Security, as though I fundamentally oppose it; or, at any rate, as though you want to goad me into opposing it. And I just don't understand why that is.

The actual role and responsibility of the US Government under the Constitution is to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" and wagign wars in foreign countries based upon political ideology is far in excess of what is necessary for the "common Defence" of the nation. We could, for example, limit the US Navy to four carrier groups as that would be adequate for national defense. There isn't a single navy in the world, or even combined navies, that can defeat even one US carrier group. The US spends ten-times more on "defense" than any other nation and that's a huge waste of money because it's completely unnecessary.

How strange, a few years ago there were pharmacist protesting the birth control provisions (based upon so-called religious grounds) under Medicaid and Medicaid's (i.e. the government's) response was simple. "You don't have to provide birth control prescriptions but if you don't then you lose the government funding for all Medicaid prescriptions." Without the Medicaid funding they would have gone out of business so they stopped protesting. It was somewhat interesting how their religious convictions suddenly became unimportant to them when it came to sucking from the government teat.    

I actually mention my privatization plan for Social Security because you've agreed with it. There are pragmatic ways of reducing the size of government by addressing the underlying problems that necessitate government spending. Fix the problem and the spending goes away. Simply cutting the spending does not address the problem that necessitated the spending in the first place.