LV

LV

By that standard, there was a lot of legislation that shouldn't have gotten
through.

Anyway, my blog is http://www.uncommonsensecommentary.blogspot.com. I can be reached
through that.

Meanwhile, I'm getting at the underbelly of the Republican machine. From my discussions with you on here, I've gained a lot of perspective from you and would love to take the relationship off-site if you're willing. I certainly don't agree with you on everything, but at least you're sane and articulate – and a good counterweight to my biases.

Beside the point.

Seems to me that if there was anything truly problematical in the bill, the opponents would be yelling about it from the rooftops. So far all they have come up with are some bogus nonsensical rantings about death panels.

One of the main differences between private and government programs is accountability. If the bill contains serious deficiencies, the people can hold the government accountable and demand change. Not so with private programs. The need for reform has been demonstrated by our representatives and other investigators showing the deficiencies of the current private health insurance system. Yet the private insurors show no willlingness to change, since they make so much money the way things are. Instead of reform, we see them spending millions of dollars a day throwing roadblocks in the path of reform.

That said, truth is not always, or generally, determined by majority rule.

No, but the process of seeking truth in a democratic society is a democratic one.

Nonsense — that's just the excuse I'm talking about especially in this country, where private interests hold more political power than anywhere else in the world. Besides, anti-segregation legislation certainly was not “majority opinion” when it was passed, especially in the South (in fact, that caused the Democrats in that part of the country to embrace the Republican Party).

That said, truth is not always, or generally, determined by majority rule.

On the other hand, you're trying to skip the step of shifting public opinion and just pass the laws undemocratically. Overthrowing the tyranny of individuals with the tyranny of government is a horrible idea.

Correct — it's not the specifics of the bill that are the issue; it's that there's a bill at all. As one of the slogans in AA goes, “First things first.”

Anyway, as long as you miss King's context — which IME most conservatives do — you're absolutely right. To be honest, your posts on this thread sound as though we need to wait for a “more convenient time and place” but which, given history, some know full well will never come; sometimes justice has to be confrontational — even forced down people's throats — to be recognized as such. Basically, I see “more deliberation” as just another delay (read: denial) tactic, and that's also Dixon's point.

LV