Comments on: Healthy Relationships http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 08:11:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: HOT5 Daily 8/12/2009 « The Cyber Lifestyle & Tech Blog http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-439898 HOT5 Daily 8/12/2009 « The Cyber Lifestyle & Tech Blog Sat, 15 Aug 2009 21:23:01 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=10978#comment-439898 [...] so vicious that he would allow a world with so much pain and suffering and misery.  5. "Healthy Relationships" Between the people and our supposed representatives.Representative Sample: we are taxpayers, not [...] [...] so vicious that he would allow a world with so much pain and suffering and misery.  5. "Healthy Relationships" Between the people and our supposed representatives.Representative Sample: we are taxpayers, not [...]

]]> By: Marianne Matthews http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-439148 Marianne Matthews Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:14:27 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=10978#comment-439148 RonF ... What the Government now terms 'entitlements' used to be called 'benefits', and that's where part of the trouble started. Words have power, as the semanticists say. And if you can subtly redefine a word, you can change the grounds of a discussion or a belief. 'Benefits', as we used to call them, are gifts, from a healthy company or government which can afford them because of wise and successful actions which have placed the company or the government in a favorable and profitable position. 'Entitlements', on the other hand, are a different matter. They are 'owed' to the employees of a company or citizens of a government whether or not the company or government is in a stable and successful situation. It could be hanging on the ropes, on its last gasp financially, and still be obligated to pay the employees or the citizens. And all because the backroom boys in the bowels of the government decided to change the wording. AS I recall, the word change was instituted in the Carter Administration -- or maybe it was during the Clinton years. I'm pretty sure it wasn't during a Republican Administration. We actually run successful profitable companies. We know better. Marianne RonF … What the Government now terms ‘entitlements’ used to be called ‘benefits’, and that’s where part of the trouble started. Words have power, as the semanticists say. And if you can subtly redefine a word, you can change the grounds of a discussion or a belief. ‘Benefits’, as we used to call them, are gifts, from a healthy company or government which can afford them because of wise and successful actions which have placed the company or the government in a favorable and profitable position. ‘Entitlements’, on the other hand, are a different matter. They are ‘owed’ to the employees of a company or citizens of a government whether or not the company or government is in a stable and successful situation. It could be hanging on the ropes, on its last gasp financially, and still be obligated to pay the employees or the citizens.

And all because the backroom boys in the bowels of the government decided to change the wording. AS I recall, the word change was instituted in the Carter Administration — or maybe it was during the Clinton years. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t during a Republican Administration.

We actually run successful profitable companies. We know better.

Marianne

]]> By: Madconductor http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-438991 Madconductor Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:32:49 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=10978#comment-438991 Steeljaw, That will be a nice problem to have - but "throwing the bums out" has to happen first. And that is a tall order considering the 85% figure on re-election. But 2010 is looking a little more optimistic - even for many of us being driven more towards the Libertarian rules rather than either party. I don't think Libertarians are a useful party but their thinking is causing a lot more independence on just who our reps are and what they stand for. And who we want to replace them with. Steeljaw,

That will be a nice problem to have – but “throwing the bums out” has to happen first. And that is a tall order considering the 85% figure on re-election.

But 2010 is looking a little more optimistic – even for many of us being driven more towards the Libertarian rules rather than either party. I don’t think Libertarians are a useful party but their thinking is causing a lot more independence on just who our reps are and what they stand for. And who we want to replace them with.

]]> By: Kris, in New England http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-438985 Kris, in New England Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:25:05 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=10978#comment-438985 It's interesting that in their fact-checking, they claim they work on the first 15 statements in the email. Yet they skip the first one mentioned - Page 16. Because it is true and it's what scares people the most. It’s interesting that in their fact-checking, they claim they work on the first 15 statements in the email. Yet they skip the first one mentioned – Page 16. Because it is true and it’s what scares people the most.

]]> By: RonF http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-438983 RonF Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:22:42 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=10978#comment-438983 ProwlerAMDO, I reject the new formulation that the left is trying to inject into the discussion of rights. This spin of “negative rights” and “positive rights” is trying to solidify in American thinking the concept that the government exists to take care of you, as opposed to existing so that no one interferes with your ability to take care of yourself. To use the word “negative” to define the rights that are guaranteed to you by the Constitution and the word “positive” to define things that they want the government to do for you makes it sound as though the Founders did something wrong that needs to be corrected, and that they are in the right here. I actually had someone on the left try to tell me that “negative” does not have a negative connotation and “positive” does not have a positive connotation. Our rights are our rights, and they are not “negative”. What they want to call “positive rights” are more accurately termed “entitlements”, a term that much more and much simply describes what they are asking for; to be entitled to reach into my pocket to take something they have not earned by the sweat of their own brow. But the left hates that term due to it's clarity and is trying to latch onto "positive" and "negative" rights. Now, Christian compassion certainly calls for me to give cheerfully so that others more unfortunate have access to certain things like food, shelter and healthcare. But that is my choice and my decision; it is not their entitlement and government's increasing role in this is nearly an interference in the "separation of church and state". ProwlerAMDO, I reject the new formulation that the left is trying to inject into the discussion of rights. This spin of “negative rights” and “positive rights” is trying to solidify in American thinking the concept that the government exists to take care of you, as opposed to existing so that no one interferes with your ability to take care of yourself. To use the word “negative” to define the rights that are guaranteed to you by the Constitution and the word “positive” to define things that they want the government to do for you makes it sound as though the Founders did something wrong that needs to be corrected, and that they are in the right here. I actually had someone on the left try to tell me that “negative” does not have a negative connotation and “positive” does not have a positive connotation.

Our rights are our rights, and they are not “negative”. What they want to call “positive rights” are more accurately termed “entitlements”, a term that much more and much simply describes what they are asking for; to be entitled to reach into my pocket to take something they have not earned by the sweat of their own brow. But the left hates that term due to it’s clarity and is trying to latch onto “positive” and “negative” rights.

Now, Christian compassion certainly calls for me to give cheerfully so that others more unfortunate have access to certain things like food, shelter and healthcare. But that is my choice and my decision; it is not their entitlement and government’s increasing role in this is nearly an interference in the “separation of church and state”.

]]> By: RonF http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/08/11/healthy-relationships/comment-page-1/#comment-438981 RonF Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:18:22 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/?p=10978#comment-438981 ProwlerAMDO, I reject the new formulation that the left is trying to inject into the discussion of rights. This spin of "negative rights" and "positive rights" is trying to solidify in American thinking the concept that the government exists to take care of you, as opposed to existing so that no one interferes with your ability to take care of yourself. To use the word "negative" to define the rights that are guaranteed to you by the Constitution and the word "positive" to define things that they want the government to do for you makes it sound as though the Founders did something wrong that needs to be corrected, and that they are in the right here. I actually had someone on the left try to tell me that "negative" does not have a negative connotation and "positive" does not have a positive connotation. Our rights are our rights, and they are not "negative". What they want to call "positive rights" are more accurately termed "entitlements", a term that much more and much simply describes what they are asking for; to be entitled to reach into my pocket to take something they have not earned by the sweat of their own brow. Christian compassion certainly calls for me to do just that, to give cheerfully so that others more unfortunate have access to certain things like food, shelter and healthcare. But that is my choice and my decision; it is not their entitlement. ProwlerAMDO, I reject the new formulation that the left is trying to inject into the discussion of rights. This spin of “negative rights” and “positive rights” is trying to solidify in American thinking the concept that the government exists to take care of you, as opposed to existing so that no one interferes with your ability to take care of yourself. To use the word “negative” to define the rights that are guaranteed to you by the Constitution and the word “positive” to define things that they want the government to do for you makes it sound as though the Founders did something wrong that needs to be corrected, and that they are in the right here. I actually had someone on the left try to tell me that “negative” does not have a negative connotation and “positive” does not have a positive connotation.

Our rights are our rights, and they are not “negative”. What they want to call “positive rights” are more accurately termed “entitlements”, a term that much more and much simply describes what they are asking for; to be entitled to reach into my pocket to take something they have not earned by the sweat of their own brow. Christian compassion certainly calls for me to do just that, to give cheerfully so that others more unfortunate have access to certain things like food, shelter and healthcare. But that is my choice and my decision; it is not their entitlement.

]]>