In Mother Maryland You Dont Write Books, Books Write You...

You don't think someone in my line of work might have a particular interest in violations of First Amendment rights? If so, you're bringing more than the usual amount of Stupid to the conversation.

However, as has been pointed out to those with the perceptiveness to get it, that's not what this is. No one's preventing him from writing. The administration of this one little middle school has mishandled the situation badly, but the adverse publicity will have his books flying off the shelves.

Sorry, Sybil, it's the voices in your head that are lying. As is the thread title.

I can't speak for Zombie, but what I think he's calling BS on, and if I'm wrong then I'm the one calling BS on it, is the statement that you are strictly looking at this from a capitalist POV.

Locking someone up in a hospital and then refusing to talk about it is a problem.

They admitted it was the book that caused them to take this action. They also admitted there were no guns/bombs in his house.

If you can't see the problem with taking a person against their will and sending them to a hospital for psych evaluation for a novel they wrote three years earlier and then refuse to talk about the person, where they are, charges if any shows that you are part of the problem.

So do you read palms as well? Crystal ball, tarot? Or just go around telling people what they think? Because that's Zombie's metier. You don't want to encroach on his territory.

You're a liar. You're only for the first amendment as long as it's for you and other leftists. No one here harbors any illusion that you wouldn't given take a censorship move and shut down publication of anything considered not "progressive enough" if the opportunity presented itself.

See what I mean, Federal Farmer?

So what does your capitalist POV have to say about your fetish with Obamacare? You aren't a capitalist, it's impossible to be a leftist like yourself and be a capitalist.

Would you say that high numbers of personal bankruptcies might be bad for a nation's economy?

Are the bankruptcies due to capitalism or central planing or lack of personal responsibility or something else entirely?

What difference does it make?

I didn't ask you to pass judgment on the people filing for bankruptcy. I asked you whether you thought that high numbers of personal bankruptcies might be bad for a nation's economy. Economics, not morality.

If you don't know the answer, that's fine.

The difference is that if it's government causing the nation to have a shitty economy, then we need to abandon Keynesian economics and stop blaming capitalism or the "free market". If it's lack of personal responsibility, then we need to abandon Keynesian economics and stop blaming capitalism and the "free market". If it is truly due to capitalism, then government should have a role in dealing with it. My guess is that it's probably a mixture of government and lack of personal responsibility because free market capitalism doesn't exist in this country.

Nice speech. Immaterial to the question asked. Bankruptcies...good for the economy, bad for the economy? You really have no idea, do you?

Bankruptcies are bad for the economy. Without understanding why those bankruptcies are happening, your question is nonsensical.

Thank you. So something that reduced the number of personal bankruptcies would be good for the economy.

Your edit is immaterial to the current discussion. Try to stay focused.

Yes it would. And here is where you point out that Obamacare reduces personal bankruptcies and then I disagree and say that Obamacare is a form of crony-capitalism. You then proceed to post articles that support your fetish for Obamacare and I post articles that debunk those claims and the argument goes on forever. Why don't we just continue this argument in your Obamacare fetish thread? I guess I am Nostradamus because I already know where this argument is heading, nowhere.

Actually I was going to point you toward this article on Romneycare:

http://www.philly.com/philly/health...mneycare_reduced_bankruptcies_20_percent.html

But you're just hellbent on speechifying tonight, so never mind.

Good for Mass. At least they got to practice states' rights, the rest of us didn't. What may work for one state doesn't necessarily mean it works for all states. That article came out in February, I'm sure there has been problems since. Even if there hasn't, like I said, at least the voters in Mass. We're allowed to experiment with federalism.

If you think that just because I'm a registered Republican, I voted for Romney. You are wrong and I don't agree with Romney's positions on a lot of things.

How many more of these have you got? Because the Massachusetts law was passed in 2006, but you believe "That article came out in February, I'm sure there has been problems since."

Just because you want something to be true it doesn't somehow become true. That's known as "magical thinking." Most kids outgrow it by the time they start kindergarten.

Wendell Potter PUBLIC INTEGRITY February 24, 2014 1:39 PM

The article did come out in February.

The article was written in February of this year. Reporting on a Massachusetts law that has been in effect for eight years.

If you think that something bad happened after seven years' success, present your data.

I don't care if it has or hasn't, I don't agree with the one size fits all approach. Again, at least Mass. had the opportunity to exercise federalism, the rest of the states didn't. What this argument tells me, just as Zombie's argument tells me, is that you only support federalism and the constitution when it's convenient for your leftist agenda.

This is another instance where you just need to walk away. But you won't; you'll just keep going. Unfortunately for you, I won't give you the out of calling you "kid" or "BJ" so you can go ballistic and tell yourself you've won.

You haven't. But you just keep going.

Once again, good for the voters of Massachusetts. They clearly want socialized medicine. Voters in other states may not have wanted that. I know I didn't and I voted against it, but it was rammed down my throat anyway. Each state should've allowed to vote for what kind of health care system, if any, the voters want or wanted to provide. That didn't happen with Obamacare.

No facts, just slogans. Keep digging.

Did Congress pass the ACA or did the people of the individual states amend the Constitution to allow for Congress to pass the ACA, or did the people of the individual states collectively vote on the ACA?

Take it to the appropriate thread.

And the police, and the judge who must have allowed for the search of his private home, and the journalists that didn't feel any of this was out of the ordinary.

I asked you to do that what, five posts ago. How bout you just answer the question instead of dodging it?

Stop fucking responding to her.