to smoke or not to smoke, that is that question?
-
Rob Graham wrote:
(unless of course the are over 65, in which case they get the chemo free, paid for by the taxpayers).
Medicare pays for the first 2,000 or so in expenses and anything over 10K. There's a big hole in the middle that has proved to be a bonanza for insurance companies. You don't see all those ads from Humana and others because they're not making money hand over fist. Someone under 65 who needs chemo may find himself facing a bigger problem. When he becomes too sick to work and is terminated, he's got 18 months on CORBA and then he'll be on his own - unless of course, there's a company who will hire him knowing he is being treated for cancer. Which shouldn't be a problem at all. . . Someone else made this point awhile back in here, but the more I've thought about it, the more sense it has made. One of the biggest problems American companies have in competing with their overseas counterparts is the medical care that they provide for their employees (even Walmart does) that is not part of the cost of doing business in most other Western nations.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I think I was the one that pointed out that little recognized "side-effect" that our health care system has in competing with Europe (in particular). Of course Obama wants to make it worse by taxing that benefit to pay for the uncovered.
-
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution... ;P
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say. You know: like the best way of getting us out of the mess easy credit got us into, is to insist that banks provide easy credit? Or maybe, the best man to put in charge of the IRS is a tax-cheat?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I think I was the one that pointed out that little recognized "side-effect" that our health care system has in competing with Europe (in particular). Of course Obama wants to make it worse by taxing that benefit to pay for the uncovered.
Rob Graham wrote:
I think I was the one that pointed out that little recognized "side-effect" that our health care system has in competing with Europe (in particular).
It seems to me - yes. It was you. No wonder it made sense to me, once I thought about it.
Rob Graham wrote:
Of course Obama wants to make it worse by taxing that benefit to pay for the uncovered.
In the army we used to have a saying: If it moves, salute it; if it doesn't move, paint it. Obama has adapted it so it now comes out: If it moves, tax it; if it doesn't move, tax it anyway.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Personally I'm hoping for an exit like my maternal grandfather. In excellent health (multi-mile seafront walks) until he was in his late eighties, then pretty darn good health for several years after that. Suddenly one day at home: Bam, unconcious. One brief moment of lucidity in hospital and then gone within 48 hours. He was retired for nearly 3 decades!
10110011001111101010101000001000001101001010001010100000100000101000001000111100010110001011001011
MidwestLimey wrote:
Personally I'm hoping for an exit like my maternal grandfather.
That reminded me of the old joke: I want to die like my granfather, peacefully in my sleep, not screaming in terror like his passengers.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
Stan Shannon wrote:
Sometimes being part of the problem is being part of the solution
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say. You know: like the best way of getting us out of the mess easy credit got us into, is to insist that banks provide easy credit? Or maybe, the best man to put in charge of the IRS is a tax-cheat?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say.
Actually, it doesn't sound anything like that. But Obama is a wise man, after all, so I suppose I should be flattered at the comparison. The problem is collectivism. The solution is stopping it. If one has no means of doing that by participation in some application of direct force, than simply adding one's own mass to society's burden should work well enough. It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
wolfbinary wrote:
Isn't this what they do in Europe that has people here so against universal health care?
I have no idea. My concerns about universal health care come from watching it work in Canada. From what I've heard, Oz has a much more flexible system than that, but I've never heard that they show any more intelligence than we do when it comes to letting folks head for Valhalla once they can see the rainbow bridge.
wolfbinary wrote:
Kevorkian got put in jail.
A hangover from the Catholic Church. I suspect that the prohibition against suicide was instituted at the behest of the nobles not wanting the peasants to take the easy way out.
wolfbinary wrote:
At least people have the option of saying in writing they don't want to be kept alive artificially
My step-father was dying of advanced old age in a hospital. A DNR was clearly attached to the foot of his bed and still my mother walked in one day to discover an intern crouched over him giving him oxygen and a heart massage. We got him out of there as soon as we could, but ironically, on the day his transfer to a hospice came through, where he would have been allowed to go off with dignity, he died in the ambulance during the transfer.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
A hangover from the Catholic Church. I suspect that the prohibition against suicide was instituted at the behest of the nobles not wanting the peasants to take the easy way out.
And I suspect that it is a result of the rather obvious conclusion that suicide is murder - the wilful destruction of a human life.
Oakman wrote:
My step-father was dying of advanced old age in a hospital. A DNR was clearly attached to the foot of his bed and still my mother walked in one day to discover an intern crouched over him giving him oxygen and a heart massage. We got him out of there as soon as we could, but ironically, on the day his transfer to a hospice came through, where he would have been allowed to go off with dignity, he died in the ambulance during the transfer.
Thats one kind of error. The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
No. The way the article put the costs is what struck me. The article is about smoking costs not 'justifying termination of human life'.
wolfbinary wrote:
The article is about smoking costs not 'justifying termination of human life'.
No, the article is about 'justifying termination of human life'. The smoking statistics merely support the conclusion that the earlier people die, the more economic benefit to the health care system for every one else. The real conclusion is that it is some kind of duty on the part of a loyal citizen to not linger too long for the good of the collective. Jon's conclusion was that religious people should be happy to go first.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
A hangover from the Catholic Church. I suspect that the prohibition against suicide was instituted at the behest of the nobles not wanting the peasants to take the easy way out.
And I suspect that it is a result of the rather obvious conclusion that suicide is murder - the wilful destruction of a human life.
Oakman wrote:
My step-father was dying of advanced old age in a hospital. A DNR was clearly attached to the foot of his bed and still my mother walked in one day to discover an intern crouched over him giving him oxygen and a heart massage. We got him out of there as soon as we could, but ironically, on the day his transfer to a hospice came through, where he would have been allowed to go off with dignity, he died in the ambulance during the transfer.
Thats one kind of error. The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Actually, he'd been pleading with me to kill him for a couple of years. But I didn't have the guts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
That sounds an awful lot like something Obama would say.
Actually, it doesn't sound anything like that. But Obama is a wise man, after all, so I suppose I should be flattered at the comparison. The problem is collectivism. The solution is stopping it. If one has no means of doing that by participation in some application of direct force, than simply adding one's own mass to society's burden should work well enough. It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is collectivism
Well, I suppose that's true. And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority (as long as it was for Indiana, not the U.S.) I suppose you are, indeed, part of the problem.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The problem is collectivism
Well, I suppose that's true. And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority (as long as it was for Indiana, not the U.S.) I suppose you are, indeed, part of the problem.
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is an unworkable system, it will fail it direct proportion to the extent of its application.
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority
I've never made any such argument. I've only argued that allowing the courts to assume dictatorial authority is more onerous than dictatorship by a majority.
Oakman wrote:
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
I have no clue what that means. Jeffersonian democracy is defined by the distribution of political authority to the people in their states and communities with only certain strictly defined powers allowed to be exercised by the central government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The other kind would be getting whacked over the head by a government agent at the behest of your closest kin while pleading "I'm not dead yet - I feel happy!"
Actually, he'd been pleading with me to kill him for a couple of years. But I didn't have the guts.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
But I didn't have the guts.
So, therefore, what? We should err on the side of people committing suicide just to get themselves out of the way and save the rest of society some money?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
And since I have heard you argue again and again for a dictatorship of the majority
I've never made any such argument. I've only argued that allowing the courts to assume dictatorial authority is more onerous than dictatorship by a majority.
Oakman wrote:
Which is why you have labeled it Jeffersonianism and advocate it so strongly? Very clever.
I have no clue what that means. Jeffersonian democracy is defined by the distribution of political authority to the people in their states and communities with only certain strictly defined powers allowed to be exercised by the central government.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've never made any such argument.
Sure you have. There's no room for any wide variance from the norm (as you and your neighbors define it) in your distopia. Gays not wanted; liberals not wanted; Muslims not wanted; coastal-dwelling Americans not wanted. . .
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no clue what that means.
Sorry. I was pointing out the irony of espousing a collectivist statism and labelling it with the name of our most libertarian President.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
I've never made any such argument.
Sure you have. There's no room for any wide variance from the norm (as you and your neighbors define it) in your distopia. Gays not wanted; liberals not wanted; Muslims not wanted; coastal-dwelling Americans not wanted. . .
Stan Shannon wrote:
I have no clue what that means.
Sorry. I was pointing out the irony of espousing a collectivist statism and labelling it with the name of our most libertarian President.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Sure you have.
No, I haven't.
Oakman wrote:
There's no room for any wide variance from the norm (as you and your neighbors define it) in your distopia. Gays not wanted; liberals not wanted; Muslims not wanted; coastal-dwelling Americans not wanted. . .
The irony is you are the one arguing for precisely what you are accusing me of with that very statement. You want the courts to impose a common world view upon society at large on all those issues without any actual constitutional authority out of fear of the variouis divergent views that would otherwise arise from a Jeffersonian society being allowed to function as intended.
Oakman wrote:
I was pointing out the irony of espousing a collectivist statism and labelling it with the name of our most libertarian President.
I still don't understand your point. You're saying I'm espousing collectivist statism? If so, I'm not. I'm saying the surest way of defeating collectivist statism, short of an actual armed revolution, is by participating in it. Join it and help it die.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
Sure you have.
No, I haven't.
Oakman wrote:
There's no room for any wide variance from the norm (as you and your neighbors define it) in your distopia. Gays not wanted; liberals not wanted; Muslims not wanted; coastal-dwelling Americans not wanted. . .
The irony is you are the one arguing for precisely what you are accusing me of with that very statement. You want the courts to impose a common world view upon society at large on all those issues without any actual constitutional authority out of fear of the variouis divergent views that would otherwise arise from a Jeffersonian society being allowed to function as intended.
Oakman wrote:
I was pointing out the irony of espousing a collectivist statism and labelling it with the name of our most libertarian President.
I still don't understand your point. You're saying I'm espousing collectivist statism? If so, I'm not. I'm saying the surest way of defeating collectivist statism, short of an actual armed revolution, is by participating in it. Join it and help it die.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The irony is you are the one arguing for precisely what you are accusing me of with that very statement.
Why is it that every time I point out that you favor a dictatorial state, you try to weasel out by claiming it's what I want - yet every time I say that I will put up with the rules of the state that I agree with or at least that don't hamper me unduly, but ignore the rest you accused me of being an uncivilized barbarian?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You want the courts to impose a common world view upon society at large on all those issues without any actual constitutional authority out of fear of the variouis divergent views that would otherwise arise from a Jeffersonian society being allowed to function as intended.
You could no more find a post where I said anything of the kind than you could walk to the moon. Why do you need to create absolute falsehoods about what your debate opponent says? Am I truly that hard for you to argue with?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're saying I'm espousing collectivist statism?
I know you don't think you are, but the only difference I can see between your Jeffersonian society and Osama's Shar'ia society is the labels you would demand your citizens conform to. It appears to me that you even both want the U.S. Government to stop interfering with your "right" to determine the proper path for all citizens of your baliwick.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
But I didn't have the guts.
So, therefore, what? We should err on the side of people committing suicide just to get themselves out of the way and save the rest of society some money?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
We should err on the side of people committing suicide just to get themselves out of the way and save the rest of society some money?
Nope, therefore you should shut your mouth unless you know what you're talking about.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The irony is you are the one arguing for precisely what you are accusing me of with that very statement.
Why is it that every time I point out that you favor a dictatorial state, you try to weasel out by claiming it's what I want - yet every time I say that I will put up with the rules of the state that I agree with or at least that don't hamper me unduly, but ignore the rest you accused me of being an uncivilized barbarian?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You want the courts to impose a common world view upon society at large on all those issues without any actual constitutional authority out of fear of the variouis divergent views that would otherwise arise from a Jeffersonian society being allowed to function as intended.
You could no more find a post where I said anything of the kind than you could walk to the moon. Why do you need to create absolute falsehoods about what your debate opponent says? Am I truly that hard for you to argue with?
Stan Shannon wrote:
You're saying I'm espousing collectivist statism?
I know you don't think you are, but the only difference I can see between your Jeffersonian society and Osama's Shar'ia society is the labels you would demand your citizens conform to. It appears to me that you even both want the U.S. Government to stop interfering with your "right" to determine the proper path for all citizens of your baliwick.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Why is it that every time I point out that you favor a dictatorial state, you try to weasel out by claiming it's what I want - yet every time I say that I will put up with the rules of the state that I agree with or at least that don't hamper me unduly, but ignore the rest you accused me of being an uncivilized barbarian?
Because I don't 'favor a dictaorial state', but if dicatorship exists it is better it exists in a million small dictatorships than one big one - in other words, its better to trust the people with the potential for dictatorship than the federal government. Thats not weaseling out of anything, it is merely politely restating my argument. And frankly, what is the difference between people wilfully ignoring the laws they don't like, and merely creating ones they do? The point is that the only way you can have your noble little 'ignore the laws I don't like' is if, in fact, you are expecting a great deal of support from the courts against the people.
Oakman wrote:
You could no more find a post where I said anything of the kind than you could walk to the moon. Why do you need to create absolute falsehoods about what your debate opponent says? Am I truly that hard for you to argue with?
YOu consistently side with court decisions againt local political legislation - we have argued the point from flag burning to sodomy. You have made it abundently clear that you view the nation outside your little east coast enclaves as some sort of realm of religious zealotry waiting to do the bidding of some theocrat of some kind.
Oakman wrote:
know you don't think you are, but the only difference I can see between your Jeffersonian society and Osama's Shar'ia society is the labels you would demand your citizens conform to. It appears to me that you even both want the U.S. Government to stop interfering with your "right" to determine the proper path for all citizens of your baliwick.
And once again you are comparing the history of America, my parents, my grandparents, and their parents before them - all the way back to the days of Jefferson himself - as some kind of taliban like tyranical dictatorship. If what I am describing represents some version of sharia law, it is something that has been with us since the beginning and which once defined our entire civilization.
-
Oakman wrote:
Why is it that every time I point out that you favor a dictatorial state, you try to weasel out by claiming it's what I want - yet every time I say that I will put up with the rules of the state that I agree with or at least that don't hamper me unduly, but ignore the rest you accused me of being an uncivilized barbarian?
Because I don't 'favor a dictaorial state', but if dicatorship exists it is better it exists in a million small dictatorships than one big one - in other words, its better to trust the people with the potential for dictatorship than the federal government. Thats not weaseling out of anything, it is merely politely restating my argument. And frankly, what is the difference between people wilfully ignoring the laws they don't like, and merely creating ones they do? The point is that the only way you can have your noble little 'ignore the laws I don't like' is if, in fact, you are expecting a great deal of support from the courts against the people.
Oakman wrote:
You could no more find a post where I said anything of the kind than you could walk to the moon. Why do you need to create absolute falsehoods about what your debate opponent says? Am I truly that hard for you to argue with?
YOu consistently side with court decisions againt local political legislation - we have argued the point from flag burning to sodomy. You have made it abundently clear that you view the nation outside your little east coast enclaves as some sort of realm of religious zealotry waiting to do the bidding of some theocrat of some kind.
Oakman wrote:
know you don't think you are, but the only difference I can see between your Jeffersonian society and Osama's Shar'ia society is the labels you would demand your citizens conform to. It appears to me that you even both want the U.S. Government to stop interfering with your "right" to determine the proper path for all citizens of your baliwick.
And once again you are comparing the history of America, my parents, my grandparents, and their parents before them - all the way back to the days of Jefferson himself - as some kind of taliban like tyranical dictatorship. If what I am describing represents some version of sharia law, it is something that has been with us since the beginning and which once defined our entire civilization.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because I don't 'favor a dictaorial state'
Yes, you do - of the majority not of the man, but by the time you get through defining who can be a citizen of your dystopia, it'll still be a fairly small group holding power. besides, you give yourself the lie in your next sentence. "Little dictatorships are better than big dictatorships" -- and being a little bit pregnant is oh so different than being a lot pregnant.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And frankly, what is the difference between people wilfully ignoring the laws they don't like, and merely creating ones they do?
Simple: unlike you and unlike the Supreme Court, and unlike Obama, and unlike Osama I don't happen to think I should pass laws about how other people should live.
Stan Shannon wrote:
YOu consistently side with court decisions againt local political legislation
No, I don't It's certainly true that some of my opinions coincide with what the Supreme Court has made the Law of the land, but I would hold my opinion if the Supremes suddenly reversed themselves (again). Equally, I hold some opinions that are very much not in favor with the Supreme Court, but if they suddenly saw the light, I wouldn't change my mind just to be contrary to them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we have argued the point from flag burning to sodomy
Wrong again. I certainly think that flag burning is free speech as I do pornography, pamphlets on bomb-making, telephone calls to overseas, drawing insulting cartoons of Mohamed, and wearing vulgar t-shirts. I don't care what you think, or Obama, or the Supremes, or Osama thinks, either. I also think that the government ought to stop claiming it has any vested interest in the word "marriage." I'm all in favor of cohabitation contracts or civil unions or whatever you want to call a legal agreement to live together being enforced but marriage is a church-word and no church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It'd be nice if the Supremes or the Congress or Jehovah Himself announced that I was right and all the loud-mouths on both sides of the gay marriage question were wrong, but I don't have a lot of hope that will happen. As to sodomy either hetero or homo, I don't give a shit (pun intended) whether you practice it, or are shocked by it. I do
-
Oakman wrote:
Sure you have.
No, I haven't.
Oakman wrote:
There's no room for any wide variance from the norm (as you and your neighbors define it) in your distopia. Gays not wanted; liberals not wanted; Muslims not wanted; coastal-dwelling Americans not wanted. . .
The irony is you are the one arguing for precisely what you are accusing me of with that very statement. You want the courts to impose a common world view upon society at large on all those issues without any actual constitutional authority out of fear of the variouis divergent views that would otherwise arise from a Jeffersonian society being allowed to function as intended.
Oakman wrote:
I was pointing out the irony of espousing a collectivist statism and labelling it with the name of our most libertarian President.
I still don't understand your point. You're saying I'm espousing collectivist statism? If so, I'm not. I'm saying the surest way of defeating collectivist statism, short of an actual armed revolution, is by participating in it. Join it and help it die.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Uh, yes you have. Over and over and you've been called on it over and over.
Uh, no I haven't. I have merely defended the form of government this country was intended to have and did have throughout most of its history.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Because I don't 'favor a dictaorial state'
Yes, you do - of the majority not of the man, but by the time you get through defining who can be a citizen of your dystopia, it'll still be a fairly small group holding power. besides, you give yourself the lie in your next sentence. "Little dictatorships are better than big dictatorships" -- and being a little bit pregnant is oh so different than being a lot pregnant.
Stan Shannon wrote:
And frankly, what is the difference between people wilfully ignoring the laws they don't like, and merely creating ones they do?
Simple: unlike you and unlike the Supreme Court, and unlike Obama, and unlike Osama I don't happen to think I should pass laws about how other people should live.
Stan Shannon wrote:
YOu consistently side with court decisions againt local political legislation
No, I don't It's certainly true that some of my opinions coincide with what the Supreme Court has made the Law of the land, but I would hold my opinion if the Supremes suddenly reversed themselves (again). Equally, I hold some opinions that are very much not in favor with the Supreme Court, but if they suddenly saw the light, I wouldn't change my mind just to be contrary to them.
Stan Shannon wrote:
we have argued the point from flag burning to sodomy
Wrong again. I certainly think that flag burning is free speech as I do pornography, pamphlets on bomb-making, telephone calls to overseas, drawing insulting cartoons of Mohamed, and wearing vulgar t-shirts. I don't care what you think, or Obama, or the Supremes, or Osama thinks, either. I also think that the government ought to stop claiming it has any vested interest in the word "marriage." I'm all in favor of cohabitation contracts or civil unions or whatever you want to call a legal agreement to live together being enforced but marriage is a church-word and no church should be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. It'd be nice if the Supremes or the Congress or Jehovah Himself announced that I was right and all the loud-mouths on both sides of the gay marriage question were wrong, but I don't have a lot of hope that will happen. As to sodomy either hetero or homo, I don't give a shit (pun intended) whether you practice it, or are shocked by it. I do
The simple fact of the matter remains, that I have absolutely nothing in common with Obama, Osama or any other such indviduals you can dredge up. I am a Jeffersonian. And fiercely so. The political principles I defend are exactly the ones that Jefferson defended. Civilization simply cannot exist with out some form of ordering principle. In a Jeffersonian society that ordering principle belongs to the states and to the people, with the federal government empowered only to enforce certain strictly defined constitutional principles. The only other possible place it can exist is in the hands of a centralized federal entity of some kind. It never was and was never intended to be in the hands of each and every individual to decide which laws they are going to pick and choose to obey. Jefferson, et al, intentionally created and articulated a form of government in which local governments could outlaw sodomy or flag burning or what ever else they wished to do as long as they were not violating the principles stated in the constitution. The existance of such laws was not some kind of bizarre aberation of the founding principles, they were a consequence of them. You can yawn about that all you like, it was the entire reason the revolution was fought and what distinquished AMerican civilization from every other society on the planet - not libertarianism.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.