>>>>>>>>>> Time Europeans and Japanese spend waiting for treatment under >>>>>>>>>> their publicly funded healthcare systems- 0 weeks >>>>>>>>> For someone so dead set against publicly funded healthcare, >>>>>>>>> you >>>> sure >>>>>>>>> are careless about some of the statistics that you put out >>>>>>>>> there. Now, tell us again about why it won't work in the US? >>>>>>>> You should really learn to read. He was citing an article. If >>>>>>>> you don't like what it said, take it up with the author, not >>>>>>>> the poster. >>>>>>> Oh, I read just fine. If I were arguing that public healthcare >>>>>>> won't work in the US, damned if I would cite an article showing >>>>>>> where it is working exceedingly well in two other areas of the >>>>>>> world with no waiting times. >>>>>> ;) No problemo.....misunderstood what you were going after. My >>>> apology. >>>>>>> So much for it can't work. >>>>>> Well, perhaps some of it does in Europe but do you really want to >>>>>> have >>>> a >>>>>> tax rate of 60% like they do in Sweden or Norway? I don't know >>>>>> the >>>> rate >>>>>> in Japan but I doubt it is anywhere near what I pay. >>>>> I would have to go and figure it up, but I think that, after >>>>> adding up existing income taxes, medical insurance premiums, and >>>>> deductibles, that it would be pretty close. Now, a couple of >>>>> years ago, when my wife had a severe medical problem, my medical >>>>> expenses actually exceeded income for that year. >>>> Not to be too personal, but which insurance did you have that >>>> didn't pay for it? The worst plan I was ever on was one from my >>>> employer where I paid 20%, the employer paid 80%. Since I retired >>>> and passed 65, I get better deals on my own than I can through my >>>> old employer. I know that because they send me my plan options >>>> every years and I go through them. They usually have about 5 or 6 >>>> plans to choose from. A couple are PPO, a couple are HMOs, to or >>>> three are plain insurances. So far, I have beat all of those >>>> choices on my own.
>>>>> I had to get a loan, which I am still >>>>> paying on. Do I get to count those loan payments as medical >>>>> expenses each year too? >>>> I would when comparing costs.
>>>>> Now, for those who make less than I do, those fixed costs would be >>>>> a greater percentage of their income. I guess what I'm trying to >>>>> say is that a $500/mo insurance premium along with $4,000/year co >>>>> pay for medical expenses, plus $30-50 co pay for a couple of >>>>> doctor visits a month, along with 50-100/mo for prescriptions adds >>>>> up to a pretty big percentage of a low paid worker. It's chump >>>>> change to someone making $100-200,000/year though. >>>> That's also a pretty lousy health plan. >>> Yep, plus I have to ask myself who is it that manages to run up >>> medical expenses high enough to need to spend $4,000 per year in >>> co-pay, yet isn't looking for a better plan?
>>> I wonder though if he's considered supplementary insurance. It could >>> reduce/eliminate the co-pay and plug holes that exist in his current >>> POS plan. The prices for such supplementary insurance are usually >>> typically quite reasonable.
>> Particularly when that insurance is not the primary provider. They >> pick the loose change, so to speak.
>>> However, you have to actually go out of >>> your way to research your opinion and not simply accept whatever the >>> employer choses to provide.
>> He may not be in a position where he has a choice.
> I think you're missing what I'm saying.
Gotcha......
> For his primary insurance he > may not have much choice, unless he wishes to foot the entire bill. > However, he has TOTAL choice when it comes to supplementary insurance > to improve that basic POS provided by his employer. However, they > don't come looking to offer you that. You have to go out and look for > it, and consider the different packages or work with an agent who can > customize your coverage to provide what you need. Of course, that is > also something you need to know, what do you need so you don't waste > money buying coverage for what is already covered or coverage more > extensive than you think you need.
Yep. We agree.
-- Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
>>On Jul 13, 6:20 pm, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net> wrote: >>> Anyway, I find myself unwilling to side with those who are so dead set >>> against public healthcare. Even a substandard level of health care >>> beats no health care at all. Yes, I do believe that I, and other's >>> like me, would come out far better off even at the 60% tax rate >>> provided the coverage was 100%.
>>You're presuming that public health care wouldn't mean LESS coverage >>for everyone in the vast majority who now already are privately >>covered. You're assuming that a Britain-style health plan in America >>wouldn't mean LESS coverage for the vast majority of the public so >>that a minority of the public would be able to get that substandard >>level they now don't get at all.
> You're presuming that your "Red Nation" revolution started over six > weeks ago and no one noticed. BTW, if your idea of progress is to let > those who have money live while those who don't die, it's probably > best that you were wrong...again. Your new Stalin will just have to > wait I guess.
Gotta love left fringer fucktards who think everyone deserves an income whether they work or not and those who work owe those who do not a living. People who have money earned it. They don't want people to die. The "new Stalin" has a name: Obama.
On Jul 15, 8:48 pm, Deucalion <some...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >I agree, but the problem is that the tax would be that the 60% rate would > >be for *everyone*. Note your own reluctance at pregnancy coverage for > >50 year old couples. By far, the majority do not have your problem so > >what you would end up with would be forced 'charity' at the point of an > >IRS gun.
> We could take the gunner approach and simply not pay the non-covered > expenses. Then, others would have to bear the expense anyway as a > user tax.
Bullshit. At least without coerced health coverage, there is a limit on prices - set by what the paying customers will pay before they too just refuse to pay or else go to another doctor or hospital. Without coerced health coverage, there's an upper limit on how much a hospital or doctor can charge for the aspirins it administers to paying patients. Then there's also the MATH issue. Particularly in an economic depression without any end in sight, there really is an upper limit on how much can be taxed out of the retail sector and employees before the economy collapses. And the many on fixed incomes - the downsized, the under-65 retired, etc. - just don't infinitely have more money to pay more taxes.
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:30:35 -0500, "RD (The Sandman)" > <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>I had to share the costs when I had the 80/20, too but when HMOs began >>to be offered, that no longer applied. What I did, was to check with >>my doctor (and any specialists I needed at the time) and asked them >>their opinions on the plans I was offered. I was looking for plans >>that they were on (so that I didn't have to change my doctors) and >>that treated them well with on-time payments and few hassles about >>specialists. I checked to see that my local hospital (which was a >>good one for heart problems) was on the list. Then I looked at costs, >>both for membership and out of pocket when services were needed.
>>I have had free labs, xrays, MRIs, etc. for almost a couple of decades >>now. I have handled specialists with copays ranging from $30 to $100 >>over that time period and primary care physician fees ranging from $0 >>to $35.
> HMO is not an option that my employer offers.
Sorry to hear about that. One thing I would look at was an idea that came from Scout. He suggested that it may well be cheaper for you to get a secondary health policy for the purpose filling those holes in your primary policy. I would look into that. I never had to since I always had choices between my wife's insurance and mine that we had most of the bases covered. She was a state employee and therefore, secondary on my family policy in lieu of being another primary.
>>Always pay close attention to those bills. Get them itemized and >>challenge any doctor fees you do not recognize. I have seen where one >>or two doctors are to review MRI results, for example, but you may >>find doctor fees for two or three of them because they were in the >>area and looked over the original doctor's shoulder.
> Thanks. That's good advice and is manageable now. The big ones a > couple of years ago were just too much to digest. Plus, I was doing > 24 hour care for my wife at the time.
Yep, I hear you but I reviewed all my hospital and doctor bills from my angiograms and angioplasties. That was eleven in just two years. Three different hospitals, two in South Florida and one in Washington DC. It was during that time that moved from the PPO I was on to an HMO.
>>Sorry to hear......not much I can say. Part of your problem is going >>to be pre-existing conditions if you wish to change health plans.
> Yes, I know.
>>If she is disabled (and it sounds like it from what you stated above) >>go talk to the Medicare/Medicaid folks about an early admission. My >>wife has Parkinson's (an interesting case since she was diagnosed with >>primary/progressive MS for three years until we changed neurological >>teams). During that time, she was put on Social Security as disabled, >>not for age. She is currently 65)
> I checked on disability and she doesn't qualify because she did not > work enough quarters prior to her disability. I had assumed that > early Medicaid/Medicare was the same, but I will check on that.
OK, sorry to hear that, though.
>>You have my best wishes and I would imagine those of most in here >>regardless of stances on firearms.
> Thanks. BTW, my stance on firearms ownership is probably pretty close > to yours. I think that everyone should have the right to ownership > (with the exception of convicted violent felons). I support open > carry and a requirement that all citizens (with the exception of > convicted violent felons) be able to get CCW permits. The norm should > be issue and it should be incumbent on the issuing authority to show > why one was not issued.
> That said, I think that gun owners should be responsible gun owners > and not use them for intimidation or unlawful purposes.
Exactly. I also feel that safety training should be mandatory (in one's mind, not by law) and that all should recieve it and take refresher courses from time to time. Safe storage should also be mandatory (in one's mind again) and strickly followed. However, what may be required in your situation may well be different than what would be required in mine.
> Perhaps we do differ, but if we do, let's keep to the topic in this > thread shall we?
This is the only newsgroup I currently post in but I do post in many threads.
>>I agree, but the problem is that the tax would be that the 60% rate >>would be for *everyone*. Note your own reluctance at pregnancy >>coverage for 50 year old couples. By far, the majority do not have >>your problem so what you would end up with would be forced 'charity' >>at the point of an IRS gun.
> We could take the gunner approach and simply not pay the non-covered > expenses. Then, others would have to bear the expense anyway as a > user tax.
Difficult to do as you have noted from your medical plan. You have to pay for things you don't use in order to have that plan.
FWIW, unless your employer *requires* you to take their plan, I would seriously look and see if you could beat it on your own....perhaps with an HMO that recognizes your doctor, your specialists and your hospital of choice. It is all in the homework and making a lot of phone calls.
-- Sleep well, tonight........
RD (The Sandman)
The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
>>>It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now.
David Johnston wrote: > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:12:09 -0700, Gunner Asch > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:49:37 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> >> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net" >>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>> It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>> the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>> novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>> through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now. >>> So after you destroy the nation, what then? >> Return it to the Founders intent.
>>>>It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now.
>>>So after you destroy the nation,
There is no destroy the nation. Its the political idiots who wont do what they are susposed to. In no way will the nation be destroyed. It will be saved.
>>Return it to the Founders intent.
Yes.
> Establish slave plantations everywhere?
No, The founders intent was to ban slavery. But it was stricken because the Constitution couldnt of passed. Why even bring it up except you are searching for some mute point to argue
>>>>It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now.
>>>So after you destroy the nation, what then?
>>Return it to the Founders intent.
>Establish slave plantations everywhere?
Nah..there wont be any suitable slave material. All the Far Leftwing Extremist fringe kooks will be dead.
Btw...got an estimate of how many farmers in the south kept slaves?
Give us a percentage, if you would be so kind.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do something damned nasty to all three of them.
>>>>>It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now.
>>>>So after you destroy the nation,
>There is no destroy the nation. Its the political idiots who wont do what >they are susposed to. In no way will the nation be destroyed. It will be >saved.
>>>Return it to the Founders intent.
> Yes.
>> Establish slave plantations everywhere?
>No, The founders intent was to ban slavery.
Like hell it was.
But it was stricken because
>the Constitution couldnt of passed.
Couldn't have passed what? The founders were the ones who had to vote on the proposed Constitution. Some founders were in favour of banning slavery. More were deathly opposed to banning it for obvious reasons.
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:49:37 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net" >>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>> It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>> the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>> novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>> through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now. >>>>> So after you destroy the nation, >> There is no destroy the nation. Its the political idiots who wont do what >> they are susposed to. In no way will the nation be destroyed. It will be >> saved.
>>>> Return it to the Founders intent. >> Yes. >>> Establish slave plantations everywhere?
>> No, The founders intent was to ban slavery.
> Like hell it was.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Recognize this?
It was approved and ratified BY EACH colony-soon-to-be-state.
The Founders knew that the Declaration would eventually result in freeing all men and break the back of slavery.
> But it was stricken because >> the Constitution couldnt of passed.
> Couldn't have passed what? The founders were the ones who had to vote > on the proposed Constitution. Some founders were in favour of banning > slavery. More were deathly opposed to banning it for obvious reasons.
>
Why weren't all slaves simply released in 1776?
Answer: It wasn't possible or practical.
Yes, there was economics but this was minor compared to the big picture.
1. Slaves were half the population. Where would they live? What would they eat? What would they do?
2. According to law - slaves were not citizens. They were legal property. They didn't qualify as citizens.
3. Slaves weren't culturally assimilated How would colonists and ex-slaves interact? Who would benefit?
Many were individually freed. Some of them became slave-owners. Fancy that.
Oh and by the way, you're a slave. Means and methods have changed.
On Sep 9, 5:14 pm, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
> Oh and by the way, you're a slave. Means and methods have changed.-
Which is why revolt is inevitable. Expanding the welfare state, ever- more bailouts, two foreign wars is on a mathematical collision course with federal tax revenues down 32% from a year ago and very high unemployment. The anger from that confluence is what drove the enormous unruliness at the "town halls" against Obamacare and its high concealed taxes.
>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:49:37 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> >>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net" >>>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>>> the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>>> novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>>> through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now. >>>>>> So after you destroy the nation, >>> There is no destroy the nation. Its the political idiots who wont do what >>> they are susposed to. In no way will the nation be destroyed. It will be >>> saved.
>>>>> Return it to the Founders intent. >>> Yes. >>>> Establish slave plantations everywhere?
>>> No, The founders intent was to ban slavery.
>> Like hell it was.
>"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the >pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments >are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the >consent of the governed..."
>Recognize this?
Sure I do.
>It was approved and ratified BY EACH colony-soon-to-be-state.
Of course it was. It was the justification for their rebellion. But it didn't mean they had any intention of applying the moral theory to their slaves. If the slaves wanted freedom they could have their own revolution. It was just a revolutionary slogan, not an imperative.
>The Founders knew that the Declaration would eventually result in >freeing all men and break the back of slavery.
Since it didn't, not so much.
>> But it was stricken because >>> the Constitution couldnt of passed.
>> Couldn't have passed what? The founders were the ones who had to vote >> on the proposed Constitution. Some founders were in favour of banning >> slavery. More were deathly opposed to banning it for obvious reasons.
>Why weren't all slaves simply released in 1776?
>Answer: It wasn't possible or practical.
Of course it wasn't. When the large slave owners were in fact founders it just wasn't an option.
>Yes, there was economics but this was minor compared to the >big picture.
>1. Slaves were half the population.
Only in South Caroline.
Where would they live? What would
> they eat? What would they do?
That question was never not there from the declaration of independence right up to emancipation. It would never go away.
>2. According to law - slaves were not citizens. They were legal > property. They didn't qualify as citizens.
Of course. Property aren't citizens. That never went away from independance until emancipation.
>3. Slaves weren't culturally assimilated How would colonists and > ex-slaves interact? Who would benefit?
Once again, not a question that would ever get better as long as they were slaves.
>Many were individually freed. Some of them became slave-owners. >Fancy that.
>Oh and by the way, you're a slave.
There is nothing so stupid as the pretense that the modern circumstances of a modern worker are anything like those of chattel.
>>>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:49:37 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net" >>>>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>>>> the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>>>> novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>>>> through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now. >>>>>>> So after you destroy the nation, >>>> There is no destroy the nation. Its the political idiots who wont do what >>>> they are susposed to. In no way will the nation be destroyed. It will be >>>> saved.
>>>>>> Return it to the Founders intent. >>>> Yes. >>>>> Establish slave plantations everywhere? >>>> No, The founders intent was to ban slavery. >>> Like hell it was.
>> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created >> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain >> unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the >> pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments >> are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the >> consent of the governed..."
>> Recognize this?
> Sure I do.
>> It was approved and ratified BY EACH colony-soon-to-be-state.
> Of course it was. It was the justification for their rebellion. But > it didn't mean they had any intention of applying the moral theory to > their slaves. If the slaves wanted freedom they could have their own > revolution. It was just a revolutionary slogan, not an imperative.
>> The Founders knew that the Declaration would eventually result in >> freeing all men and break the back of slavery.
> Since it didn't, not so much.
>>> But it was stricken because >>>> the Constitution couldnt of passed. >>> Couldn't have passed what? The founders were the ones who had to vote >>> on the proposed Constitution. Some founders were in favour of banning >>> slavery. More were deathly opposed to banning it for obvious reasons.
>> Why weren't all slaves simply released in 1776?
>> Answer: It wasn't possible or practical.
> Of course it wasn't. When the large slave owners were in fact > founders it just wasn't an option.
>> Yes, there was economics but this was minor compared to the >> big picture.
>> 1. Slaves were half the population.
> Only in South Caroline.
> Where would they live? What would >> they eat? What would they do?
> That question was never not there from the declaration of independence > right up to emancipation. It would never go away.
>> 2. According to law - slaves were not citizens. They were legal >> property. They didn't qualify as citizens.
> Of course. Property aren't citizens. That never went away from > independance until emancipation.
>> 3. Slaves weren't culturally assimilated How would colonists and >> ex-slaves interact? Who would benefit?
> Once again, not a question that would ever get better as long as they > were slaves.
>> Many were individually freed. Some of them became slave-owners. >> Fancy that.
>> Oh and by the way, you're a slave.
> There is nothing so stupid as the pretense that the modern > circumstances of a modern worker are anything like those of chattel.
>
It's all a matter of perspective.
If you're an 8-5 'worker' dependent on the debt money system and pay taxes, you're a wage slave.
Freedom of mobility, transaction and speech?
'Health care' and the 'war on terror' will take away most.
Watch as the Socialists close the loop.
RFID chips coming soon!
chattel
1. Law. a movable article of personal property. 2. any article of tangible property other than land, buildings, and other things annexed to land. 3. a slave.
>>>>>It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now.
>>>>So after you destroy the nation, what then?
>>>Return it to the Founders intent.
>>Establish slave plantations everywhere?
>Nah..there wont be any suitable slave material. All the Far Leftwing >Extremist fringe kooks will be dead.
The Founders were importing slaves from foreign climes.
>Btw...got an estimate of how many farmers in the south kept slaves?
The relevant estimate is how many Founders kept slaves.
David Johnston wrote: > On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 03:11:26 -0700, Gunner Asch > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:13:34 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> >> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:12:09 -0700, Gunner Asch >>> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:49:37 GMT, David Johnston <da...@block.net> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:05:54 -0700 (PDT), "edi...@netpath.net" >>>>> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote:
>>>>>> It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>> the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>> novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>> through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now. >>>>> So after you destroy the nation, what then? >>>> Return it to the Founders intent. >>> Establish slave plantations everywhere? >> Nah..there wont be any suitable slave material. All the Far Leftwing >> Extremist fringe kooks will be dead.
> The Founders were importing slaves from foreign climes.
Really. Did they place orders or maybe they cruised to Africa, stole the darkies out of their huts and brought them back.
>> Btw...got an estimate of how many farmers in the south kept slaves?
> The relevant estimate is how many Founders kept slaves.
>>>>>>It's a clear Visa-card referendum - whose meaning should be obvious to >>>>>>the regime and the rest of the elites: John Ross' 1996 thinly-veiled >>>>>>novel about how Red Nation could successfully defeat the regime >>>>>>through leaderless resistance is nearly sold out now.
>>>>>So after you destroy the nation, what then?
>>>>Return it to the Founders intent.
>>>Establish slave plantations everywhere?
>>Nah..there wont be any suitable slave material. All the Far Leftwing >>Extremist fringe kooks will be dead.
>The Founders were importing slaves from foreign climes.
A few were. Not all. In fact most were against slavery.
In fact..I believe this factual article was written about you.....
>>Btw...got an estimate of how many farmers in the south kept slaves?
>The relevant estimate is how many Founders kept slaves.
", the clear majority of the Founders was opposed to this evil--and their support went beyond words.
For example, in 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer William Livingston heard of the New York society, he, as Governor of New Jersey, wrote them, offering:
“I would most ardently wish to become a member of it [the society in New York] and... I can safely promise them that neither my tongue, nor my pen, nor purse shall be wanting to promote the abolition of what to me appears so inconsistent with humanity and Christianity... May the great and the equal Father of the human race, who has expressly declared His abhorrence of oppression, and that He is no respecter of persons, succeed a design so laudably calculated to undo the heavy burdens, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke.”
Other prominent Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.
In fact, based in part on the efforts of these Founders, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
It is not surprising that Washington would sign such a law, for it was he who had declared:
“I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].” -George Washington
So puff up all you want..you still are butt stupid and sadly..ignorant as iceing on the cake.
Gunner
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 worth."
|
