Obama, our dear & fluffy saviour...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, July 6, 2009 02:07
VIEWED: 11460
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 6:48 PM

Just a question, are the authoritarians/Bush fans here all frustrated & upset that the rest of us do not consider Obama to be some kind of godsend? Does it limit their ability to strike back for all the years of finger-pointing at Bush & Cheney? Does it make them feel like maybe they see things a little more biased than they believed all along?

Just wonderin'.

The evil laughing Chrisisall

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 25, 2009 7:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just a question, are the authoritarians/Bush fans here all frustrated & upset that the rest of us do not consider Obama to be some kind of godsend?

I'm no "authoritarian/Bush fan" but the answer to your question is No. Actually I find it both funny and sad. You Libs are hating him now for NOT doing enough, and my ilk hates him for already doing too much. Sort of ironical.

Quote:
Does it limit their ability to strike back for all the years of finger-pointing at Bush & Cheney?

No. There's just no point to it. We say black, you and others say white, then eventually we say our effyooze.

Quote:
Does it make them feel like maybe they see things a little more biased than they believed all along?

No. Core beliefs don't really change. Certain aspects may change a bit over time and events.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You Libs are hating him now for NOT doing enough, and my ilk hates him for already doing too much. Sort of ironical.

I'm still a Lib..

I don't hate him, I just think he's doing what's expected of him rather than what's right. He's done both too much AND not enough in different areas IMO.
I'll REALLY dislike him if he starts a new shooting war for dubious reasons, though.

The laughing Chrisisall

OPPYH

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Just a question, are the authoritarians/Bush fans here all frustrated & upset that the rest of us do not consider Obama to be some kind of godsend? Does it limit their ability to strike back for all the years of finger-pointing at Bush & Cheney? Does it make them feel like maybe they see things a little more biased than they believed all along?

Just wonderin'.

As a democratic Obama opposer from the get go, I'm actually surprised he's doing as much as he is.
Clean Energy, and health care are two very important issues that Obama plans to tackle, and fix.
For that I commend him. It's a great start to a long presidency.

As for those who supported him, voted for him, and are now disappointed in him? I guess I feel bad for you. Short from turning water into wine, I really don't know what you expected in the first place. He's doing his job....give him credit where credit is due.

JONGSSTRAW

Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:49 PM

I appreciate your honesty Chris. I can relate to your feelings of disappoinment with the President you voted for. I went through a similar evolution with Bush, although it took a bit longer than the few months Obama's been in office, and the disappoinment level was much higher.

From my perspective, Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the "Let's bankrupt America with Liberal fantasies" crowd have hit me over the head with a hammer so many times I can't feel anything these days except numbness and hopelessness. What's almost as painful to me is the continued presence of John McCain shooting his stupid mouth off on everything. The guy is a total tool. I despised him for years as a Senator, thought his campaign for President was incoherent and pitiful, and now am embarrassed at just about everything he says. He's like a frikkin' hemmorroid that won't go away. By the way, I consider everything that's now upsetting me and Conservatives just reward for the utter devastation that Bush Admin & Republican Congress created over 8 years. That's why I'm more or less just taking it all now without saying much against those now in power. It's called punishment.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

As a democratic Obama opposer from the get go, I'm actually surprised he's doing as much as he is.
Clean Energy, and health care are two very important issues that Obama plans to tackle, and fix.
For that I commend him. It's a great start to a long presidency.

That's the stuff I like, but going through with the bailouts just like Bush would have stinks of big-money influence in retaining the immediate status-quo at the expense of our secure future IMO.

Quote:

As for those who supported him, voted for him, and are now disappointed in him? I guess I feel bad for you.

Don't. I voted for him & knowing what I know now I'd do it again- doesn't mean I LIKE the choices I had. He talks a good game, and I like that he's the first peep of colour to hold the office, but I wish he were more bold & radical, fearless & risky. I wanted the anti-matter Bush & had to settle for a less sex-starved Clinton. Oh well.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by OPPYH:

As a democratic Obama opposer from the get go, I'm actually surprised he's doing as much as he is. Clean Energy, and health care are two very important issues that Obama plans to tackle, and fix.

fix? how.. does he have a patent pending on some state of the art, afforable source of energy, previously undiscovered yet? coal is cheap and plentiful, and nuclear power is tried and proven. but the insane greenies would rather compromise the greatest economy the world has seen.

so.. if by 'tackle', you mean bring crashing to the ground, then i agree.. cap and trade will directly tax and inhibit every productive person or industry in America; just so we can feel good about ourselves.

and as for Obamacare, how does throwing a beauracrat between you and your physician save you money? his proposal is the equivelant to handing the entire system over to exactly those/and their schemes, who ruined our healthcare system. God help us if the state becomes the arbitor of our health and well being.

Quote:
For that I commend him. It's a great start to a long presidency.

i hope youre wrong about that.. God forbid we have to endure 5 terms of the Supreme Chancellor, his excellency Lord Obamas omniscience.

Quote:
As for those who supported him, voted for him, and are now disappointed in him? I guess I feel bad for you. Short from turning water into wine, I really don't know what you expected in the first place. He's doing his job....give him credit where credit is due

he's the epitome of every flawed, failed liberal policy of 80 years. theres nothing he can do to 'fix' this, short of dismantling the government back to its original form, the exact opposite of what hes doing. the stimulus didnt work, because collectivism/statism does not work.

about the only thing id give him credit for, is the speed at which him and his handlers, and the statists, are attempting to cram this down our throats, before the general public even gets a wink at the scope and danger of this complete subversion of our once constitutional republic

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

he's the epitome of every flawed, failed liberal policy of 80 years.

No you dork, he's the epitome of every flawed, failed AMERICAN policy of the past 80 years.
I hand you the award for falling for the two-party system evil overlord plan.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:31 AM

by liberal, i mean statist. do you deny that in principle, statism/collectivism, and free market libertarianism are opposing idealogies? its irrelevant whether the two parties have become one, im just making the distinction between a good, market based initiative, and collectivist central planning agendas

CHRISISALL

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
by liberal, i mean statist.

That is meaningless to me.

Quote:
do you deny that in principle, statism/collectivism, and free market libertarianism are opposing ideologies?

They would be, if emotional human impulses were removed from the equation. Power corrupts, and ideologies fall in the process. Law of the jungle, dude. Golden rule. Don't be so naive.
Libertarianism cannot be expressed in a corporate world. We are slaves, pure & simple.
Get used to it.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Friday, June 26, 2009 11:48 AM

Quote:

...as for Obamacare, how does throwing a beauracrat between you and your physician save you money?

If it takes three or four insurance company bureaucrats OUT of the loop, it can save you money. And time.

RIPWASH

Friday, June 26, 2009 1:49 PM

I heard this on the radio this morning and to be honest . . . my jaw dropped to the floor. This is VERY chilling . . . and very telling. This is taken from the ABC coverage of Obama's plea to the American people about his healthcare plan and to be completely and totally fair, I got this from a socialist website, not from ABC News itself.

Quote:
Perhaps the most revealing exchange took place between the President and Jane Sturm, who is the caregiver for her now 105-year-old mother. Sturm related how her mother had a pacemaker inserted just five years ago, although it had originally been discouraged by an arrhythmia specialist who said it was too expensive and not justified at her advanced age.

Ms. Sturm asked Obama, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut-off at a certain age?”

Obama’s response was particularly blunt and cold. After saying that there were always individual considerations involved, he stated, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.”

He proceeded to explain, however, that such decisions would ultimately be based on the bottom line. “Understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another,” he said. “If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers.”

He added, “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Um . . . yeah. That makes me feel REALLY confident in his healthcare plan.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:22 PM

Ha! So there really is a "RipWash"

I thought when I saw somebody else quote you that they were "ripping" on WashnWear.

Never seen you around before and haven't read any of your posts, so I have no idea of your..... affiliations.

And I'm drunk....

How the hell are ya?

We could be friends or Nemesis here in the future, so I said F it and let's shake and be cool and gentlemanly about it all.

If the case be.... However much we hate each others ideals or thoughts.... nothing personal, right?

Nice meeting ya,
6

Christ.... I cheated and read your last post....

Quote:
Perhaps the most revealing exchange took place between the President and Jane Sturm, who is the caregiver for her now 105-year-old mother. Sturm related how her mother had a pacemaker inserted just five years ago, although it had originally been discouraged by an arrhythmia specialist who said it was too expensive and not justified at her advanced age.

Ms. Sturm asked Obama, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut-off at a certain age?”

Obama’s response was particularly blunt and cold. After saying that there were always individual considerations involved, he stated, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.”

He proceeded to explain, however, that such decisions would ultimately be based on the bottom line. “Understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another,” he said. “If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers.”

He added, “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

The scariest thing about this whole exchange is that I agree with it because we're so bankrupt. In an ideal world, we would be able to pay to keep a 105 year old alive until he/she was 106. Unfortunately, to do so would be a worse financial decision than supporting a family of illlegals for life, assuming a normal lifespan.

Why is this even a story?

It's to show that O'Bama is down for free medical care at great expense to those who actually earn a paycheck, but there will be limits and once you've reached them, fuck you.

I agree with it though. That's the worst part about centralism.... they get us to all agree on enough and enjoy the "easy" life that we just roll with all the punches.

RIPWASH

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:24 PM

That's my primary goal, 6. State my opinion/views, try my best to do it in a civil manner and try to play nice. Just ask Kwick and Chris . . . heck, even Citizen. We wholeheartedly disagree on a great many things in the political spectrum, but we mostly get a long just fine!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KPO

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I heard this on the radio this morning and to be honest . . . my jaw dropped to the floor. This is VERY chilling . . . and very telling. This is taken from the ABC coverage of Obama's plea to the American people about his healthcare plan and to be completely and totally fair, I got this from a socialist website, not from ABC News itself.

Quote:
Perhaps the most revealing exchange took place between the President and Jane Sturm, who is the caregiver for her now 105-year-old mother. Sturm related how her mother had a pacemaker inserted just five years ago, although it had originally been discouraged by an arrhythmia specialist who said it was too expensive and not justified at her advanced age.

Ms. Sturm asked Obama, “Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, quality of life? Or is it just a medical cut-off at a certain age?”

Obama’s response was particularly blunt and cold. After saying that there were always individual considerations involved, he stated, “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s spirit. That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making.”

He proceeded to explain, however, that such decisions would ultimately be based on the bottom line. “Understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another,” he said. “If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers.”

He added, “Loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.”

Um . . . yeah. That makes me feel REALLY confident in his healthcare plan.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

It struck me as quite a silly question, the way it was phrased at least, and I think a good politician response would've been not to tackle the logic of it but to glaze over it and just express upbeat, positive sentiments at the 105 year old mother's triumphant spirit, etc.

It's a good example though: would this 100 year old lady have gotten the operation in any universal health care system in the world, even the best ones?

There is always the option in one of those countries that you can go private I suppose.

Heads should roll

6IXSTRINGJACK

Friday, June 26, 2009 2:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
That's my primary goal, 6. State my opinion/views, try my best to do it in a civil manner and try to play nice. Just ask Kwick and Chris . . . heck, even Citizen. We wholeheartedly disagree on a great many things in the political spectrum, but we mostly get a long just fine!

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Citizen is a bonified dickhead and a waste of carbon, but I'm willing to bet that everyone else here, even PN and Kaneman, are human.

BTW... anyone hear from Kane in a while? Is he still alive?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Citizen is a bonified dickhead and a waste of carbon, but I'm willing to bet that everyone else here, even PN and Kaneman, are human.

Still blaming other people for the fact you've got no friends jack? Marvellous, can't stick to your word either I see, but then something like that would be too close to Human for you wouldn't it

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It struck me as quite a silly question, the way it was phrased at least, and I think a good politician response would've been not to tackle the logic of it but to glaze over it and just express upbeat, positive sentiments at the 105 year old mother's triumphant spirit, etc.

It's a good example though: would this 100 year old lady have gotten the operation in any universal health care system in the world, even the best ones?

Possibly, but you and the question glosses over the other side of the story, namely who had to go without any healthcare of any type in order for the 105 year old to get it?

Any medical system is working on finite resources, it's amusing that only Socialised systems are the ones that recognise this, while it's the private only ones that like to brush the whole issue under the carpet.

So the issue can be asked another way, you're a doctor, you have limited time and resources regardless of the healthcare funding system, you can save either one thirty year old or one 100 year old who both have the same condition. Who do you choose?

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, June 26, 2009 3:57 PM

Okay, while I am quite dissapointed so far in the administration's lack of fortitude on any of it's plans,

can those of you who are mad at him for doing too much, explain what the too much has been? Hell, he told us he was going to do a lot more from the get-go...after he got in, even with those promises, even FOX NEWS pretended to lay low for a while.

Then he goes and doesn't make good on any of his promises, because he compromises with the blue dog dems which are mouthpieces for the right, to the point of none of his efforts having much, teeth or substance.

Yet, in an ironic (though not surprising) response to this compromise, FOX NEWS and its ilk, go back on the attack and act like he's the next coming of STALIN.

There is clearly an ingenuousness here, wouldn't you say?

KPO

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
It struck me as quite a silly question, the way it was phrased at least, and I think a good politician response would've been not to tackle the logic of it but to glaze over it and just express upbeat, positive sentiments at the 105 year old mother's triumphant spirit, etc.

It's a good example though: would this 100 year old lady have gotten the operation in any universal health care system in the world, even the best ones?

Possibly, but you and the question glosses over the other side of the story, namely who had to go without any healthcare of any type in order for the 105 year old to get it?

Any medical system is working on finite resources, it's amusing that only Socialised systems are the ones that recognise this, while it's the private only ones that like to brush the whole issue under the carpet.

So the issue can be asked another way, you're a doctor, you have limited time and resources regardless of the healthcare funding system, you can save either one thirty year old or one 100 year old who both have the same condition. Who do you choose?

I guess you're saying that insured patients insisting on expensive treatments that may be a long shot pushes up the insurance premiums for everyone else?

Maybe universal health care with the option of special private care at extra cost is the fairest way then? Hmm, I'm wondering what Sergeant X would have to say to this.

Heads should roll

CITIZEN

Friday, June 26, 2009 4:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I guess you're saying that insured patients insisting on expensive treatments that may be a long shot pushes up the insurance premiums for everyone else?

Not exactly, although that would be a factor. All healthcare systems have limited resources, no matter how they're funded. Private only systems deal with that issue by making it an economic decision, can't afford it, you don't get it, can afford it you get what ever you want.

Public healthcare systems deal with the situation by placing the resources they have where they'll do the most good. You have resources for one pacemaker, do you give it to the 100 year old who has already had a very long life, and might live another 5-6 years, or do you give it to the 30 year old who has had less than half the life time, and could live for another 50-60+ years?

It may sound callous that way, but if anything I find the rationale for private systems more so. Public health makes medical decisions about where it's resources are most needed. Private health throws all it's resources at those with the most money, whether they need them or not, and leaves others to die. Public health deals with finite resources, private hopes no one notices.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 1:57 AM

this is sickening..

only a socialized healthcare system is forced to ration resources. its a big planet, there are billions of people, there are plenty of resources. dont fall prey to the anti-growth alarmists, who want population control!

a real free market system would encourage competition! we have millions of people going into the profession, if run as a competitive business, you could shop around for care, and find the best cost. dont believe the canard that profit equals greed when it comes to healthcare. there will always be someone willing to work with you, regardless of your means..

why should some deadbeat, well-fare recipient, be given healthcare, funded by a productive member of society, who is intern taxed, and forced into a rationed system? its rediculous. i am in control of my health, no one else!

how did this country survive before medicare? before the beauracrats got involved? we got along just fine.. you could argue we had the greatest system in the world

its only become a cluster fuck since then!

this is a manufactured crisis, purely for the sake of population control and authoritarianism.

if im 90, and i want to pay for heart surgery, thats MY RIGHT AS A FREE HUMAN BEING! its no one elses business!! and it sure the hell isnt the "STATES" role to govern MY BODY!

Chrisisall, idealogically, there is a difference between statism and libertarianism, irregardless of the (fallen)human condition.. and i described it. am i a sovereign being, or does the collective own my ass? its not a perfect world, but im not willing to give up and assume moral equivelence, simply because things have spiraled out of control, since the garden of eden, in the wrong direction

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 27, 2009 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is sickening..

Chrisisall, idealogically, there is a difference between statism and libertarianism, irregardless of the (fallen)human condition.. and i described it.

Describing it and identifying are two different things.
Quote:
am i a sovereign being, or does the collective own my ass?
It owns your butt.
Quote:
its not a perfect world, but im not willing to give up and assume moral equivelence, simply because things have spiraled out of control, since the garden of eden, in the wrong direction

Somewhere, Satan is laughing.
We need to laugh at his powerlessness, not be sad to see it go.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:08 AM

ok, i identified it. what are you disputing exactly? that theres a difference between a government based on free will and individual liberty/responsibility, and the polar opposite, a pie-in-the-sky collectivist utopian fantasy? sure theres a gray area, but apart from complete anarchy, these are the opposing ideaologies

KWICKO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:09 AM

Quote:
There is always the option in one of those countries that you can go private I suppose.

Of course, there is always the option that in THIS country you can do that as well. And that option will still be around if this country adopts a universal or single-payer healthcare plan, too.

That's the myth that's so pernicious in all this. The idea that if we adopt a universal healthcare plan, there will be no more private insurance available - POOF! - overnight. On the one hand, we have insurance companies and their lobbyists saying it will drive them out of business. And in the same breath, they're ALSO saying that "if the gubmint runs it, it won't be efficient". If it's not efficient, wouldn't that send people FLOCKING to private insurers, and HELP their bottom line? If it IS efficient and cheaper, don't the private insurers DESERVE to go out of business, or at least be forced to compete without government subsidies?

The idea behind universal healthcare is the same idea behind public education: it might not be the BEST you can possibly get, but it's a minimum standard; it's a safety net. You want better? You can buy that. What universal coverage would do would provide the basics of coverage, for everyone. If you get sick, you go to the doctor; you don't wait until you're deathly ill, and then go to the emergency room (the most expensive kind of healthcare out there), which is what many now do.

Bring up the "long waits" to see your doctor. When was the last time you called your doctor and got in that day? When was the last time you could just walk in and see your doctor without an appointment days or weeks in advance? We already HAVE long waits.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:

I guess you're saying that insured patients insisting on expensive treatments that may be a long shot pushes up the insurance premiums for everyone else?

From what I've seen, insured patients insisting on expensive treatments often get dumped by the insurance company they paid their premiums to, or their treatments are deemed "experimental" and denied, or they're deemed to have a "pre-existing condition" - and treatment is denied.

Quote:
Maybe universal health care with the option of special private care at extra cost is the fairest way then? Hmm, I'm wondering what Sergeant X would have to say to this.

Could be that it IS the best way. I'm losing hope that we'll ever live to find out, though.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:19 AM

Quote:
chrisisall- Somewhere, Satan is laughing.
We need to laugh at his powerlessness, not be sad to see it go.

i dont want to stray from the subject, but people arent born innocent, we do have a fallen nature. in that sense, Satan is analogous to this condition, because he initiated it! im not gonna argue the truth of the bible here, but if we're describing a flawed world through the prism of compromised morality, then its fair to consider the foundation of morals and the human conscience. im pretty sure the theory of evolution is void of any insight into that discussion.. but you can mock it all youd like. unless im misunderstanding, then forgive me

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Of course, there is always the option that in THIS country you can do that as well. And that option will still be around if this country adopts a universal or single-payer healthcare plan, too.

That's the myth that's so pernicious in all this. The idea that if we adopt a universal healthcare plan, there will be no more private insurance available - POOF! - overnight.

i beg to differ. all the western governments have fiat currencies, which means unlimited funding! you think a private company can compete with a government option, when the government has the ability to print money out of thin air? watch what happens.. the government will undercut, and therefore render obsolete, the ability for a private company to compete; and thats the point!

they want to control you, dont you get it?

KWICKO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is sickening..

only a socialized healthcare system is forced to ration resources. its a big planet, there are billions of people, there are plenty of resources. dont fall prey to the anti-growth alarmists, who want population control!

In other words, you don't think it's possible to hunt the buffalo to extinction. We can't run out of resources, ever? What about money? Can we run out of money? Or shall we just print some more?

Quote:
a real free market system would encourage competition! we have millions of people going into the profession, if run as a competitive business, you could shop around for care, and find the best cost. dont believe the canard that profit equals greed when it comes to healthcare. there will always be someone willing to work with you, regardless of your means..

A "real" free-market system loathes competition, and inexorably heads towards monopolistic behavior. Besides, lobbyists and special interests have already seen to it that there's no such thing as "competition" in the market today. They've paid good money to have any such competition hamstrung. And that canard about profit equals greed? Well, when the insurance companies are banding together and begging Obama to let them keep their racket intact, and they'll give up two trillion dollars in profits if he lets them keep the status quo, and they insist they'll STILL be all right and comfortably profitable even after giving away the two trillion...

Then yeah, that should show you where their greed is, and has been.

Quote:
why should some deadbeat, well-fare recipient, be given healthcare, funded by a productive member of society, who is intern taxed, and forced into a rationed system? its rediculous. i am in control of my health, no one else!

Why should I pay school taxes to try to educate your cretin kids? I don't have kids, so I'm exempt from school taxes, right? And I take care of my house and protect my family, so why should I have to pay taxes to support firefighters and police? And I don't need to go to the emergency room, so can we stop all public funding of those, too?

Are you in control of your health when you lose your job and your insurance? What about when you get hit by an uninsured motorist? Are you in control of it then? Are you in control of your health if your father had Parkinson's Disease and passed the gene on to you? What about diabetes? Heart disease?

Guess it's your own damn fault for not picking better parents, eh?

Quote:

how did this country survive before medicare? before the beauracrats got involved? we got along just fine.. you could argue we had the greatest system in the world

You could argue that if you didn't know anything about our history. Look up life expectancies and mortality rates before WWII sometime. Look up "pandemic" sometime. Check out "smallpox" when you get a chance. Individual PEOPLE didn't just decide to gut it up and make things better - those were GOVERNMENT programs, and they damned well improved things in this country.

Quote:

if im 90, and i want to pay for heart surgery, thats MY RIGHT AS A FREE HUMAN BEING! its no one elses business!! and it sure the hell isnt the "STATES" role to govern MY BODY!

Can you afford to pay for it out of your own pocket, then? If so, feel free.

Quote:

Chrisisall, idealogically, there is a difference between statism and libertarianism, irregardless of the (fallen)human condition.. and i described it. am i a sovereign being, or does the collective own my ass? its not a perfect world, but im not willing to give up and assume moral equivelence, simply because things have spiraled out of control, since the garden of eden, in the wrong direction

1) Horseshit.

2) "Irregardless" is not a word. If it were, it would be a double negative. "Regardless" means "without regard", so "irregardless" would mean "without without regard" - or, in REAL words, "with regard".

3) Are you a "sovereign being"? Um

ANTIMASON

Saturday, June 27, 2009 3:59 AM

forgive me for misspeaking, i get ahead of myself sometimes.

im not arguing the current system is perfect, clearly it needs reform. but if you think nationalizing healthcare is the solution, youre crazy

nothing could be more impersonal then centralized planning, it only serves to homogenize to the lowest common denominator, and youre example of public education is perfect evidence of this.

and their are plenty of resources, if youre solution is to ration based on eligibility, then youre probably among the ilk who favor euthenasia and abortion. id rather not go down that road, if we can help it

prior to ww2? relative to the technology available, i would make that arguement

if i cant pay for an emergency, thats real personal responsibility. i dont need a safety net, not that i dont appreciate it, but id rather be ideaologically consistant

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
can those of you who are mad at him for doing too much, explain what the too much has been?

I explained on this thread on Monday June 22nd:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=38823

Don't just take my word for it. Read the links I posted.

--------------------------
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
-- Abraham Lincoln

KWICKO

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:17 AM

Quote:

nothing could be more impersonal then centralized planning, it only serves to homogenize to the lowest common denominator, and youre example of public education is perfect evidence of this.

So am I to take this as you advocating the abolition of public education?

[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how that will make us a better-educated nation...[/sarcasm]

Quote:

and their are plenty of resources, if youre solution is to ration based on eligibility, then youre probably among the ilk who favor euthenasia and abortion. id rather not go down that road, if we can help it

Ration based on eligibility? What the hell are you even talking about? Do you have health insurance? If you do, aren't you asking your insurance company to ration resources based on eligibility? After all, if you pay your premiums, you're "eligible" - and if you don't, you aren't, and therefore THOSE resources are rationed out to someone who IS eligible (i.e., paying premiums). Get it?

And yeah, I can totally get where you think wanting healthcare available to all is exactly like favoring euthanasia and abortion. 'Cause THAT makes perfect sense...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
A "real" free-market system loathes competition, and inexorably heads towards monopolistic behavior.

A real free market system would feel no emotions such as loathing. You are anthropomorphising an economic system, assigning personal attributes such as hate and greed.

More accurately speaking, some people in a free market system loath competition and head towards monopolistic behavior--just like some people do in any system.

The difference in a free market system is the government will not make laws to prohibit competition or facilitate monopolistic behavior, as in other systems.

Let's illustrate. You want to make a little money, and you think you can sell loads of lemonade from a secret lemonade recipe you invented. However, Lemonade Inc. has cornered 99% of the lemonade market and doesn't want anyone to offer serious competition, so as to keep its near monopoly. Now let's examine two possible scenarios.

#1. You have to invest in a commercial property because you are not allowed to sell stuff from your home in a residential zone. You can't afford minimum wage, so you do everything yourself. You need to jump through bureaucratic hoops to meet standards for the state inspection, state business license, etc. You then have to pay a bunch of money in taxes. Result: if you don't have a lot of capital to begin with, you are very unlikely to succeed and pose any competition to Lemonade Inc.

#2. You can sell lemonade from your home, avoiding huge overhead costs. You can barter and pay whatever wage you wish, as long as you find employees who would accept--allowing you to have help. You rely on reputation and word of mouth for the quality and safety of your lemonade, and have no state inspection or business expenses. You keep the money you make, to expand your business and pay your employees better (for better service). Result: even the littlest guy has a shot at the business game, because you don't need a lot of capital to take a turn to bat.

Without debating the value of the laws enacted to protect the consumer, it is clear that the situation with fewer laws, the situation that allows more freedom, also allows more competition and less monopoly.

If you believe in those laws, then the free market question is a balance between consumer protection on one hand, and product diversity/competiton on the other hand. That is to say, the more laws to protect consumers and employees, the less product diversity you have. Less laws = more diversity.

People with more money will always have an advantage in any system. But in a free market system, with less laws, less force, and more freedom, the little guy actually has a chance to make it bi. In a system where he is forced to abide by laws influenced by the big boys, his chances are so much smaller.

CITIZEN

Saturday, June 27, 2009 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
only a socialized healthcare system is forced to ration resources. its a big planet, there are billions of people, there are plenty of resources. dont fall prey to the anti-growth alarmists, who want population control!

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
in a free market system, with less laws, less force, and more freedom, the little guy actually has a chance to make it bi. In a system where he is forced to abide by laws influenced by the big boys, his chances are so much smaller.

Ummm....no.
It can work that way, doesn't always.
Less laws = attempts to screw the little guy (see overdraft fees at banks & such).
More laws = attempts to screw the little guy legally, which is more difficult.

I'd rather make it harder for 'em.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
people arent born innocent

That is a twisted, evil way of seeing things that justifies man's inhumanity to man. If there IS a Satan, he laughs every time one of us falls for that line of crap.
Period.
No go play with your voodoo dolls, you superstitious cave-dweller.

The concrete Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way

Hopefully.

Quote:
, private does it by letting poor people die.

Absolutely.

This hysteria over health care in this country is much like the rush to destroy Saddam before he took over the world, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, June 27, 2009 5:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

And yeah, I can totally get where you think wanting healthcare available to all is exactly like favoring euthanasia and abortion. 'Cause THAT makes perfect sense...

I guess I'm the only one that did not fully grasp what he meant by that.

Colourmestupidisall

The laughing Chrisisall

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Ummm....no.
It can work that way, doesn't always.
Less laws = attempts to screw the little guy (see overdraft fees at banks & such).
More laws = attempts to screw the little guy legally, which is more difficult.

I'd rather make it harder for 'em.

You're talking about little guy consumer. I am talking about little guy competitor.

Less laws = more freedom for little guy competitor, less protection for little guy consumer

More laws = less freedom for little guy competitor, more protection for little guy consumer.

That is why I presented the free market dilemma as a choice between product diversity (more competition) vs. consumer protection. It seems to me, you can't have both--protecting one screws the other.

From my perspective, I prefer product diversity and competition, because I think in the long run, competition itself provides some level of protection for the consumer, albeit a different kind of protection than the legal one.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 28, 2009 2:48 AM

CTS, a most reasoned response! I will think upon it.

The laughing Chrisisall

MALACHITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 7:43 PM

Chrisisall said: "That is a twisted, evil way of seeing things that justifies man's inhumanity to man. If there IS a Satan, he laughs every time one of us falls for that line of crap.
Period.
No go play with your voodoo dolls, you superstitious cave-dweller. "

I'm not sure if you are being serious here, but I'll respond as if you are. Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition. He is not using that to justify man's inhumanity to man. From a Christian perspective, man's inhumanity to man is not justifiable, it is evidence of "sin". Hope that clarifies...

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.

Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIPWASH

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:16 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.
Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

The laughing Chrisisall

Like it's been said before, Chris. . . Did you have to teach your son to steal? To lie? To be selfish? Or did you have to teach him to "play nice?"

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

MALACHITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.
Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

The laughing Chrisisall

Well now I know you are just being silly.

Anyways, there are much better ways to manipulate people into staying in church and making donations -- eternal damnation, excommunication, etc... I mean, really... What kind of god worth worshipping would declare us righteous solely based on how much money we gave it? I know that paying for spiritual blessings or passage to a good afterlife or whatever is a concept of many religions, but I just don't find it consistent with a God that is actually worthy to be worshipped. God is more interested a person's heart than some external, legalistic, superficial offering.

You also said:
"It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench" To quote Mal to Wash's "I'm a leaf on the wind": "What does that even mean???"

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:

Like it's been said before, Chris. . . Did you have to teach your son to steal? To lie? To be selfish?

No, and he hasn't stolen, does not lie (I think he's Vulcan), and is far from ever being selfish.

Quote:
Or did you have to teach him to "play nice?"

He plays nice quite naturally- in many respects, he is the ideal offspring. He protested just today that I didn't have to kill the giant wasp that found it's way into our living room, he said I could've just knocked it out & removed it.
I guess he missed the original sin memo before he was born.

The laughing Chrisisall

RIPWASH

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:36 PM

I had a feeling you'd come back with the "My son is the perfect human being" response. Typical. Just my luck

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:

Well now I know you are just being silly.

It's what I do, darlin'.

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

But is that adequate justification to DENY healthcare to the poor, just because the rich might take advantage?

By that rationale, why should *I* obey the laws? I mean, if rich people can get away with murder, then why shouldn't I be able to? Why try to enforce laws on the poor if the rich can pay off judges and take advantage?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Monday, June 29, 2009 8:59 PM

Quote:
...but I just don't find it consistent with a God that is actually worthy to be worshipped.

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth. I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Monday, June 29, 2009 9:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I had a feeling you'd come back with the "My son is the perfect human being" response. Typical. Just my luck

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Don't you think they all start off as perfect human beings?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 9:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
I had a feeling you'd come back with the "My son is the perfect human being" response. Typical. Just my luck

Hey- when I was a kid I was a natural born troublemaker- I honestly don't know how he turned out so virtuous so young!
Plus, I know a girl who's pretty near a saint. How'd your original sin miss them?

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 9:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Don't you think they all start off as perfect human beings?

Naw, they owe, like the sons of peeps in debter's prisons or something.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:21 PM

Quote:
chrisisall- Hey- when I was a kid I was a natural born troublemaker- I honestly don't know how he turned out so virtuous so young!
Plus, I know a girl who's pretty near a saint. How'd your original sin miss them?

so where do people go wrong? let me guess, its 'society'? if only we had this perfect utopian model of governance, where govt provided healthcare, and education, and shelter, and food.. we would be free from all the iniquities that have plagued mankind for 'hundreds of thousands of years'...

it doesnt suprise me then that you would be willing to steal my autonomy, and hand over yours, to big brother.. so that maybe the state can run our lives for us better then we can

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:26 PM

this is getting off subject...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth.

i know huh? if i want to rape and murder, steal or commit adultery, who cares? its all relative. we should be able to do what we want, and if we get caught, well then.. we'll decide what the punishment is, based on.. well, how whoever catches you feels that day. thats a beautiful model for mankind to govern itself by. it makes me wonder why human history is plagued by these evils? but then, its not evil, if you cant define absolute right or wrongs

Quote:
I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

clearly you do not understand the premise of the bible; mankind has never 'acquiesced' to Gods laws, hence the predicament we're in

MALACHITE

Monday, June 29, 2009 10:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
...but I just don't find it consistent with a God that is actually worthy to be worshipped.

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth. I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Had to laugh at the Bush barb... I also agree with the seeming injustice of one's eternal fate being decided by your decisions about God during your lifespan. Especially when God keeps himself somewhat hidden so as not to undermine a person's free will. It is something I still struggle with and have to trust that God knows something I don't... (And, of course, any God that is worth anything at all should know more than I do...)

Anyways, back to talking about what a god that would be worth worshipping would look like: I think it would be hard for a truly omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent all-creating personal entity to not be perceived as a bit of a megalomaniac. I mean, God (metaphorically at any rate) really is the center of the universe, afterall... What is crazy to me is that when he chose to manifest himself as a human in the form of Christ, he did it not as some glorious king with riches and power, but as a humble servant to humanity who allowed himself to be killed by people who hated and misunderstood him. It is a rather odd step to take. He could have just been like, "Behold! I am Jebus! Fear me! Worship me! Give money to me! Boo!" But I think it reveals another aspect of his character, that despite being the center of the universe, he still chose to humble himself when he became a human... A move not consistent with a megalomaniac.

KWICKO

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
this is getting off subject...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Exactly the way I feel about it. I won't dignify any "god" that would decide your eternal fate based on what you might do in your short span as a mortal here on Earth.

i know huh? if i want to rape and murder, steal or commit adultery, who cares? its all relative. we should be able to do what we want, and if we get caught, well then.. we'll decide what the punishment is, based on.. well, how whoever catches you feels that day. thats a beautiful model for mankind to govern itself by. it makes me wonder why human history is plagued by these evils? but then, its not evil, if you cant define absolute right or wrongs

So you're one of those who believe there was NO morality extant in the world before the bible was written down, huh? The golden rule is probably another "christian" invention in your mind, I'm sure. Are you so weak-minded that you don't know right from wrong unless some idiot preacher tells you, or unless you read it in some translation of a bad translation of a bad translation, without having any idea what was originally written or intended?

How much of your beloved book do YOU follow? Do you stone your wife to death if she wears clothes of different fibers? Do you kill those who would touch a pig? Will you be the one to kill Governor Sanford for committing adultery?

And when is "murder", murder? When it's committed in the name of an unjust and illegal war of occupation? When it's committed in the name of vengeance and vendetta? When it's committed by "accidentally" torturing someone to death and calling it "enhanced interrogation"? Who decides what gets called murder? Such atrocities and more have been committed in the name of your god. He's the world's greatest serial killer, and rather than condemn him, you celebrate his evil deeds.

Quote:

Quote:
I won't believe in any being that would condemn you to eternal torment simply for refusing to acquiesce to his megalomania. It's why I could never support Dubya Bush. ;)

clearly you do not understand the premise of the bible; mankind has never 'acquiesced' to Gods laws, hence the predicament we're in

There IS no coherent "premise" of the bible. It's a mess, full of contradictions, half-truths, and damned lies.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So am I to take this as you advocation the abolition of public education?

i think every tax payer should be given a voucher, so that you can choose among competing public/private schools where you want your money to go. competition benefits everyone.. complete hemogenization doesnt, for obvious reasons. besides, we shouldnt even have a dept. of Education, its unconstitutional.

Quote:
[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how that will make us a better-educated nation...[/sarcasm]

it would, but itll never happen because you statist lemmings want to force your uber progressive collectivist mush on everybodys childred; apparently you feel you have that right. you could call it intellectual fascism; the exclusion of competitive thought, if youre honest with yourself

Quote:

Ration based on eligibility? What the hell are you even talking about?

do you want some links from socialized medical countries, where women are denied breast cancer treatments because of cost? or elderly people denied because of their 'cost/benefit anaylsis'? youre suggesting that some disconnected government body decide whether youre eligible to be treated, what the treatment can be, and when you will recieve it. are you not? its the inevitable outcome.

Quote:
Do you have health insurance? If you do, aren't you asking your insurance company to ration resources based on eligibility? After all, if you pay your premiums, you're "eligible" - and if you don't, you aren't, and therefore THOSE resources are rationed out to someone who IS eligible (i.e., paying premiums). Get it?

the difference being, i can choose my insurance company, or i can pay out of pocket. the government will put private insurers out of business, you cannot compete with an entity that is not required to balance its books.. its common sense. then what are you left with? a limited amount of resources, controlled by a single body. im not advocating that the current system is ideal, its a mess. but what you want is the government to control the population, you just arent willing to admit it

Quote:
And yeah, I can totally get where you think wanting healthcare available to all is exactly like favoring euthanasia and abortion. 'Cause THAT makes perfect sense...

'healthcare for all', 'free healthcare'... come one come all!

first, nothings free.. when you give something away without cost, you inherintly limit its availability, it distorts supply and demand. the government is inefficient, there will be so much waste that itll be immeasurable. the allocation will be artificially distributed.

secondly, dont think that this wont be used as a means of population control. if you want to control society, how better then the access of critical treatment?

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:23 PM

Anti, you clearly demonstrate that not only can't you understand Kwick's or my arguments, you WON'T.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So you're one of those who believe there was NO morality extant in the world before the bible was written down, huh? The golden rule is probably another "christian" invention in your mind, I'm sure. Are you so weak-minded that you don't know right from wrong unless some idiot preacher tells you, or unless you read it in some translation of a bad translation of a bad translation, without having any idea what was originally written or intended?

thats an easy assertion to make, given that human history has been predisposed to judeo/christian morals for almost 4,000yrs. you have no way of knowing where we'd be otherwise.. we might still be doing human sacrifices, or, at the extreme secular end, we'd be killing old people and the impaired because they were 'useless eaters', unproductive to the 'collective'.. like the (socialist)Nazi party did

Quote:
How much of your beloved book do YOU follow? Do you stone your wife to death if she wears clothes of different fibers? Do you kill those who would touch a pig? Will you be the one to kill Governor Sanford for committing adultery?

no, instead, we let rapists and murderers go on living, and adulterers slide without consequence. in light of the complete social breakdown, it would be impossible to return to a state of innocence, as existed in the garden of eden. youre talking about laws that were intended to govern a small, specific group of people 3-4000 years ago. i bet you thought twice about taking something that wasnt yours, if you got caught and lost your hand.. but then, maybe theft isnt wrong? who knows right?

Quote:
And when is "murder", murder?

when you take an innocent life with intent

Quote:
When it's committed in the name of an unjust and illegal war of occupation? When it's committed in the name of vengeance and vendetta? When it's committed by "accidentally" torturing someone to death and calling it "enhanced interrogation"?

youre such a partisan.. show me in the bible where your examples are justified? theyre not in their, these are acts committed by sovereign beings, with their own justifications

Quote:
Who decides what gets called murder? Such atrocities and more have been committed in the name of your god.

listen, understand.. mankind has a 'fallen nature', does it suprise you imperfect people do unjust corrupt things in the name of their God? does it suprise you that people with no absolute beliefs do the same things? id be willing to bet youre not exactly Jesus Christ himself either.. can i blame your (lack) of beliefs? its the same arguement

Quote:
He's the world's greatest serial killer, and rather than condemn him, you celebrate his evil deeds.

more people have died this century, through communist expansion and secular empirism, then all the religious wars in history combined. i could argue the logical extent to athiesm is the greatest murderer of all, but im willing to concede that at the end of the day, the individual, in his sinfull nature, does what HE WANTS REGARDLESS

Quote:

There IS no coherent "premise" of the bible. It's a mess, full of contradictions, half-truths, and damned lies.

and what are your beliefs founded upon? your mood? your current state of enlightenment? tell me how you maintain a society when murder, theft and false testimony are 'relative' to the instant, the individual or the circumstance? its impossible

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
these are acts committed by sovereign beings, with their own justifications

So, murder's not murder depending... okaaaaay.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:31 PM

God gave us free will.. you dont have to listen to his commandments. mankind has had it our way for 6k years, and this is where we are

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

listen, understand.. mankind has a 'fallen nature'

I'VE FALLEN...AND I CAN'T GET UP!

Gone on any Crusades lately, Anti?

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:36 PM

Quote:
when you take an innocent life with intent

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
So, murder's not murder depending... okaaaaay.

Do you even try to understand other people's positions?

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anti, you clearly demonstrate that not only can't you understand Kwick's or my arguments, you WON'T.

The laughing Chrisisall

not to mention, are we going to give the 30+ million illegals "free" healthcare too? whos gonna pay for that? should i share my portion of rationed resources with them? talk about incentive to enter illegally

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:

Do you even try to understand other people's positions?

I would respond to that, but I don't answer cowards & pisspots.

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

you got me on that one.. i guess youre right, there is no murder. what a relief huh? so i can break into your house and kill you, and thats no different from sentencing a multiple rapist to death. id love to see that societal computer model

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

Gonna go on a guilty-only killin' rampage (that's everyone, I reckon) then! Who's with me?!?!?

The laughing Chrisisall

KWICKO

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So am I to take this as you advocating the abolition of public education?

i think every tax payer should be given a voucher, so that you can choose among competing public/private schools where you want your money to go. competition benefits everyone.. complete hemogenization doesnt, for obvious reasons. besides, we shouldnt even have a dept. of Education, its unconstitutional.

So is the Air Force. Shall we do away with the concept of air superiority?

And okay, let's say you give out the vouchers; what "private" schools can you send your kids to that are free of religious indoctrination? And if you can't find any, how will you choose between which kids go to christian schools and which ones go to madrassas?

Competition benefits everyone? Then why don't you want the government to compete with the insurance companies for our healthcare dollars? You want public and private education options, according to what you just said - why won't you extend that to healthcare?

Quote:

Quote:
[sarcasm]Yeah, I can totally see how that will make us a better-educated nation...[/sarcasm]

it would, but itll never happen because you statist lemmings want to force your uber progressive collectivist mush on everybodys childred; apparently you feel you have that right. you could call it intellectual fascism; the exclusion of competitive thought, if youre honest with yourself

Wooooooohhhh - Now I'm a "statist lemming". What "mush" would YOU force on everybody's "childred"? What "right" do you feel that YOU have in that regard?

Quote:

Quote:

Ration based on eligibility? What the hell are you even talking about?

do you want some links from socialized medical countries, where women are denied breast cancer treatments because of cost? or elderly people denied because of their 'cost/benefit anaylsis'? youre suggesting that some disconnected government body decide whether youre eligible to be treated, what the treatment can be, and when you will recieve it. are you not? its the inevitable outcome.

And you're suggesting that some disconnected insurance executive decide whether you're eligible. Same delays, same denials, different bureaucrats. I'll take my chances with the "not-for-profit" option, thank you.

Quote:

Quote:
Do you have health insurance? If you do, aren't you asking your insurance company to ration resources based on eligibility? After all, if you pay your premiums, you're "eligible" - and if you don't, you aren't, and therefore THOSE resources are rationed out to someone who IS eligible (i.e., paying premiums). Get it?

the difference being, i can choose my insurance company, or i can pay out of pocket. the government will put private insurers out of business, you cannot compete with an entity that is not required to balance its books.. its common sense. then what are you left with? a limited amount of resources, controlled by a single body. im not advocating that the current system is ideal, its a mess. but what you want is the government to control the population, you just arent willing to admit it

So if we ADD a public option, private, for-profit insurance companies won't be able to compete with it? They're so much more efficient, and government is so much LESS efficient, that they'll be driven out of business, eh? Let's look at some places where we've had private and public options; let's look at the mail. The US Post Office can get your letter across the country in two to three days for $4.80 these days. Private, for-profit companies can do it just as quickly, but charge you more like $12-15 for the same letter. Curiously, both still exist. The US Post Office exists, and inefficient as it is, it still manages to do the job for less than either UPS or FedEx. And DHL was so efficient it went out of business! :)

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:

you got me on that one.. i guess youre right

Good. So we can agree to hand over all our health care money to the Iraqis, and kill sinners, and allow dogs & cats to live together. I'm down with that.

The laughing Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 29, 2009 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if we ADD a public option

Mike, you can't simply add that option, Anti has said that the privates would be shut down, and he knows, just like he knows you and I carry around original sin.
BTW, Walmart has a new more ergonomic carrying case for original sin, make it a lot less cumbersome and it's inexpensive to boot!

The laughing Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:02 AM

chris, you do realize Obama and socialist dems have quadrupled our national debt in a matter of months right? im not an Iraq war apologist, thank you.. i dont believe in ANY KIND OF INTERVENTION! but wheres youre objectivity, obama spent more on his failed stimulus, then we spend a year on our entire military budget. bitch all you want about Iraq, its irrelevant.. watch what the collectivists do in this country

BYTEMITE

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:03 AM

I'm a scientist, yet I have NO problem with people wanting to send their kids to school where they hear creationism instead of evolution. I figure if those kids already believe something so strongly, providing a counterpoint isn't going to convince them. Plus, I'd actually kind of prefer if creationists continued to hate science and didn't enter into scientific careers. Please, by all means believe science is heretical.

My problem is that vouchers, don't JUST include for private RELIGIOUS institutions, but private prep schools, as well. Because rich people are going to want their kids there, and so of COURSE they're going to slip that little bit in. And then it's rich people taking advantage, and I sort of don't want to see what'll happen when they no longer pay taxes to help support the public school system. Basically, a voucher system isn't going to make the schooling system more competitive, it's going to kill public schools and brain drain the average middle class Americans.

Which is what the powers that be want, both parties. An easily controlled population/labour force.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So is the Air Force. Shall we do away with the concept of air superiority?

thats apples and oranges. the founders would be sickened by a uniform curriculm. the air force is to provide for the common defense

Quote:
And okay, let's say you give out the vouchers; what "private" schools can you send your kids to that are free of religious indoctrination? And if you can't find any, how will you choose between which kids go to christian schools and which ones go to madrassas?

thats the point, you can send them wherever you want. dont send them to a christian private school, there are plenty out there. why should my kids be subjected to the 'situtational ethics' of statism, or the defunct theory of evolution?

Quote:
competition benefits everyone? Then why don't you want the government to compete with the insurance companies for our healthcare dollars? You want public and private education options, according to what you just said - why won't you extend that to healthcare?

because government prints its own money?? hello.. how does a private company compete against the public option, when the govt doesnt have to balance its budget?

Quote:

Wooooooohhhh - Now I'm a "statist lemming". What "mush" would YOU force on everybody's "childred"? What "right" do you feel that YOU have in that regard?

i have the right to send my child anywhere i choose, with my allocated tax voucher

Quote:

And you're suggesting that some disconnected insurance executive decide whether you're eligible. Same delays, same denials, different bureaucrats. I'll take my chances with the "not-for-profit" option, thank you.

clearly the medical insurance system needs reformed, but the more competition between companies the better off the consumer is

Quote:
So if we ADD a public option, private, for-profit insurance companies won't be able to compete with it? They're so much more efficient, and government is so much LESS efficient, that they'll be driven out of business, eh?

yes, because they cant print money out of thin air to fund bloated out of control wastefull spending

Quote:
lets look at some places where we've had private and public options; let's look at the mail. The US Post Office can get your letter across the country in two to three days for $4.80 these days. Private, for-profit companies can do it just as quickly, but charge you more like $12-15 for the same letter. Curiously, both still exist. The US Post Office exists, and inefficient as it is, it still manages to do the job for less than either UPS or FedEx. And DHL was so efficient it went out of business! :)

you do know the US post office is 2.8 BILLION in the red right? well no wonder they can undercut a private company. thank you for proving my point for me

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anti, you clearly demonstrate that not only can't you understand Kwick's or my arguments, you WON'T.

The laughing Chrisisall

not to mention, are we going to give the 30+ million illegals "free" healthcare too? whos gonna pay for that? should i share my portion of rationed resources with them? talk about incentive to enter illegally

You're starting to sound an awful lot like PirateNews now, what with the ever-increasing number of illegals. One minute it's 12 million, the next it's 30 million.

Oh, and isn't that the biggest gripe y'all have anyway? The idea that health care is only expensive because illegals are driving up the costs to the rest of us? So, are we covering "the illegals" now or aren't we?

Hey, maybe we should all have a national ID card to be eligible...

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So if we ADD a public option
Mike, you can't simply add that option, Anti has said that the privates would be shut down, and he knows, just like he knows you and I carry around original sin.
BTW, Walmart has a new more ergonomic carrying case for original sin, make it a lot less cumbersome and it's inexpensive to boot!

The laughing Chrisisall

Ya know, I *DO* need a new bag for my sin. Something that will go with these new shoes. But my sin's far from original - it's just the same old sin in a brand new wrapper.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Then there IS no murder. After all, several of you "christians" have argued that there is no innocence, that we are all "fallen". So no one can take an innocent life, since there is no such thing!

you got me on that one.. i guess youre right, there is no murder. what a relief huh? so i can break into your house and kill you, and thats no different from sentencing a multiple rapist to death. id love to see that societal computer model

Hey, YOU'RE the one who wanted everyone to follow that stupid book. I'm just playing the game by your rules.

Wanna break into my house and try your luck? Go for it.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're starting to sound an awful lot like PirateNews now, what with the ever-increasing number of illegals. One minute it's 12 million, the next it's 30 million.

theyve been claiming 20 million for a decade now.. its realistically much higher. its a legitimate question, and you treat it mockingly, as if even 12 million illegals drawing from a taxpayer funded healthcare system is negligable

Quote:
Oh, and isn't that the biggest gripe y'all have anyway? The idea that health care is only expensive because illegals are driving up the costs to the rest of us? So, are we covering "the illegals" now or aren't we?

have you live in, or been to souther CA? there were hostital closings almost yearly, because there are millions of illegals using services that they dont contribute to. its perfectly legitimate.. but the liberals, and i assume youre one, think its a laughing matter. yet another reason not to turn my healthcare over to those on your side of the arguement

Quote:
Hey, maybe we should all have a national ID card to be eligible...

you say that mockingly, itll be a pro- Obamacare advocate to propose it when its appropriate, God forbid it passes

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would respond to that, but I don't answer cowards & pisspots.

And yet Antimason does, go figure.

And please explain to Kwicko how to properly format his responses with quotes. I find it very amusing that the 'grammer-nazi' can not respond in a clear and legible manner.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

So is the Air Force. Shall we do away with the concept of air superiority?

thats apples and oranges. the founders would be sickened by a uniform curriculm. the air force is to provide for the common defense

As for the air force, it's not mentioned in the Constitution, is it? I mean, isn't that your argument against public education? Isn't public education to provide for the common welfare?

Quote:

Quote:
competition benefits everyone? Then why don't you want the government to compete with the insurance companies for our healthcare dollars? You want public and private education options, according to what you just said - why won't you extend that to healthcare?

because government prints its own money?? hello.. how does a private company compete against the public option, when the govt doesnt have to balance its budget?

Have you not looked at the balance sheets of private corporations lately?

Quote:

Quote:

And you're suggesting that some disconnected insurance executive decide whether you're eligible. Same delays, same denials, different bureaucrats. I'll take my chances with the "not-for-profit" option, thank you.

clearly the medical insurance system needs reformed, but the more competition between companies the better off the consumer is

Just as long as the government doesn't try to compete with them, eh?

Quote:

Quote:
So if we ADD a public option, private, for-profit insurance companies won't be able to compete with it? They're so much more efficient, and government is so much LESS efficient, that they'll be driven out of business, eh?

yes, because they cant print money out of thin air to fund bloated out of control wastefull spending

Whereas private companies have to rely on things like credit-default swaps and derivatives to print their money out of thin air...

Quote:

Quote:
lets look at some places where we've had private and public options; let's look at the mail. The US Post Office can get your letter across the country in two to three days for $4.80 these days. Private, for-profit companies can do it just as quickly, but charge you more like $12-15 for the same letter. Curiously, both still exist. The US Post Office exists, and inefficient as it is, it still manages to do the job for less than either UPS or FedEx. And DHL was so efficient it went out of business! :)

you do know the US post office is 2.8 BILLION in the red right? well no wonder they can undercut a private company. thank you for proving my point for me

You do know that the private insurance companies are far more than that much in the red, right? Tell me again, what business is AIG in? Didn't we just give them $180 billion to cover their "balanced" budget sheets? Thank you for proving my point for me - private companies are, if anything, LESS competitive than government programs, and far more wasteful. How much money have we thrown at Blackwater for their operations in Iraq? How much of that money has just VANISHED?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Hey, YOU'RE the one who wanted everyone to follow that stupid book. I'm just playing the game by your rules.

im not forcing anyone to follow it, youve made that choice on your own, despite all the crying that religions 'being forced' on you

Quote:
Wanna break into my house and try your luck? Go for it.

i dont, because i respect your right as an individual to life, liberty and property(or the pursuit of happiness). i also respect your constitutional right to bare a weapon to defend yourself..

all of which are biblical concepts. the right to keep the fruits of your labor(private property), the right to free speech and to worship as you see fit(free will), etc.. these all are judeo-christian concepts. you dont have to believe in my God, but acknowledge that we wouldnt have the freedoms we have, had our founders not been theistic/deistic people with a firm understanding of absolute rights.

see where agnostic/athiestic idealogies leave you. there is no private property or gun rights in socialized/communist countries for a reason- its the logical extend of their beliefs

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Whereas private companies have to rely on things like credit-default swaps and derivatives to print their money out of thin air...

the free market didnt create those loop-holes, government regulation did. and i suppose you blame capitalism on the economies failings?

Quote:

You do know that the private insurance companies are far more than that much in the red, right? Tell me again, what business is AIG in? Didn't we just give them $180 billion to cover their "balanced" budget sheets? Thank you for proving my point for me

you only served to prove why AIG should have been allowed to fail, rather then.. have the government swoop in and take them over, like they want to do with healthcare

Quote:
private companies are, if anything, LESS competitive than government programs, and far more wasteful. How much money have we thrown at Blackwater for their operations in Iraq? How much of that money has just VANISHED?

maybe the government should be in the business? you keep making references to Iraq, clearly youre a liberal partisan who think it was Bush and CHeney who ruined this country. Obama will drive this country further into a depression(hes had how many months? and things continue to get worse.. despite spending trillions on 'stimulus'), and yet you will still blame Bush and the republicans. get over it! besides, the dems have run congress for the last 3 years, where all the spending bills originate.. maybe they deserve some blame

iraq iraq boohoo hoo... Obama is gonna go into afghanistan and envolve us in a debacle just like Bush did, open your eyes and get over it.. they have the same globalist handlers. the same globalists who want to take over your healthcare

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I would respond to that, but I don't answer cowards & pisspots.

And yet Antimason does, go figure.

And please explain to Kwicko how to properly format his responses with quotes. I find it very amusing that the 'grammer-nazi' can not respond in a clear and legible manner.

And I find it amusing that you can't spell "grammar", so I guess we're both laughing.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:56 AM

Quote:

see where agnostic/athiestic idealogies leave you. there is no private property or gun rights in socialized/communist countries for a reason- its the logical extend of their beliefs

Can you give me some examples? I mean, besides the obvious one - China - can you give me some other examples of "socialized" countries where you have no private property or gun rights?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:03 AM

i accidentally erased the orignal post-

soviet Russia-

Quote:
The Soviet Union was a single-party state where the Communist Party ruled the country.[1] All key positions in the institutions of the state were occupied by members of the Communist Party. The state proclaimed its adherence to Marxism-Leninism ideology that restricts rights of citizens to private property. The entire population was mobilized in support of the state ideology and policies. Independent political activities were not tolerated, including the involvement of people with free labour unions, private corporations, non-sanctioned churches or opposition political parties. The regime maintained itself in political power in part by means of the secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics, such as political purges and persecution of specific groups of people.

if we're talking about truly egregious, how about Nazi germany. they were literally the national socialist party before they were 'nazis', and it was the belief in evolution, survival of the fittest, and darwinism, that justified their extermination of the so-called 'use-less eaters' and the 'genetically inferior' of their country. its blatant

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I find it amusing that you can't spell "grammar", so I guess we're both laughing.

Oh, I'm laughing alright. Just pull the strings and make him dance.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:28 AM

the point being most socialist countries have a degree of Marxism inherent in them. Marx was an avowed atheist, he completely resented the concept of God

Quote:
Columbia Encyclopedia entry: Marxism

Marxism, economic and political philosophy named for Karl Marx. It is also known as scientific (as opposed to utopian) socialism. Marxism has had a profound impact on contemporary culture; modern communism is based on it, and most modern socialist theories derive from it (see socialism). It has also had tremendous effect on academia, influencing disciplines from economics to philosophy and literary history.

ANTIMASON

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:48 AM

heritage.org has a great article on the differences between the French and American(along with British)revolutions. this further emphasizes my point between the collectivist/statist view of 'rights', and the classical AMerican libertarian view:

Quote:
The American Declaration maintains that from man's place in the natural order arises the principle of human equality: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." But at the end of the Declaration, the Revolution's leaders proclaim their willingness to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" for the cause, implying a certain inequality among men. A special set of risk-takers, the signers of the Declaration, were willing to lead the Revolution and take upon themselves the important responsibility of saying that King George III was now a tyrant.

So is man equal or unequal in the American scheme? He is both. In his fundamental rights, he is equal, but not every human being has the same talents and capacities. The very equality that exists by nature and forms the baseline of our politics also makes it possible for certain inequalities—like abilities for statesmanship and political leadership—to come to the fore and play their natural role in life.

The French view of natural rights, in contrast, is a Rousseauian view. In the Rousseauian model for the social contract, when individuals form a society—when unaffiliated individuals in a state of nature decide to affiliate—they give up or alienate everything to society, including their powers, possessions, and natural rights. Under the American doctrine, however, individuals never give up their nature: The natural rights of individuals are inalienable. In some sense, they are always behind one's civil rights—behind the positive rights.

Furthermore, if government becomes oppressive or tyrannical, the people have the right to alter or abolish that government—a right of revolutionary action against the government. Strangely enough, there is no right of revolution in Rousseau's republic or the French Republic. Once individuals have joined society, nothing personal remains to them. Citizens receive only what society decides to return to them on an equal basis. Individuals give up all of their natural advantages in exchange for the artificial or conventional advantages that society, through government, grants to them. As Rousseau teaches, individuals are to be subverted to the authority of the state. "If it is good to use men as they are," he wrote in his Discours sur l'economie Politique, "it is much better to transform them into what one intends them to be."

for entire article, click here
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp18.cfm

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I find it amusing that you can't spell "grammar", so I guess we're both laughing.

Oh, I'm laughing alright. Just pull the strings and make him dance.

Yes, it is amusing to watch you dance. Reminds me of Elaine Bennis trying to dance...

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

You're starting to sound an awful lot like PirateNews now, what with the ever-increasing number of illegals. One minute it's 12 million, the next it's 30 million.

theyve been claiming 20 million for a decade now.. its realistically much higher. its a legitimate question, and you treat it mockingly, as if even 12 million illegals drawing from a taxpayer funded healthcare system is negligable

Nice dodge-n-weave. I'm not treating the problem mockingly; I'm mocking your ever-escalating, ever-more-paranoid numbers. You keep tossing out huge numbers, offer no cites for them, constantly refer to "they" and "them". You sound just like one of the freaky conspiracy nuts like PirateNews. Only difference I can see is that so far, you haven't started blaming it all on the Jews.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, and isn't that the biggest gripe y'all have anyway? The idea that health care is only expensive because illegals are driving up the costs to the rest of us? So, are we covering "the illegals" now or aren't we?

have you live in, or been to souther CA? there were hostital closings almost yearly, because there are millions of illegals using services that they dont contribute to. its perfectly legitimate.. but the liberals, and i assume youre one, think its a laughing matter. yet another reason not to turn my healthcare over to those on your side of the arguement

Your argument keeps shifting. First you say the insurance companies wouldn't be able to compete on a level playing field, and now you're saying that it's the 12, 20, or 30 million "illegals" that are going to bring the whole system crashing down.

Quote:

Quote:
Hey, maybe we should all have a national ID card to be eligible...

you say that mockingly, itll be a pro- Obamacare advocate to propose it when its appropriate, God forbid it passes

I *DO* say it mockingly, much as you treat thousands of dead in Iraq as a laughing matter.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

AGENTROUKA

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
heritage.org has a great article on the differences between the French and American(along with British)revolutions. this further emphasizes my point between the collectivist/statist view of 'rights', and the classical AMerican libertarian view:

Quote:
The American Declaration maintains that from man's place in the natural order arises the principle of human equality: "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." But at the end of the Declaration, the Revolution's leaders proclaim their willingness to risk "our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" for the cause, implying a certain inequality among men. A special set of risk-takers, the signers of the Declaration, were willing to lead the Revolution and take upon themselves the important responsibility of saying that King George III was now a tyrant.

So is man equal or unequal in the American scheme? He is both. In his fundamental rights, he is equal, but not every human being has the same talents and capacities. The very equality that exists by nature and forms the baseline of our politics also makes it possible for certain inequalities—like abilities for statesmanship and political leadership—to come to the fore and play their natural role in life.

The French view of natural rights, in contrast, is a Rousseauian view. In the Rousseauian model for the social contract, when individuals form a society—when unaffiliated individuals in a state of nature decide to affiliate—they give up or alienate everything to society, including their powers, possessions, and natural rights. Under the American doctrine, however, individuals never give up their nature: The natural rights of individuals are inalienable. In some sense, they are always behind one's civil rights—behind the positive rights.

Furthermore, if government becomes oppressive or tyrannical, the people have the right to alter or abolish that government—a right of revolutionary action against the government. Strangely enough, there is no right of revolution in Rousseau's republic or the French Republic. Once individuals have joined society, nothing personal remains to them. Citizens receive only what society decides to return to them on an equal basis. Individuals give up all of their natural advantages in exchange for the artificial or conventional advantages that society, through government, grants to them. As Rousseau teaches, individuals are to be subverted to the authority of the state. "If it is good to use men as they are," he wrote in his Discours sur l'economie Politique, "it is much better to transform them into what one intends them to be."

for entire article, click here
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Thought/fp18.cfm

Not to dispute what it says - I don't have the background to do it, sadly - but how biased or unbiased a source is the website heritage.org?

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:41 AM

Quote:

Not to dispute what it says - I don't have the background to do it, sadly - but how biased or unbiased a source is the website heritage.org?

It's the right-wing equivalent of moveon.org. So yeah, it's a little biased...

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

But is that adequate justification to DENY healthcare to the poor, just because the rich might take advantage?

By that rationale, why should *I* obey the laws? I mean, if rich people can get away with murder, then why shouldn't I be able to? Why try to enforce laws on the poor if the rich can pay off judges and take advantage?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

But isn't that, in essence, what most liberals believe anyway? Not being snarky here, but it's my understanding that liberals think most of the worlds problems are caused by rich people taking advantage of the little guy. Thus the idea that the rich are obligated to "spread the wealth." I'm just saying that under ANY system, government OR private, is subject to the people running it. Sure, it can have all the halo's and wings you wanna put on it and call it the perfect system, but when you put a HUMAN in charge the landscape changes drastically. Greed steps in. And a rich person (or people, for that matter) can come in and demand better care, offer more money and therefore cause the "little guy" to be neglected. Are they being offered the care? Yes. But will they get it when they need it? Who knows? They still may "go without" because the system is dealing with the people willing to pay to be treated first. You can dance around that all you like, but you can not deny that it's a distinct possibility.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Don't you think they all start off as perfect human beings?

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they haven't actually committed any sin when they're first born, but once the brain starts to develop, that selfishness, greed and whatnot starts to kick in. They have to be taught, more or less, the RIGHT thing to do.

And to answer Chris' question, I think you'll find that my scenario is the rule and there are exceptions to it (like your son, apparently, and the girl you mentioned). But what you're telling me is that: your son never, ever threw a tantrum; never took a toy from another child that wasn't his during playtime; never NOT wanted to share his toys with someone else, never lied, etc. Because I'm just having a hard time beleiving he is truly that perfect. Kinda like the "Golden Child." He might need Eddie Murphy to come protect him soon by the sounds of it

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by RIPWash:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

All healthcare systems ration resources, public health does it in a fair and ethical way, private does it by letting poor people die. Don't fall prey to the anti-poor eugenics practising alarmists!

All healthcare systems are run by HUMANS and therefore flawed no matter how you look at it. You may HOPE public healthcare does it fairly and ethically, but as long as humans are involved, there's always the possibility (and a pretty good one) that someone will get royally screwed over in the deal. And don't think the rich won't take advantage, pay some public official off, etc. in order to get better care than the poor.

Just sayin' . . .

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

But is that adequate justification to DENY healthcare to the poor, just because the rich might take advantage?

By that rationale, why should *I* obey the laws? I mean, if rich people can get away with murder, then why shouldn't I be able to? Why try to enforce laws on the poor if the rich can pay off judges and take advantage?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

But isn't that, in essence, what most liberals believe anyway? Not being snarky here, but it's my understanding that liberals think most of the worlds problems are caused by rich people taking advantage of the little guy. Thus the idea that the rich are obligated to "spread the wealth." I'm just saying that under ANY system, government OR private, is subject to the people running it. Sure, it can have all the halo's and wings you wanna put on it and call it the perfect system, but when you put a HUMAN in charge the landscape changes drastically. Greed steps in. And a rich person (or people, for that matter) can come in and demand better care, offer more money and therefore cause the "little guy" to be neglected. Are they being offered the care? Yes. But will they get it when they need it? Who knows? They still may "go without" because the system is dealing with the people willing to pay to be treated first. You can dance around that all you like, but you can not deny that it's a distinct possibility.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

Gosh, when you put it like that, it changes... nothing. It makes it sound like we need to put it in the hands of the machines, eh? ;)

And I guess since humans are fallible, we should scrap any ideas at letting humans be in control of ANYTHING, lest it get corrupted. Investments? Nope - humans are greedy (since birth, apparently); can't trust them to invest wisely. Better leave that to machines. Work? Nope - too lazy. Better let the machines do it!

I mean, honestly, Ripper, it sounds like your best argument against healthcare is that a few will try to exploit it. I hate to break it to you, but there are ALWAYS going to be a few who try to exploit ANYTHING you do. You're essentially arguing that we should scrap all the corporations because Enron was a scam, and we should scrap all investment brokers because Madoff was a fraud.

Is that really the way you want to go?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

KWICKO

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:44 PM

Quote:

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they haven't actually committed any sin when they're first born, but once the brain starts to develop, that selfishness, greed and whatnot starts to kick in. They have to be taught, more or less, the RIGHT thing to do.

Sounds like a pretty good argument for abortion, really. Kill 'em while they're perfect, and they're guaranteed to go straight up to heaven to be with their dear and fluffy lord! Let 'em be born, and they're "fallen" and full of sin.

Is that what you're saying?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:44 PM

Quote:
Gosh, when you put it like that, it changes... nothing. It makes it sound like we need to put it in the hands of the machines, eh? ;)

And I guess since humans are fallible, we should scrap any ideas at letting humans be in control of ANYTHING, lest it get corrupted. Investments? Nope - humans are greedy (since birth, apparently); can't trust them to invest wisely. Better leave that to machines. Work? Nope - too lazy. Better let the machines do it!

I mean, honestly, Ripper, it sounds like your best argument against healthcare is that a few will try to exploit it. I hate to break it to you, but there are ALWAYS going to be a few who try to exploit ANYTHING you do. You're essentially arguing that we should scrap all the corporations because Enron was a scam, and we should scrap all investment brokers because Madoff was a fraud.

Is that really the way you want to go?

What I'm TRYING to say is that if everything is corrupted by human interferance what makes you think that socialized medicine will work so much better? That's all.

Just sayin'

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

RIPWASH

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 1:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they haven't actually committed any sin when they're first born, but once the brain starts to develop, that selfishness, greed and whatnot starts to kick in. They have to be taught, more or less, the RIGHT thing to do.

Sounds like a pretty good argument for abortion, really. Kill 'em while they're perfect, and they're guaranteed to go straight up to heaven to be with their dear and fluffy lord! Let 'em be born, and they're "fallen" and full of sin.

Is that what you're saying?

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Nope. Not at all. And that you would imply that I'm saying that is a little disturbing.

*********************************************

"It's okay! I'm a leaf on the wind!!!"
"What does that mean?!?!?!"

WASHNWEAR

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Malachite:
Saying that man is not born innocent is a description of the human condition.
Original sin is a concept that was created by men to keep peeps in church and making donations.
It's guilty until proven innocent.
It's the chicken before the egg.
It's the monkey in the wrench.

It's that funky brown stuff at the very bottom of a can of Frito-Lay™ Bean Dip.

Well said, CIA!

donttalkbackjustdrivethecarshutyourmouthiknowwhatyouaredontsaynothinkeepyourhandsonthewheeldontturnaroundthisisforreal

Still...what would Rorschach do?

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE