Why do you think the government is your hired thug?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Aside from the first sentence, you have no objection?

Have you read any of my other posts in this thread?
Objecting to your first sentence would be an objection to your entire post. Not of your proposal per se, but of your knee-jerk attitude that it should be so easy. If you can't understand the challenges, issues, and concerns involved, and insist on belittling them, then you clearly don't know enough about the subject to offer a qualified proposal, especially when you base your arguments on moral premises.
Just for starters, if you care so much about the poor, as you claim to, then how do you justify stopping so far short of total equality as you do? Why do you fall back on a proposal in which you will still be richer and more entitled, and the poor even more subjugated to the benevolence of the wealthy than they already are? How do you explain that?
And no, I'm not trying to play "damned if you do, damned if you don't." You've overplayed the moral card far far too often, pretending you're somehow better than you are, and IMO should take a good long look in the mirror.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
eits

You are the reason so many people despise modern day liberals. If you truly believe that those in government are smarter and know more than we do, then you should be 100% behind the Iraq war. Obviously as president, Bush knows more than you do.

On the other hand if you are against Iraq, then you must admit that government is fallible and not necessarily able to make the best decisions, thereby negating your assertion that they'll make the right decision regarding health care.

Quite a paradox, eh?

it's not a paradox because my quote was taken out of context!

jesus christ...

read the posts i've made above, please... then post again. i'll be happy to entertain a response AFTER you read the posts i made.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic
Who argued for anarchy? Nebor is well-known for being an authoritarian in his own way.

The issue here is that this is what eits', senseamp's, and Craig's arguments look like:

ANAKIN: I don't think the system works.
PADMÉ: How would you have it work?
ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.
PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.
PADMÉ: By whom? Who's going to make them?
ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.
PADMÉ: You?
ANAKIN: Of course not me.
PADMÉ: But someone.
ANAKIN: Someone wise.
PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
A mischievous little grin creeps across his face.
ANAKIN: Well, if it works...

dude, that's a very far cry from my argument. i apologize if that's how it looks to you, but that's not at all how it is.

i think that my quote that you people have taken out of context has inaccurately cast a perception of how i feel. that's unfortunate, i guess.

edit: unless you're implying that i sound like padme, which is exactly what i'm trying to say.

Dude no, you sound exactly like Anakin, no "out of context" occurred or was necessary. Get a freakin clue.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Vic
Who argued for anarchy? Nebor is well-known for being an authoritarian in his own way.

The issue here is that this is what eits', senseamp's, and Craig's arguments look like:

ANAKIN: I don't think the system works.
PADMÉ: How would you have it work?
ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.
PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.
ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.
PADMÉ: By whom? Who's going to make them?
ANAKIN: I don't know. Someone.
PADMÉ: You?
ANAKIN: Of course not me.
PADMÉ: But someone.
ANAKIN: Someone wise.
PADMÉ: That sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me.
A mischievous little grin creeps across his face.
ANAKIN: Well, if it works...

dude, that's a very far cry from my argument. i apologize if that's how it looks to you, but that's not at all how it is.

i think that my quote that you people have taken out of context has inaccurately cast a perception of how i feel. that's unfortunate, i guess.

edit: unless you're implying that i sound like padme, which is exactly what i'm trying to say.

Dude no, you sound exactly like Anakin, no "out of context" occurred or was necessary. Get a freakin clue.

no, you need the clue, dude. how the hell do i sound like anakin?! when did i ever say i supported a dictatorship? when HAVEN'T i blasted bush for being a dictator?

you totally took my quote out of context. read the posts i've made... hopefully, you'll realize that you're being argumentative over a misunderstanding/out-of-context quote.

but, then again, you're vic... you're probably the most blood-thirsty, argumentative person in these forums. even when someone agrees with you, you argue with them.

edit: how could i sit here day after day, bashing bush and his cronies and the senate's decision to label iran's army a terrorist group if i felt that the government always knew best and didn't need to get checked? obviously, the quote i made was taken out of context... either that or i've got a split personality, which probably would have shown up in these forums a LOOONG time ago :laugh:

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
eits

You are the reason so many people despise modern day liberals. If you truly believe that those in government are smarter and know more than we do, then you should be 100% behind the Iraq war. Obviously as president, Bush knows more than you do.

On the other hand if you are against Iraq, then you must admit that government is fallible and not necessarily able to make the best decisions, thereby negating your assertion that they'll make the right decision regarding health care.

Quite a paradox, eh?

Here's a tidbit from a thread in OT about the preservative sodium benzoate:

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: nboy22
Shouldn't the FDA not approve such a thing if it poses such a health risk to people?

The FDA does not serve America. It serves lobbyists.

The word paradox doesn't even do it justice.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: BoberFett
eits

You are the reason so many people despise modern day liberals. If you truly believe that those in government are smarter and know more than we do, then you should be 100% behind the Iraq war. Obviously as president, Bush knows more than you do.

On the other hand if you are against Iraq, then you must admit that government is fallible and not necessarily able to make the best decisions, thereby negating your assertion that they'll make the right decision regarding health care.

Quite a paradox, eh?

it's not a paradox because my quote was taken out of context!

jesus christ...

read the posts i've made above, please... then post again. i'll be happy to entertain a response AFTER you read the posts i made.

No, nothing was taken out of context. You believe government can manage my health care better than I can. The last 6 years have proven that government is ineffective at best, and downright dangerous at worst. I'll take my chances on the free market, and I'd appreciate if you keep your dirty fingers out of my wallet.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: eits
no, you need the clue, dude. how the hell do i sound like anakin?! when did i ever say i supported a dictatorship? when HAVEN'T i blasted bush for being a dictator?

You don't even understand the point. If you give power away, someone will take it. Give government enough power and a dictator will emerge. It never fails. Read your history books, son.

 

[Capitalizt]

Originally posted by: eits

no, you need the clue, dude. how the hell do i sound like anakin?! when did i ever say i supported a dictatorship?

No, you don't support a dictatorship. You just support the use of government theft/coercion/violence to achieve your ideological goals. A dictator imposing his will on you would be a bad thing...but when government is backed by "the will of the people" (or just 50.001% of them), anything goes. Individual rights and liberties go out the window...the mob has spoken.

In one way, you are similar to Anakin. You believe anyone who opposes your ideas is somehow "selfish" or evil, and you dismiss your opponents outright as bad people. You have framed this argument in your mind as one of "compassion" vs "greed"...completely ignoring the real issue here, which is liberty against tyranny. Free markets and individual choice vs government theft and compulsion. Those who disagree with you are PATRIOTS. They are fighting against the relentless growth of the state and trying to preserve the few freedoms we have left in this country..

Your utopian dreams have blinded you to the harm big government does in the real world.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Aside from the first sentence, you have no objection?

Have you read any of my other posts in this thread?
Objecting to your first sentence would be an objection to your entire post. Not of your proposal per se, but of your knee-jerk attitude that it should be so easy. If you can't understand the challenges, issues, and concerns involved, and insist on belittling them, then you clearly don't know enough about the subject to offer a qualified proposal, especially when you base your arguments on moral premises.
Just for starters, if you care so much about the poor, as you claim to, then how do you justify stopping so far short of total equality as you do? Why do you fall back on a proposal in which you will still be richer and more entitled, and the poor even more subjugated to the benevolence of the wealthy than they already are? How do you explain that?
And no, I'm not trying to play "damned if you do, damned if you don't." You've overplayed the moral card far far too often, pretending you're somehow better than you are, and IMO should take a good long look in the mirror.

Knee jerk? If that's a knew jerk, it's been rising for more than a decade. It's been 15 years since Republicans took down Clinton's healthcare proposal, and they have proposed absolutely no substantive health care reform proposals of their own. The only proposals they passed was SCHIP with Clinton and expansion of Medicare under Bush, which are all government insurance programs for a patchwork of constituents. They have no ideas of their own for healthcare reform, so now they are surprised if the public is going back to the proposal they killed? Why? If you pan someone else's proposal but don't propose a better approach yourself, eventually you lose all credibility on an issue. It's not knee jerk at all, it's common sense.
And stop twisting the truth. Your side is the one proposing that the poor should be subjugated to the benevolence of the wealthy for healthcare. Nebor is saying if you don't have money and don't find a benefactor to pay for your healthcare, you should just FOAD. What we want is government guaranteed healthcare, not a system forcing the poor to rely on the charity of the wealthy or die. If you want that system, there are plenty of countries in Africa to accommodate you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp
Aside from the first sentence, you have no objection?

Have you read any of my other posts in this thread?
Objecting to your first sentence would be an objection to your entire post. Not of your proposal per se, but of your knee-jerk attitude that it should be so easy. If you can't understand the challenges, issues, and concerns involved, and insist on belittling them, then you clearly don't know enough about the subject to offer a qualified proposal, especially when you base your arguments on moral premises.
Just for starters, if you care so much about the poor, as you claim to, then how do you justify stopping so far short of total equality as you do? Why do you fall back on a proposal in which you will still be richer and more entitled, and the poor even more subjugated to the benevolence of the wealthy than they already are? How do you explain that?
And no, I'm not trying to play "damned if you do, damned if you don't." You've overplayed the moral card far far too often, pretending you're somehow better than you are, and IMO should take a good long look in the mirror.

Knee jerk? If that's a knew jerk, it's been rising for more than a decade. It's been 15 years since Republicans took down Clinton's healthcare proposal, and they have proposed absolutely no substantive health care reform proposals of their own. The only proposals they passed was SCHIP with Clinton and expansion of Medicare under Bush, which are all government insurance programs for a patchwork of constituents. They have no ideas of their own for healthcare reform, so now they are surprised if the public is going back to the proposal they killed? Why? If you pan someone else's proposal but don't propose a better approach yourself, eventually you lose all credibility on an issue. It's not knee jerk at all, it's common sense.
And stop twisting the truth. Your side is the one proposing that the poor should be subjugated to the benevolence of the wealthy for healthcare. Nebor is saying if you don't have money and don't find a benefactor to pay for your healthcare, you should just FOAD. What we want is government guaranteed healthcare, not a system forcing the poor to rely on the charity of the wealthy or die. If you want that system, there are plenty of countries in Africa to accommodate you.

Umm.... lack of reading comprehension FTL.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: BoberFett
eits

You are the reason so many people despise modern day liberals. If you truly believe that those in government are smarter and know more than we do, then you should be 100% behind the Iraq war. Obviously as president, Bush knows more than you do.

On the other hand if you are against Iraq, then you must admit that government is fallible and not necessarily able to make the best decisions, thereby negating your assertion that they'll make the right decision regarding health care.

Quite a paradox, eh?

it's not a paradox because my quote was taken out of context!

jesus christ...

read the posts i've made above, please... then post again. i'll be happy to entertain a response AFTER you read the posts i made.

No, nothing was taken out of context. You believe government can manage my health care better than I can. The last 6 years have proven that government is ineffective at best, and downright dangerous at worst. I'll take my chances on the free market, and I'd appreciate if you keep your dirty fingers out of my wallet.

yes, my quote was taken out of context and, no, i believe government can manage poor people getting health insurance better than you can provide for them.

you're exactly right... give the government enough power and they will run away with it. that's what i'm against. that's why i said we need to monitor our elected officials. if you want to crawl up my ass about this, why did you vote for anyone at all? why didn't you run for elected office? why did you/do you support a candidate? BECAUSE YOU SUPPORT HIS IDEAS AND YOU THINK HE WILL BEST REPRESENT YOU! right? now, say he wins... what's next? you sit back and don't do anything to keep him honest? no... you read up on what's going on, voice your opinion, write said official about what he's doing wrong, etc.... why? because he's your employee.

yes, the public rules, but we rule by electing people who we think are smart enough to get the job done. those people are smarter than the average american.

you keep thinking that i'm saying that government rules the public and that's the way it should be. i'm not at all! i'm saying that we elect them and then we need to monitor them. we elect them so they can do the job we (collective "we") can't. it may be difficult for you guys to accept that you don't know everything and that you're probably not as smart as some of our elected officials (myself included), but it's the truth. we can't do the job... that's why we elect them to.

i never once said that you should just trust your government. quite the contrary.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: eits
no, you need the clue, dude. how the hell do i sound like anakin?! when did i ever say i supported a dictatorship? when HAVEN'T i blasted bush for being a dictator?

You don't even understand the point. If you give power away, someone will take it. Give government enough power and a dictator will emerge. It never fails. Read your history books, son.

Give democratic government too little power, and a dictator will more certainly emerge. Son.

Was the country better off with the 'stronger' government of FDR, or the 'weaker' government of the 20's preceding him?

Was it better off under the progress in the 60's in healthcare, civil rights, consumer protections and more, or in the corrupt, debt-driven republican administrations of Reagan and Bushes?

No dictator emerged at the peak of the liberal powerful government as FDR expanded powers, despite his four elections; he was a beloved president, not a dictator.

I'd say that Nixon and Bush more closely resemble a dictator than FDR ever did, with Bush's anti-public secrecy and opposition to oversight, pursuit of the 'unitary presidency' - read dictator - powers, his claims to be above the law on just about anything that can be fudged as 'protecting the nation', his disregard for public opinion as he pursues policies for narrow interests, his sellout of the public interest for political donations to the party and so on.

The dictator we need to worry about is the public not having enough power through its elected government, as private powers fill the vacuum left - see the gilded age.

If you like the model of China, where most are serfs, a small number are prosperous and there's a corrupt ruling class blocking democracy, keep it up, you have us on that road.

There is a wealthy class in the US who would like to see a very high concentration of wealth, who realizes that they can't get that voted for directly, and the way to get what they want is to break democracy - if you can't beat labor, undermine them with global competition dragging them down to third-world levels. If you can't get the public to stop voting to spend money on their own needs, bankrupt the government so they can't keep spending on their needs. Just ask Grover Norquist, who wants to 'shrink the government to the size you can frown it in the bathtub', and who has an agenda to go far, far further than Bush has down the right-wing road, who sees Bush as a small stepping stone for the right-wing movement.

Give power away - the issue there is giving the power of the public, represented in its elected government, away and the private oligarchy receiving that power. The fact that they have been able to buy our government too much is a reason to fix government, not get rid of it, just as we did a century ago when there was similar corruption.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Nebor
So screw that. I'll continue to pay high rates for great care. Those who can't pay will have to rely on charity. Those not provided for by charity can FOAD.

In your little rightwing UTOPIA. Don't confuse it with REALITY

I wish you medicare supporting Republican party shills would quit trying to force your beliefs on others and just let us be.

Huh? Whatever you are talking about, keep on wishing.

You're the one supporting the Republicans and their elderly base's Medicare.

Why don't you just go help the people you want to help yourself, instead of being lazy and demanding other people to do your work for you?

Because I have a job, and unlike you I don't want people to FOAD if they don't get charity healthcare.

I'm going to go take a homeless guy out to lunch today.

Good, maybe you can tell him to FOAD later

Now if you would propose something remotely reasonable like Health Care reform that just made insurance more affordable for people, I could get behind that, as long as it wasn't just a straight welfare program. There's a lot of stuff that can be done to make Health Care more reasonable, without taking money straight from me to give to someone less fortunate. As it stands, a lot of the people who don't have health care do have 2 kids, a cell phone, an ipod, and cable TV. But I should pay for their bad decisions, right?

Believe it or not, I'm a perfectly nice, social person. I don't tell people to FOAD unless they deserve it. But I'm in touch with reality, and I realize that there's not always enough to go around. Not enough money. Not enough Superbowl Tickets. Not enough turkey. Not enough health care. So yeah, put me at the hospital door, and I'll tell people who can't afford it that they have to FOAD. I won't enjoy the job, but I'd do it.

Now if one of those folk were your own Mother would you tell her to FOAD too?

Come on Moonbeam, I'm gay. You know the answer to that question.

I would hope that being gay would have no effect on the answer. But you should clearly see, do you not, that we are all brothers and all children of one Mother who came out of Africa some 200,000 years or so ago? The same moral obligation you have to your Mother, you have to all. Your problem is that you are alienated from yourself and your self love and don't have the empathy you would were your heart healthy. But, since you have a right to life you also have the obligation to be your brother's keeper. You can't opt out of UHC because it's a duty that goes with being. The only real issue is how it's best achieved while being universal.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: eits

no, you need the clue, dude. how the hell do i sound like anakin?! when did i ever say i supported a dictatorship?

No, you don't support a dictatorship. You just support the use of government theft/coercion/violence to achieve your ideological goals. A dictator imposing his will on you would be a bad thing...but when government is backed by "the will of the people" (or just 50.001% of them), anything goes. Individual rights and liberties go out the window...the mob has spoken.

In one way, you are similar to Anakin. You believe anyone who opposes your ideas is somehow "selfish" or evil, and you dismiss your opponents outright as bad people. You have framed this argument in your mind as one of "compassion" vs "greed"...completely ignoring the real issue here, which is liberty against tyranny. Free markets and individual choice vs government theft and compulsion. Those who disagree with you are PATRIOTS. They are fighting against the relentless growth of the state and trying to preserve the few freedoms we have left in this country..

Your utopian dreams have blinded you to the harm big government does in the real world.

And you are blind to economies of scale. And you are every bit as much a utopian.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: eits

no, you need the clue, dude. how the hell do i sound like anakin?! when did i ever say i supported a dictatorship?

No, you don't support a dictatorship. You just support the use of government theft/coercion/violence to achieve your ideological goals. A dictator imposing his will on you would be a bad thing...but when government is backed by "the will of the people" (or just 50.001% of them), anything goes. Individual rights and liberties go out the window...the mob has spoken.

In one way, you are similar to Anakin. You believe anyone who opposes your ideas is somehow "selfish" or evil, and you dismiss your opponents outright as bad people. You have framed this argument in your mind as one of "compassion" vs "greed"...completely ignoring the real issue here, which is liberty against tyranny. Free markets and individual choice vs government theft and compulsion. Those who disagree with you are PATRIOTS. They are fighting against the relentless growth of the state and trying to preserve the few freedoms we have left in this country..

Your utopian dreams have blinded you to the harm big government does in the real world.

And you are blind to economies of scale. And you are every bit as much a utopian.

You're fat too soft on him, Moonbeam. He's a madman, not beginning to understand the structure of society beyond it being a bunch of cavemen running around doing their own thing - how that structure provides the opportunity for people to not simply be impoverished serfs, how the social fabric allows for people to do better through a level of cooperation, which sadly because too many are like him, requires a level of coercion - not anything resembling dictatorships - to exist.

It's really at the level of this:

"There are a bunch of you living here, so we're going to use a traffic signal to help you all have more efficient and safe travel."

"You want to use the power of the state to force me at gunpoint to stop driving MY CAR at YOUR red light if I don't want to? SCREW YOU MAN!!!!!111!!!"

"Yes, since you are unable to grasp the reason why it makes sense to compel people to stop at the red light, and not to plow into someone by running it, you get a ticket."

"OPPRESSION! COMMUNISTS! STALINISTAS! foam foam drool whine waaaaaaaaaah"

 

[Vic]

Craig, I'm having a little bit of trouble with your theory that "democracy" is when the people decide how you like and "dictatorship" is when they decide otherwise.
Likewise your notion that private is tyranny and public is freedom.
No need to even touch upon the obvious straw man of your red light analogy. That's like yesterday when you said that libertarians are opposed to liberal democracy (which is defined as democracy limited by constitution and rule of law).

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Nebor
First of all, I'd like to preface this post by saying that it is in regards to America, and intended to be responded to by Americans. It has nothing to do with America forcing it's collective beliefs on other nations or peoples.

Let me give a few examples, and I'll start with one near and dear to my own heart: Gun control. As an avid gun collector and self-defense advocate, I have never, not once in my life, advocated that anyone be forced to own or carry a gun. I think that is entirely a personal choice. And yet, proponents of gun control would presume to tell me how to live my life, and what property I can own. Note that I have no interest in restricting their freedom, or choices, yet they seek to restrict mine.

Next up: Universal Health Care. I don't need it. I don't want it. At this point in time, I can choose whether or not I want to spend my money and purchase any grade of health care I want. And those who want cheap, low quality health care can, at this time, choose to band together and create a low cost option for the poor. But that's not what they want. They want to use the government as their thug to take money from me, someone who doesn't want universal health care, and won't benefit from it at all. And that is part of the plan, just like any other insurance company works: You need a large amount of "customers" who don't make claims or cost you money in order to support all those others. So really, what you want to do is take my money (by force and threat of prison) in order to pay for your health care.

Now obviously there is such a thing as the social contract, but the concept is EXTREMELY simple. We give up the right to kill, maim and steal from one another in exchange for living in a society of law and order. The very basic principal of the social contract, and America, has always been "Your rights end where another's begin." Meaning simply that you can do whatever you want, as long as you're not violating anyone elses rights in doing so.

Alright authoritarian types, you're probably foaming at the mouth by now, so flame on.

I didn't believe for half a second about the "threat" of Iraq and its completely decimated economy/army and yet my children and I will have to pay the half a trillion+ dollars for it. I'd rather at least give healthcare to Americans for that cost instead of being the laughing stock of the world for suc ha catastrophic blunder...

Yet, the government does it anyway...

Wait, should the government consult the almighty and important Nebor before making choices?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: senseamp
Get over yourself. You get a vote, not a veto on what the tax rates are and what those taxes are spent for, well indirectly at least. I don't want my money spent on Iraq war either, but if the country wanted to elect idiots who thought it was a good idea, that's what we got. Just like you may not want universal health care, but if the country votes for candidates who support it in the next election, those candidates will have a mandate from the people to implement it, whether you like it or not.

The majority does not have the right to impose on the minority. That's what the bill of rights is all about. It's why we're a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

Correct, now the minority imposes on the majority.. because of the bill of rights...

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: ayabe
First off, no one is trying to take your gun away. So I don't even understand why this is a concern to you. This is a wedge issue where wingnut groups try to claim that candidate X wants to take your gun away, so vote for candidate Y. It's a fallacy and will never happen.

Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

"The vote reauthorizing the assault weapons ban is a vote in support of a public safety initiative that works. According to a report issued by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the assault weapons ban passed ten years ago has resulted in a substantial decline in the use of those weapons in crimes. -Hillary Clinton

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do. -The Democratic Party's national platform

Make no mistake they want to take our guns away. They took away our "assault weapons" once. We haven't had free access to machine guns in 80 years.

Oh no! No machine guns.. you are so oppressed! We all feel your pain!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I was sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooow on the edit so let me also put it here:

And anyway, you miss the point. You are a big fat egotist who has the opinion nothing will happen to you, but you could have a stroke tomorrow that leaves you paralyzed and even more of a vegetable than you already are and a tremendous financial liability to somebody else. For your sake, for there sake, and for my sake, I want you taken care of as best as can be done. I don't give a crap whether you want UHC or not, I want you to have it.

I have great health insurance (I pay $1100 a month for myself and my boyfriend.) And I have a living will. I won't be a vegetable, I won't live in a coma. I get 72-hours to come to, or I'm done.

What percentage of your salary is $1100 for 2 people? Do you have copays and have to pay something for prescriptions?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The universal health care will come in handy when you shoot yourself with one of your self defense weapons defending yourself from phantoms.

I've had a gun within a couple feet of me for nearly 30 years, and I've never shot myself, nor had an accidental discharge.

To those who think guns cause death and destruction, let me pose a question: Would you rather be locked, for one hour, in a room with 10 loaded, fully automatic AK47 assault rifles, or in a room with 10 convicted felons?

So are guns the problem, or is it really criminals?

The true nightmare scenario would be to be locked in a room with 10 convicted felons with 10 loaded AK47's, which is why you sleep with your gun.

If and when you find the courage and wisdom to look beyond your own heavily armed 24/7 nightmare, let us know, and we'll try to wean you from the insecurities of your deadly, dangerous addiction.

I lead a perfectly normal life. I go to trendy restaurants, go to the theater, hang out at the local wine bar, have a boyfriend and a girlfriend. It's a minor inconvenience to carry a firearm, one that has paid off tremendously several times in my life. Why would I NOT ensure the safety of myself and those around me?

And in your 10 armed felon scenario, I tend to think that MAD would prevail.

Exactly my thinking. Why would I not ensure the safety of myself and those around me with UHC.

Because you're infringing on my right to spend my money as I see fit to choose the health insurance I want. You can certainly start a low-cost, low-grade health care commune, but don't force me to participate in a system that I simply won't use and don't want.

There are still private practices in countries with UHC. You aren't being forced to use it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Vic
Craig, I'm having a little bit of trouble with your theory that "democracy" is when the people decide how you like and "dictatorship" is when they decide otherwise.
Likewise your notion that private is tyranny and public is freedom.
No need to even touch upon the obvious straw man of your red light analogy. That's like yesterday when you said that libertarians are opposed to liberal democracy (which is defined as democracy limited by constitution and rule of law).

I've noticed that about Craig. When things go his way, hey, that's democracy. You don't like it, vote to change it. When things don't go his way he turns into a screaming child, throwing a tantrum about how the system is corrupt. Apparently when the majority wants UHC, it's just the will of the people and not be questioned. But when the majority want war with Iraq, it must be a plot against democracy. Truly frightening how many people suffer from such cognitive dissonance.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
Craig, I'm having a little bit of trouble with your theory that "democracy" is when the people decide how you like and "dictatorship" is when they decide otherwise.
Likewise your notion that private is tyranny and public is freedom.
No need to even touch upon the obvious straw man of your red light analogy. That's like yesterday when you said that libertarians are opposed to liberal democracy (which is defined as democracy limited by constitution and rule of law).

I've noticed that about Craig. When things go his way, hey, that's democracy. You don't like it, vote to change it. When things don't go his way he turns into a screaming child, throwing a tantrum about how the system is corrupt. Apparently when the majority wants UHC, it's just the will of the people and not be questioned. But when the majority want war with Iraq, it must be a plot against democracy. Truly frightening how many people suffer from such cognitive dissonance.

While I'm not commenting on vic's tripe, whatever he said, I've noticed that about you. You get things bogglingly contorted.

In another post you were trying to 'argue' - the word has to be stretched - that if the government gets one policy wrong, then you have to conclude it gets them all wrong.

Here, you're trying to argue that either democracy is always perfect, or it's always broken.

No. Democracy is imperfectly implemented. Sometimes it gets things a lot right, sometimes a bit right, sometimes very wrong, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with saying both that democracy worked regarding Bush's going to war against the Taliban, and that it was corrupted when they hid the real cost of the medicare drug bill giveaway to their drug company donors from Congress, because it wouldn't have passed otherwise.

But you don't get that - you post these logically broken false dilemmas. How can you even know the phrase cognitive dissonance, and yet radiate it like Cheney radiates evil?

I'll explain this very simply for you. I prefer democracy to the alternative mankind is used to where the public doesn't have some artificial share of power called a vote and power is instead concentrated in an oligarchy. And I also prefer that democracy to work better than worse - more educated public not less educated; less propaganda domination not more; money dominating the system less, not more, and so on.

And while agreeing with that system, it doesn't mean I agree with the majority on every issue, so you might see me defend democracy, yet argue against their decision.

Is that so hard for you?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Vic
Craig, I'm having a little bit of trouble with your theory that "democracy" is when the people decide how you like and "dictatorship" is when they decide otherwise.
Likewise your notion that private is tyranny and public is freedom.
No need to even touch upon the obvious straw man of your red light analogy. That's like yesterday when you said that libertarians are opposed to liberal democracy (which is defined as democracy limited by constitution and rule of law).

I've noticed that about Craig. When things go his way, hey, that's democracy. You don't like it, vote to change it. When things don't go his way he turns into a screaming child, throwing a tantrum about how the system is corrupt. Apparently when the majority wants UHC, it's just the will of the people and not be questioned. But when the majority want war with Iraq, it must be a plot against democracy. Truly frightening how many people suffer from such cognitive dissonance.

While I'm not commenting on vic's tripe, whatever he said, I've noticed that about you. You get things bogglingly contorted.

In another post you were trying to 'argue' - the word has to be stretched - that if the government gets one policy wrong, then you have to conclude it gets them all wrong.

Here, you're trying to argue that either democracy is always perfect, or it's always broken.

No. Democracy is imperfectly implemented. Sometimes it gets things a lot right, sometimes a bit right, sometimes very wrong, and so on.

There's nothing wrong with saying both that democracy worked regarding Bush's going to war against the Taliban, and that it was corrupted when they hid the real cost of the medicare drug bill giveaway to their drug company donors from Congress, because it wouldn't have passed otherwise.

But you don't get that - you post these logically broken false dilemmas. How can you even know the phrase cognitive dissonance, and yet radiate it like Cheney radiates evil?

I'll explain this very simply for you. I prefer democracy to the alternative mankind is used to where the public doesn't have some artificial share of power called a vote and power is instead concentrated in an oligarchy. And I also prefer that democracy to work better than worse - more educated public not less educated; less propaganda domination not more; money dominating the system less, not more, and so on.

And while agreeing with that system, it doesn't mean I agree with the majority on every issue, so you might see me defend democracy, yet argue against their decision.

Is that so hard for you?

Crack is bad, mmm'kay?

The argument was not that democracy is perfect, nor that it is broken, but that it is what it is, and exists outside of moral judgements like good and evil. That it is still "working" even when one finds oneself in the democratic minority, nor is such a personal condition representative of an "imperfect implementation" of democracy, even if it appears unjust from your personal and subjective perspective and opinion.
I'll explain this very simply for you. People disagree, even on what might seem to some as the obvious best course of action, the reasons for their disagreement have nothing to do with good and evil but merely different opinions caused from different perspectives, and when in a democracy one finds oneself on the minority side of a disagreement, such a situation is neither inherently unjust on its own nor representative of any failure of democracy itself.

Now, is that so hard for you?

 

[palehorse]

CRAIG>

I'm still waiting for your list of mystery "things" or "larger good things" you keep mentioning that would apparently offset the six-month waiting lists and second-rate care we can expect under UHC...?