|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
 Posted - 09/28/2008 : 01:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Zeked
Socialized medicine, socialized markets – meh, dollars from my pocket and less personal liberty, more government controls. |
I'm just sick of this hypocritical libertarian refrain. You abhor the government taking and spending your taxes, but once they're taken and spent, you seem perfectly fine with taking advantage of the services provided. As soon as you divorce yourself from society completely, Zeked, you'll stop being a hypocrite.
|
Thats a bit unfair there Dave, of course we need to live in society, humans are social animals, I never heard any libertarian disagree with that. I see nothing wrong with living within the society and all the while arguing for, even incite the society to become, as you would like it to become.
Further, one can be as (for arguments sake lets use libertarian) as possible within a society, and advocate for further reforms to increase individual liberty and responsibility, meanwhile remaining within the thus far agreed limits of the society, without any hypocracy at all.
Or do you feel that since I am a married homosexual who believes I should have that right, but my society does not allow homosexual marriage, my only alternatives are either to abandon society or break with my partner?
|
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 05:03:23 [Permalink]
|
McCain's been about as erratic as you can get over the last, couple of months, and I know why: he's a craps shooter. Never rely on an inveterate craps shooter for reason or logic, or carefully considered decisions. It just ain't in their genetic makeup. Senator John McCain was on a roll. In a room reserved for high-stakes gamblers at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, he tossed $100 chips around a hot craps table. When the marathon session ended around 2:30 a.m., the Arizona senator and his entourage emerged with thousands of dollars in winnings.
Tim Cook/The Day, via Associated Press
BETS Mr. McCain supported tax breaks for casinos over the years, including one that helped Foxwoods in Connecticut. He has also gambled there.
A lifelong gambler, Mr. McCain takes risks, both on and off the craps table. He was throwing dice that night not long after his failed 2000 presidential bid, in which he was skewered by the Republican Party's evangelical base, opponents of gambling. Mr. McCain was betting at a casino he oversaw as a member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, and he was doing so with the lobbyist who represents that casino, according to three associates of Mr. McCain.
The visit had been arranged by the lobbyist, Scott Reed, who works for the Mashantucket Pequot, a tribe that has contributed heavily to Mr. McCain's campaigns and built Foxwoods into the world's second-largest casino. Joining them was Rick Davis, Mr. McCain's current campaign manager. Their night of good fortune epitomized not just Mr. McCain's affection for gambling, but also the close relationship he has built with the gambling industry and its lobbyists during his 25-year career in Congress.
|
Craps is too fast a game for careful thought and it's basic odds change not at all with each cast of the dice (don't get me started on the Gambler's Fallacy). Poker, on the other hand, encourages thought due to ever-changing odds with each card dealt and the bets made on them. Always go with a good, smart poker player -- somebody told me that Obama likes a few hands of draw or stud, now & again....
Anyhow, it's an interesting article on Indian gaming & McCain's role in it.
As it looks right now, Biden will deftly fillet Ms. Palin like a catfish, depending, of course, on the moderation. I think that it might be a little sad to watch.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 09/28/2008 05:05:00 |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 06:17:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
McCain's been about as erratic as you can get over the last, couple of months, and I know why: he's a craps shooter. Never rely on an inveterate craps shooter for reason or logic, or carefully considered decisions.
|
Still, craps is better than this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sRHd5pngWE
Cant imbed youtube in this forum software? |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 06:26:22 [Permalink]
|
| Also, it should be noted, as a Senator from AZ he must have gaming connections. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 06:30:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Cant imbed youtube in this forum software? |
No, though I think it's been brought up. Dave would know better about that... |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 09:20:30 [Permalink]
|
Zeked:
Not a dimes worth of difference. Thank you Council of Foreign Relations, AIPAC and all the many others, for funding and molding two candidates with so little foreign policy difference, the US has become a single party system.
WAR!!! |
While it's true that Obama wants to finish what we started and abandoned in Afghanistan, he stresses negotiation and diplomacy as the go to method for dealing with what we regard as problem nations with regard to our interests and world interests. By contrast, the neocon position is force. As Obama points out, Bush and McCain will not negotiate with a nations leader without preconditions. They want them to tow our line or else, right out of the gate. Big difference.
Obama has pledged that he would not attack a nation unless it poses a direct threat to our national security. No more Iraq's. No more preemptive wars based on trumped up evidence.
On the other hand, he can't look weak. He can't bring about successful diplomacy and negotiation if those he is negotiating with perceive him as weak. It's as simple as that. Unlike the neocons and whatever they have morphed themselves into; the use of force (“bring it on”) will be something to be avoided if at all possible. I don't buy that neocon Mcain/Bush method compares to how Obama would operate. I think he will bring back a fully functional state department. Something Bush and Cheney have trashed…
Zeked:
Socialized medicine, socialized markets – meh, dollars from my pocket and less personal liberty, more government controls. |
Obama isn't proposing socialized medicine as far as I can tell. Hillary was though.
With something like 45 million working adults lacking health insurance, throwing loaded words around like “socialism” and “personal freedom” when discussing a healthcare crisis just seems foolish to me. Every time someone goes into an emergency room without the means to pay, who do you think pays now? Or would you personal freedom people prefer it if they were just left for dead?
You're already paying for a mind-bogglingy stupid system that forces people into the most expensive care possible, sometimes for trivial things that could and should be handled by a much less expensive family physician. Which of those costs would you prefer paying for?
I have been working for most of my life, and I still face loosing my health insurance because I have pre-existing conditions. As it is I pay around five hundred a month just to stay insured because cobra has made that possible. But eventually, my cobra will run out. What then? Have you ever seen the bill for a procedure like the one I just had on my back? I'll tell you what. I don't fucking care what you want to call it. Every industrialized nation, and some that aren't provides some kind of health insurance to their citizens. You may consider it stealing; I consider it a basic human right.
Your going to balk and yell socialism no matter what kind of plan is drawn up because you think that your tax dollars are more valuable to you than mine are to me. Or maybe it's that you want to save me from myself, literally killing me with kindness. Yes, I would rather pay more in taxes than to have no access to medical care. At least I will be getting something tangible in return for my money. And on that score, you can take your personal freedom (selfishness and a lack of empathy in this case) and shove it.
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 10:45:00 [Permalink]
|
Me, I'm for free health care for every citizen of this country for any condition including birth control and yes, abortion. You can call it "socialized" or put whatever lable you like on it, but reasonable health should be a citizens right. I've been recieving VA health care ever since Vietnam and without it, I'd long-ago be fucking dead. As it is, I'm uninsurable and have been so for decades.
I think that every citizen should have at least what I've had, and if that means higher taxes to heal some someone whom you don't know and wouldn't like if you met him, then pay them with a smile because it might be your ass in the ER tomorrow.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 11:01:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zeked
Do you think because I function in society I am a hypocrite for not laying homage to the state? |
What a great non-sequitor. No, I think you're a hypocrite for taking advantage of publicly funded projects while decrying public funding of projects.| Do you think individuals have no rights but societies oddly enough do? |
Of course, because I disagree with you, you think I must take the most-extreme diametrically opposed position possible.  You, Zeked, are displaying one of the primary problems with American politics today: the failure to acknowledge that those who disagree with you can have a rational basis for disagreement. Instead, you decide that it's okay to invent something ludicrous.| The hypocrisy is in your attack. |
Oh? Where, exactly? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 11:34:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Thats a bit unfair there Dave, of course we need to live in society, humans are social animals, I never heard any libertarian disagree with that. I see nothing wrong with living within the society and all the while arguing for, even incite the society to become, as you would like it to become. |
Zeked isn't doing that, though. He's effectively saying that societies should be without government, because having one necessarily takes money from the citizens' pockets and denies them some personal freedom. Which, of course, denies the right of the people to collectively say, "we should create a government."
And your typical cave-dwelling, bark-wearing hermit would disagree that "we need to live in society." The Unabomber would still be free today in his self-imposed exile if he had decided that removing himself from society was good enough.| Further, one can be as (for arguments sake lets use libertarian) as possible within a society, and advocate for further reforms to increase individual liberty and responsibility, meanwhile remaining within the thus far agreed limits of the society, without any hypocracy at all. |
One cannot (for example) shout that the government taking our tax money to build the Interstate Highway system and restricting how that system can be used (load and speed limits) is wrong in priciple while using that same highway system to get to work or to enjoy cheaper prices at the supermarket and not be a hypocrite, no, because it is possible to take a principled stand and reject the use of those things that one thinks shouldn't have been created in the first place.| Or do you feel that since I am a married homosexual who believes I should have that right, but my society does not allow homosexual marriage, my only alternatives are either to abandon society or break with my partner? |
No, the kind of hypocrisy I'm talking about only rears its ugly head when people deny things. Someone who argues against gay marriage, but as soon as society changes and allows it, gets married to his same-sex partner while still saying that it shouldn't be allowed, would indeed be a hypocrite. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 14:25:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Obama isn't proposing socialized medicine as far as I can tell. Hillary was though. |
Actually, she wasn't either. Unless the definition of "socialized" suddenly changed and I missed the update. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 16:18:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
Originally posted by Kil
Obama isn't proposing socialized medicine as far as I can tell. Hillary was though. |
Actually, she wasn't either. Unless the definition of "socialized" suddenly changed and I missed the update.
|
I just checked and you are right. 
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
calebjones1234
BANNED
95 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 17:04:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Me, I'm for free health care for every citizen of this country for any condition including birth control and yes, abortion. You can call it "socialized" or put whatever lable you like on it, but reasonable health should be a citizens right.
|
Who pays for what?
|
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 17:24:35 [Permalink]
|
Everybody, essentially, pays for everybody.
If, let say, every year the equivalent of 5% of the national production is spend on health related issue, why not tax everybody at 5% and insure the (re)payement of the treatments.
That's a relatively simple system that has worked in many countries for decades.
The term 'socialized medicine', IMHO, should be avoided, not only does it have a pejorative ring to it, but its definition is so loose as to be meaningless. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 17:53:14 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by calebjones1234
Who pays for what? |
I, for one, would like to see a reduction in the Defense Department budget. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 09/28/2008 : 18:18:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Simon
The term 'socialized medicine', IMHO, should be avoided, not only does it have a pejorative ring to it, but its definition is so loose as to be meaningless. |
Well, it's impossible to imagine that the US is going to switch to a government takeover of hospitals and health care providers. So it should be avoided because it just doesn't apply.
But you're right. It is a pejorative-- and as seen in this thread, it's thrown around to smear those on the left even when it has no basis in reality. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Debate!
