So, you think you’re in danger of losing control of your healthcare decisions because the government might get involved? Who do you think is really making your decisions now?
Right now, unless you pay cash for everything you do (in which case you’re paying WAY too much, but I’ll address that later) your health care decisions are not made by your doctor. They are not even made by you. They are made by the for-profit insurance companies. Understand: they are playing a legalized form of craps and your health is not even on the table. Essentially they are betting that they can take more money from people than they’ll need to pay out in medical fees. So if you start to get expensive, or if your health gets in the way of their profits, YOU WILL BE DUMPED. Make no mistake about it, your health is not a function of your health – it is a function of their P&L.
The Republicans that are in staunch opposition (as well as the Blue Dogs) to health care reform and specifically a single-payer option are on that side because A) health costs are an excellent way to perpetuate a caste society and B) they don’t want to damage the profits of the insurance companies. On one hand, they say that a single payer option will be too awesome and the insurance companies will not be able to compete, on the other they say that the government can’t do anything right. So if you take that at face value, a government option will be horrible and the current private option is worse. Or, it’s nonsensical horsepoop and big money politics. You decide.
The Republicans also want us to focus on Canada as what a public option looks like – and although Canada is not a perfect system, it is far from horrible. In any case though, no one is talking about that kind of option. The best minds are focused on France’s single-payer system, which is arguably the best in the world today. And they insure 100% of the population. And they pay WAY WAY less per capita and per GDP than we do. And they have a considerably higher life expectancy. And they have a considerably lower infant mortality rate. And they have a WAY high customer satisfaction index.
Now this option will not work if we don’t have pretty significant legal reform as well, which is another reason why health care costs so much. That will be addressed next. But for now consider this simple thought: If you didn’t have to pay for health insurance, yet you had world-class care, how much more tax would you be willing to pay for that? In my case, about $1600/month (what I pay for my BC/BS premiums). Or how much more could your employer pay you if he no longer had to pay for either your health insurance OR workman’s comp (which would no longer be required)? You see? The lie is to tell you about the costs without talking about the benefits or balancing savings.
Are you ready to talk about health and not protecting insurance companies? Are you ready to talk financial reality? Are you ready to look at other countries in the world and see how we can be better? Are you prepared to address the fact that, despite being one of the highest costing health care countries in the world, we are 50th in terms of real benefit and health … just behind Morocco. Honestly. When you’re tired of throwing your health care dollars at the insurance companies and would prefer, instead, to receive health care for them, then let’s talk.
The single payer option: It’s about time.
I would like the day when I can sit in a restaurant, and the guy next to starts coughing, and I don’t need to wonder if he has TB.
I would like the day when I don’t hear from my DR, let me authorize that test with your insurance first.
I would like the day when I could no longer brag, that my insurance lets me self-refer, because everyone can now.
I would like the day when I could be brought into a hospital by ambulance and the first question they ask me is, how I am feeling, do you have your insurance card.
I would like the day when I, as self employed person, no longer have to worry about losing my insurance because of a technicality, and then having to get a “real” job just so I can have insurance.
I will like the day that all the cashiers at supermarkets quit to take care of their kids, because they no longer need to have the job just for the insurance.
I will like the day that moms and dads no longer need to take extra jobs, just so they can make ends meet, because of insurance costs. A side effect would be, people who need that FIRST job could now get it.
Liberal commie scum. I suppose you’d like the pursuit of happiness and promotion of the general welfare as well, right? Where do you think we live anyway? What gives you the right to dream, or even hope such things?
Of course I think you are SPOT ON BD. Bothers me to no end that health is profit based, rather than health based. There is no argument that the right wing has that is even remotely compelling. I really hope that the progressives turn up the heat and keep it on.
One of the reasons I love living in MA.
We may not have it quite as good as France, but we’re strides ahead of nearly every other state in the union on the healthcare front.
It’s really nice knowing that when I do go out on my own again, I will have access to affordable healthcare, to the tune of a few hundred dollars a month rather than a few thousand.
Man I hope that’s the way it is. Our insurance premiums are feckin’ huge, and we’re held by the short hairs because of PinkHat’s breast cancer. Even though she’s now got the same odds as any other woman for a recurrence, she has a Prior Condition that makes it fantastically difficult to change plans. So we keep our heads low and don’t rock the boat, because we don’t want to be without it.
I really hope it goes this way, for you, your family, me and ours. I really do.
I don’t like my “high” premiums and I don’t like the fact that I could be dropped, but I like our health care system better than France or Canada.
I surely don’t think that our government – who cannot even manage Social Security – is better qualified to manage my health care. I surely do not want to be seen by a “Government Doctor”.
PresBO is lying to us all with his empty promises.
Also –
The increase in taxes would most likely be equal to or more than what we pay for insurance premiums. No gain there.
We would see a shortage of great medical talent because what physician in his right mind would sacrifice a lucrative private practice for a governmant salary cap?
The only people that “Hillary-Care” would benefit are the business owners, because they are crying about having to pay for their employee’s health care plan.
@Nash – your comments would scare the life out of anyone that was thinking of a single payer system – if they were true. But they are also false, misleading and ill-informed.
The Canadian system is where doctors get their salary from the government, not the French. No one is talking about that at all. The French system is essentially like our Medicare, but with no age limit. You will never see a “Government Doctor” because that is not what is being proposed in any case, by anyone. In the French system, you are insured directly by the government – so just like you use an insurance form here, you present a government insurance form. Except that there are no premiums, no pre-approval crap, no limitations on what the doctors can do. In fact, in the French system, since it is very biased towards primary health rather than catastophic reaction, people can even get some holistic services (like chiropractors) covered by the government, if their primary doctor feels that is warranted. Now THAT is putting control of your health back between you and your doctor.
There is no limitation to what doctors can make. There is no limitation on what doctor you can see. The emphasis is on primary care, because when people get primary care, they are WAY less likely to have sudden catastrophic illness and go the emergency room (this is where the French system saves a boatload of money).
There will be no shortage of doctors because there are no limitations there. I had to do a radio show a bit ago and argue the position of all the international models – I chose the US, Canada, UK and France since they are talked about the most. The French system is the gold standard in the world for health care. They pay only about 2/3rd of what we do in terms of GDP for healthcare, yet they have a spectacularly better return on their investment than we do. Currently, we are 50th in the nation for health care, just behind Morrocco. So while you are concerned about the government not getting it right, you should note that not only has the private sector not gotten it right, they have stripped you of an enormous amount of money for the privilege.
@Increase being equal or more: you are again, ill informed. My personal premiums and deductible total over 22K per year in insurance BEFORE I SEE A DIME OF COVERAGE FROM THEM. For my taxes to increase to more than I pay simply for baseline care, I would have to more than DOUBLE MY INCOME or have about a 700% increase in my taxes. Again, no one is talking about any such thing.
@ business owners: not only would they not need to pay for healthcare, they would not need to pay workman’s comp either. The net-benefit of healthy people in the country would be a great thing to the general worker’s capability.
The net benefit to the people: the actual amount that leaves my wallet will be less and everyone is covered and has health care. No one gets dropped (which is a GIGANTIC problem here – if you’ve not had a family member with cancer or another big disease, you don’t even know this).
Essentially, your healthcare decisions are being made by an entity (insurance companies) that have a profit motive to NOT GIVE YOU HEALTH CARE. IE., they make money, when you either aren’t sick, or they can drop you when you are. The model is a horrible drain on yours and my wallet and is utterly contradictory to the notion of healthcare.
Ask anyone who’s now on Medicare just how much they hate socialized medicine. I think you’ll be really surprised. Your comments sound like you listen regularly to the right-wing scare machine, as opposed to doing your own research. Start with IRS.gov and look at tax bracketing, then do some in-depth research into the way the Canadian, UK and French system actually work. Having been to all 3 places a great many times as well, my research has been backed up by personal experience and speaking with the people there.
A great segment of my client base is the medical field, from simple general practitioners to the highest of high-end radiation oncology, so I am pretty deeply involved in their thoughts as well. Be happy to give you more facts if you desire.
I am not sure what you mean by the statement that I “listen regularly to the right-wing scare machine”.
PresBO is the “left-wing scare machine”, and I am not suprised that his approval rating is around the 50% mark.
Your characterization of Hillary-Care sounds more like a wish list that the actuality that we may be facing. By the time the bureaucrats get through lacing the bill with pork, my rendition with be more accirate.
Good lord. If you think Obama is scary, what have you been listening to for the last 8 years? Yeah man. A message of hope may well be scary to you, but it is at least a message of hope.
His approval mark is still in the 60+ zone, BTW. There is only one poll that shows him at 50, and your quoting of that makes it clear whom you listen to.
Note how you claim I am characterizing “Hillary Care” – I am doing no such thing – this is just another example of trying to tie something that you found scary to our current situation. Really Nash, you should do some of your ownt research rather than just regurgitating what you’ve been told.
What I want is to Pursue Happiness, which is what is guaranteed to me by the Constitution. It is difficult to pursue happiness if I am either sick or worried that getting sick will financially ruin me. You should perhaps take a look at the stats a bit: the NUMBER ONE REASON that people go into bankruptcy in this country is because of medical bills. The situation is out of control.
I will be most hopeful that you do not ever need to experience those sorts of horrors yet understand the needs of people all over our country. Again, I do not want to argue talking points. Take a look at some REAL FACTS rather than simply being scared by what you’re hearing.
What you’re hearing is partisan propaganda and designed to make you support something that is not in your best interest at all – it is in the interest if insurance companies that do not want to lose the income they are making from you.
As it stands, you are a copper top. Take the red pill.
Why is it that people think only the republicans spout propoganda??
Yes, Obama is scary. He is a “Chicago Politician” who got where he is by default and media support only.
I am not “partisan” by any means. I look at each issue from a Common Sense side. For instance, the dems are correct when it comes to abortion rights and stem cell research, but dead wrong on “gun control” and national security. The dems and liberals AT LEAST as bad as reps and conservatives when it comes to propoganda and scare tactics.
No, the current US health care system is not perfect, but it is better than most. If the US ever thinks it’s a good idea to look at France or Canada as a model for ANYTHING, then we are in sad shape.
BTW – the main reason people file personal bankruptcy is credit card debt.
Yes the #1 reason for bankruptcy is too much personal debt (not just credit cards but lines of credit as well)… Well duh… Just think for 1 teeny moment about it. Why does anyone go bankrupt? It’s not because they have shitloads of money sitting around and zero debt… LOL. Its because they are in debt greater than their cash flow and reserves can support.
Do you know the #1 reason for too much debt? Medical Bills.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/bankruptcy_study.html
The problem is people over simplify problems to make their arguments stick better. If you just look at the surface stats, and put a generic phrasing on it, you can make it sound un-obvious. Those kind of silly ass duh-stats are what always gets in the way. Please try to look past the DUH. There are plenty of contributors to debt of course. You could argue that people go bankrupt because they eat food, if you over simplify it. But the major source of “unplanned expense” is Medical bills. Unplanned expense is why most folks go bankrupt, not because they bought too expensive of a house, or too many clothes on credit card.
Most credit card debt is becuase of lifestyle, such as ating out, buying clothes, taking vacations, big screen TVs and such. Personally, the only thing I use my credit card for is vehicle maintenance / repairs.
“If you think Obama is scary, what have you been listening to for the last 8 years?”
PresBO is a LOT scarier that President Bush. I am also very thankful that Al Bore or John Scary never got close to the White House.
The only thing President Bush did that I didn’t like was setting up the “Government Motors” takeover. If GM can’t run their own business, let’ em fail. They need to take a lesson from the Japanese anyway.
“A message of hope may well be scary to you, but it is at least a message of hope.”
“Hope”? What “hope”? That people like you and me will be punished for success, and that we will have to pay for entitlement programs for illegals and people that don’t want to work??
“His approval mark is still in the 60+ zone..”
Since you bow to the altar of the Clinton News Network, they have him at 61%, which I’m sure is the most generous.
“..you should do some of your ownt research rather than just regurgitating what you’ve been told.”
As should you.
Scare tactics? How about this “Global Warming” myth? All ultra-liberals simply regugitate what PresBO and company tell them.
“What I want is to Pursue Happiness, which is what is guaranteed to me by the Constitution. It is difficult to pursue happiness if I am either sick or worried that getting sick will financially ruin me.”
Health care is not a Constitutional Right.
I do not like paying high premiums. I do not like the idea of being dropped. However, the government’s idea of health care is not any better.
“..it is in the interest if insurance companies that do not want to lose the income they are making from you.”
THAT part is true.
yes Nash. Most credit card debt is from lifestyle. But credit card debt does not account for bankruptcy. DEBT as a WHOLE, not just CC debt is part of bankruptcy.
Having to remortgage your house because you need to pay for cancer treatment does not accumulated any credit card debt, but can throw you into bankruptcy.
The anti-sochealth folks try to steer the focus to only the 1 single thing of CC debt, because it’s the 1 thing most people agree can be controlled. You could of course have waited to buy that TV or couch or _blank_. But it ignores the back breaking expenses that most people dont have enough credit line for.
Most people couldn’t go bankrupt with their credit card lines anyway because most americans have such low limits. The average limit in america is something like $14k, but thats because of people like me who have a cumulative limit of almost $500k dragging up the average. Skew is something like 90%, with only 10% of the population accounting for 90% of the credit limit. Same goes for that $8000 average debt number you probably always hear. About 20% of americans are responsible for 80% of the debt.
I carried over 100k for just over 1 year. That means there were almost 12 other families who had to have ZERO CC debt to drag the average down to $8k, just because of me…
You go bankrupt because of an unforeseen, massive expense. That massive expense is typically medical. Give me another mega-expense example that cannot be skimped on or done without?
House burns down, live in an apartment.
Car blows up, buy a $500 beater.
Get cancer, go to costco?
@global warming myth.
Im getting tired of this. Look, lets get a few things straight. Who fucking cares if its true or not. Let’s instead look at the benefits of assuming its true and doing something about it.
Cleaner Air – which if you don’t live in bumblefucknowhere, is a serious concern.
Renewable fuel sources – because regardless, the fossils are going to run out. Who cares what the time frames actually are. If you think they never will, conversation over, because your being either ignorant or just plain silly. Yes it may be 100 years or 5, who cares, it will happen, so plan ahead.
Advancement of Tech – and therefor industry, which makes jobs, which makes money. Yeay economy! The combustion engine has not changed much since the modelT. I think the biggest change was injectors instead of carbs? But the engine is still the same damn thing. But aside from the engine, all that new green-tech needs to come from somewhere, might as well be America instead of China…
My mother-in-law was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 50′s. She went ahead and “retired” from work. My father-in-law retired shortly afterward and they are now doing fine. They have good insurance, and having to “pay for cancer treatment” (if they did) did not hurt them financially at all.
I had a family member who declared bankruptcy for $31K in credit card debt. No health issues at all. Total medical bills at that time? Less than $100.
I had to have back surgery 11 years ago. How much did it cost me? Nothing. Insurance paid for EVERYTHING. I didn’t even have a co-pay for that.
Combustion engines are more fuel efficient with less emissions now than ever before. Plus, the sensors and OBD2 make maintenance a breeze.
I think that petroluem should be used for motor oil and gasoline only. It seems stupid to heat a home by burning oil.
Technology exists for internal combustion engines to run like they do now on alcohol-based fuel, but the oil companies will never let it see the light of day.
“Smart Car”? What a piece of CRAP! It does not stand a chance against my Explorer in a collision. Plus, there will be traffic jams because someone forgot to plug it in last night..
Plus – the US, can build cars as good as, or better than, Japan, but the car companies have to get out of bed with the oil companies and the unions first.
@Nash – Wow, you’re just right where Fox wants you, huh.
“Clinton New Network?” Wow. My personal input channels are CSpan, CNN, MSNBC, the WSJ, several conservative and liberal blogs and feeds and most importantly, the APWire.
Dood – you should try some real news rather than Fox. There isn’t a reputable news organization in the world that recognizes them as anything other than rightwing water bearers.
@ CC expenses and bankruptcy: try facts that exist outside your personal experience. Since there are in excess of 300MM people in the US, your personal experience and opinions of credit card debt are utterly immaterial. You are simply wrong about why people have unexpected massive expense. It’s not a big-screen TV. That is some really opinionated and uneducated baloney.
@ Ultraliberal: man you are a mess. There are barely any real liberals, much less any real extremes in Congress today. The conservatives have moved the bar so far to the right that middle of the road is seen as liberal.
@ healthcare is not a right: no, neither is a fire department, police department, schooling or roads. Yet, we seem them as a requirement to promote the common welfare (another Constitutional tenet). Being alive and healthy is in fact a component of liberty, which is what our country is about. You cannot pursue/enjoy liberty if your future is governed by a cruel and fickle mistress known as health expense and insurance costs.
@ Cars: This is a common misconception. Do not mistake weight for safety. The Smart is designed more like a formula racer: safe inner cage with everything else sacrificial. Hit it hard, it will bounce and fly, rather than site there and let you plow through it. Same as the Mini Cooper. Safety is gauged by how many people survive an impact, not how much you might imagine that the weight or your car protects you.
That said, I have no problem with an Explorer – one of my cars is considerably larger than that – when the mission calls for a big car, then that’s what you must get. But to dismiss the notion of cleaner running cars, particularly when it means that we can increase national security by decreasing our reliance on rogue middle easter states, then it makes a lot of sense.
It seems to me that you’re just an angry conservative that has no sense of any part of the world other than yourself – your car, your credit cards, your experience of bankruptcy, your notion of no global warming … you should get out more.
@ Nuts – agree re. CC debt – I’m responsible for a lot lot lot of unsecured debt at the moment.
@ global warming – this is becoming a silly issue. Even the most staunch opponents do not disagree that it is happening, only how, why and what the solutions are. In fact, the Ann Coulter community is now starting to say that it is a good thing. Except when it’s not, and they blame Obama for it.
please stop with the “i have an example” crap.
Of course you can find examples to prove anything someone says as wrong. But its pointless. It does nothing to improve the conversation.
I have plenty of examples of people who didn’t go bankrupt because of med bills, and people who did.
Good for your motherinlaw, she had health insurance. If she hadn’t, she be dead or broke or both. She didn’t have to pay for it, or mortgage the house to. She also luckily didnt get dropped in the middle, so Im guessing early stage breast cancer…
yes there are thousands of people who go bankrupt from buying too much shit. Of course. But that is not the majority, only a minor contributor to the numbers. MOST people go bankrupt due to LARGE UNFORSEEN EXPENSES. The NUMBER 1 unforseen large expense is…. MEDICAL. Again, YOU had INSURANCE and didnt get dropped in the middle.
Your engine comments are just ignorant and silly. Other than the fact that fuel economy has improved at a staggeringly slow rate over the past 30 years of 0.7% a year for Domestic cars, and 0% for imports, there has been no change in tech. The 0% for imports btw is because they have always been at the high standard… go figure?
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
Smart car, although i agree is a bit silly, is actually one of the safest cars on the road. Your explorer will roll and kill you. But of course, you will never believe that, so no point.
I believe we’ve already established that “facts” are simply an irritating speed bump that are immaterial to the discussion at hand, Nuts.
This is just a classic conservative position: I know what I KNOW and facts, the general populace or things in school have nothing to with with what’s right ‘n wrong.
It is really too bad that critical thinking is no longer a valued effort, or that angry sheeple simply accept what they are told without employing it. Too bad indeed.
Typical liberal apptempt at defense.
But, I digress…
I do NOT watch or listen to Fox.
CNN (Clinton News Network) and MSNBC are the most liberal, left-winf Obama-mania media there is.
Only liberals think that Fox isn’t reputable.
But, I do not watch any cable news channels regularly, only local.
I am not wrong.
Are you claiming that EVERY American is in debt SOLELY because of medical expenses?
I think not.
Are you kidding me?
Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and PresBO. I hope no one gets any more liberal than that!
From a country founded by tabacco farmers, and unhealthy product?
I cannot enjoy my Pursuit of Happiness because of a liberty-stealing, socialist President and Congress. I guess the Constitution authorizes me to eradicate them?
I agree.
Drill here and drill now.
Do not rely on “Golf Cart Technology”.
I am not a Conservative.
If someone said that to you, you would call it “Hate Speech”..
The consevatives are wrong on abortion and stem cell research, but correct on everything else.
I also do not agree with them on taxation. I feel that the Buffets and Gates’ of this country should pay more in taxes, because the working middle-class, the backbone of this country, should be given the biggest breaks.
Typical conservative avoidance of the real issues.
MSNBC for Olbermann, Rachel and Ed Shultz are very liberal. The API is an unaliged newsfeed. The WSJ is an acknowledged conservative source. I read The Nation feed which is damn conservative. Good luck trying to assert that I’m unread.
LOL. Only the ill-informed, uneducated or neo-conservative think that it IS news.
LOL Never did any such thing. And I am not claiming it: it is a well known FACT that the single largest reason, the majority reason in fact, for people to go bankrupt is because of unexpected medical bills. Not everyone. C’mon man.
Your notion of Liberal is skewed hard left. Ted Kennedy is a Liberal along the lines of his brother, Jack. He is not a socialist or anything even REMOTELY radical, unlike the so-called conservative right – the radical fundamentalists that are screwing up our country. Hillary is no liberal at all. John Kerry is somewhat liberal, but more of a wet napkin.
Barack Obama has yet to prove to me that he is any kind of liberal at all. Thus far, he has proven himself to be unaligned and deeply in love with the middle of the road. So much so that it’s beginning to piss me off.
Oooo, nice argument. Since we’ve farmed for tobacco, there’s no reason for us to now be healthy. Sounds good. Brilliant.
And where, exactly, praytell are your liberties being stolen? Where exactly is this socialism that you speak of? And what exactly has it done to harm you? Besides pissing you off for reasons that are unclear, un-factual and made up? Currently, we are finding out that the previous administration was wiretapping you without a warrant. Now that is being exposed as the crime that it was. So you have LESS liberty now that this is being exposed? How exactly is your pursuit of happiness being squelched by our current government?
Hmm. Thought so.
You should enroll in the flat earth society. It’s filled with lots of people that have no understand that the world has changed, and is changing. Or perhaps you could go for a stroll in La Brea, California where lots of your compatriots have been preserved. Oil is old world, damaging our planet and a crappy, unrenewable source. Wherever we drill we ruin over time. If we continue to pull on that resource without building other ways of powering our ever-more-energy-hungry nation we will be caught with our pants down and will have to pay the highest bidder, which at this point is starting to look frighteningly like China.
Golf cart? I think not. Check this out: http://www.teslamotors.com/
ROFLMAO – you sling “Liberal” around like it’s a 4 letter word. Liberals and progressives have been dealing with the idiocy of your type of position and the foul-mouthed aspersions that come with it for decades now. Don’t even TRY to color the argument that calling you an angry conservative is in some way “Hate Speech” or that it’s somehow hurtful. That’s just a lie.
Ugh. here were go again with another tard that insists on purporting intelligence, yet continually misrepresents what his opponent says.
Its tiring really.
Nash, at no time did anyone here say EVERYONE, except of course YOU. We are speaking of statistics, which contains AVERAGES and PERCENTAGES.
Noone said its the ONLY cause either, nor was it implied. It is the MAJOR cause. That means that there are plenty of folks going bankrupt without medical costs, and there are plenty where its only a small part, but the MAJORITY go bankrupt with medical bills being the primary contributor.
You can get all semantic if you choose. Sure they might have been able to cover the $11k in med bills if they hadnt bought those extra things like a TV, but that is an unrealistic requirement, and irrelevant when you are talking about the majority of medical bankruptcies.
The problem is that we are arguing about something that is only quantifiable through opinion. But the best-effort studies of bankruptcy agree that medical expense is the leading cause, accounting for 45%-75% percent of cases (depending on the study). And even then the next biggest cause only accounts for about 20%.
I can provide you URLs from FINANCIAL sites which are notoriously conservative till the cows come home.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aolabyFcYBVY
Really? I suppose you have stats to back it up?
I am willing to bet that you say that only because they are capable of exposing your propoganda.
HOW are they “screwing up” the country? By trying to uphold decency?
If that’s true, that’s a good thing.
As I have pointed out, neither the Right or the Left is correct. The Common Sense is in the middle ground.
PresBO requiring people to take his insurance plan, which does not include him, as he has it pretty good where he is
Also, telling GM what cars they can build; telling AIG how much they can pay their executives; and, if he has his way, he’ll be trying to take my gun away, leaving me defenseless.
PresBO also believes that I should pay more in taxes to support LaKeisha and her 4 kids by different fathers because she doesn’t want to work.
So? I have nothing to hide, so I’m not wooried. If it helps to prevent a crime, I’m all for it.
It has to do with intent. If he was doing it to get my PINs, we’d have a problem.
This planet has withstood meteors and all kinds of natural disasters. Plastic bags and oil rigs won’t make a freaking dent.
To me, it is.
They’re all a bunch of bed-wetting, tree-hugging, same sex-marrying, Cindy Sheehan loving, God-hating, Kumbaya-signing, free-loving, herpes-spreading moonbats.
Ah, starting to get the picture now. So YOUR notion of decency is correct, eh? Do you hold any understanding at all for people that view things differently that you? Sorry, rhetorical question. I know the answer to that.
No such thing. Propaganda and false. Try reading.
Has done no such thing. Has said simply if they didn’t come up with a plan that would make the business sustainable, then he was not loaning any taxpayer dollars to it. The only edict he made was to have the current CEO retire, who was a dinosaur. Other than that, his policy has simply been: if you want the government’s help (which they did, desperately) which in reality is the taxpayer’s dollars, then you’d best have a plan to pay us back, or you’re getting dick. They did, so he did, and the company is now looking like it might have a chance. You’re pretty spectacularly uninformed Nash.
Again: he said if you want tax payer dollars, then you cannot pay your executives an exhorbitant amount while we all get the shit end of the stick. Sounds like he’s sticking up for my money pretty nicely, actually.
First off, if you think your gun is going to defend you then you are from another era. When the attack comes, it will be electonic, it will be swift and you won’t even know what hit you. Your gun will only be good for you to kill yourself since they have absconded with your identity, money, everything. Personally, I prefer to get smart and make sure they can’t take my real value.
Oh, and BTW: Barack Obama made it perfectly clear that we should be able to create laws that honor Montana’s people’s desire to have all the guns they want, with the ghettos of Philadelphia having a lot more control, which is what they want also. He believes that the Second Amendment can be upheld and protected and still give people what they want by locale and demographics. You don’t really know anything at all, do you?
Ah, and now the racism comes to the front. Actually, the fact that I have to pay for clean air to keep you alive is considerably more offensive to me, the more I hear from you. There is clearly no point discussing this with you because you are irrational, fearful and bigoted.
Again, vastly incorrect. When the government decides that it can violate our laws for its own benefit, we all lose BIG TIME. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin. He was one of the founding fathers. Cool dood. He and Jefferson were also extreme Liberals. Did you know that our country was built on Liberal values? Heh. Thought not.
And we finally get to it. Thank you for demonstrating just exactly how intelligent you and your ilk are. I appreciate it.
At least all the cards are on the table now
Decency is constant. It is not subjective. It is a matter of common sense.
That is a matter of opinion. That should be a business decision, not a government one.
You cannot atract executive talent if the government stes salary restrictions.
So, you admit that PresBO is running GM now.
Your hypocrisy is appaling.
A President wanting to use surveillance to look for Al Qaeda is infringing on liberties, but if your President wants to take over a private business, that’s fine.
You want to talk racism?
Jeremiah Wright. HUGE racist. Apparently that’s okay, but a Republican Mormon is not.
I admit that the Republicans have lost their way. They lost Senate seats beacause they act too much like liberals.
They need to get back to their Reagan Conservative roots.
One reason that Iran and South Korea are starting to show their butts is because they know you have a wishy-washy president. We all should remember the day that Iran IMMEDIATELY relased the American hostages as soon as Reagan was inauguarated.
But, to get back on-topic…
The major problems with health care are the high premiums and the possibility of being dropped. However, there is now perfect system.
And, if there were, the (current) government would screw it up.
Decency is no more constant than the wind. Try doing the teensiest amount of research simply about the bible and how the changing times changed what adherents considered “decent.” You’ll find that all religions, all people over history immemorable have changed their notions of decency to fit the contemporary thinking. Or the political wind. For example: not too long ago, in a land across the pond, it was completely decent for people to round up jews, gays, gypsies or people that didn’t like the Third Reich and imprison, torture and kill them. Not only decent, it was The Right Thing To Do. Here in the colonies (before we were The United States) a common punishment for people accused of witchcraft was for them to be drawn and quartered. Alternately, they could be hung upside down and sawn in half, starting at the groin and working down. They were upside down so that blood would stay in their head and keep them conscious for as long as possible. Today, in pockets of Mormon fundamentalism it is not only decent but completely normal and the right way of things for a man to take as many wives as he can handle, even as young as 13 years old. Yeah man, decency. I’m right with you.
@ Business: Your statements completely avoid the most important issue re. business and taxpayer dollars: they could really easily have said, “I want none of your money,” gone bankrupt and that would be it. Welcome to The American Way. But no, they wanted a loan to stay in business (arguably, a good thing for what once was the largest corporation in the world) and there are rules for that. Now if you choose to lend money without any rules, structures, outlines for repayment etc that is your business. But since the administration and Congress are acting on behalf of the American people (and their tax dollars) the rules make sense. “Attracting executive talent” is also difficult if your out of business Nash. That’s very silly.
LOL at “my hypocrisy.” If all you want to argue is words that you stuff into other people’s mouths, then there’s little to talk about. Our president wanting to take over private business? Good lord you’re misguided. Unfortunately, since I am arguing facts and you are arguing talking points, anger and opinion, there’s little we’re going to find common ground on.
@Reagan, Iran, South Korea: History and geopolitics also seems to be a challenge for you. You might want to start with something easier, say, local elections for the Kiwanis club before you step into that arena – it’s just going to be too complicated for you to understand.
On reading back the comments so far, I’d like to again commend you on demonstrating just exactly how silly and flapping your arguments are, and that of your ilk. I particularly loved the Jeremiah Wright injection, as if I’d said any such thing. It becomes clearer with every word that you listen/read simply the angry and hateful things that must appeal to a person like you (clearly, anyone that would consider Liberals to be bed-wetters and all the other crap you slung is no example of either compassion or understanding) seem to enjoy. It probably soothes you to be among others of similar anger.
And with that, back on topic. So, you’re saying that Medicare and TriCare (the military’s medicare for folks on active duty) is a total screw up. I suppose it would all be better if it was privatized, yes? Tell you what: you come back with stats from a reputable source claiming that people on Medicare are unhappy or dissatisfied and we’ll talk. Until then, your opinions on the matter are utterly meaningless.
So, there’s no point in even trying?
I would think that we have evolved to a point where we are smart enough to know what’s “decent” and what is not.
We have laws against murder, rape, and theft. That’s a start. How about raising our children with morality and self-respect. How about teaching abstinence instead of, “You’re going to do it anyway, so here’s a condom”. How about teaching self-reliance instead of depending on the government to make your decisions.
Do you REALLY think that Obama is the best thing to happen to this country since JFK? Do you REALLY see President Bush, Ronald Reagan, John McCain or Sarah Palin as “the enemy”, standing for everything that’s bad about this country?
“Medicare For All?” Is that the plan?
A survey also indicated that ninety percent of seniors were happy with the number of medicines their individual plan covered, and eighty-five percent felt their overall costs were manageable. Eighty-one percent of seniors said that they would most likely stick with their current drug plan for the coming year.
I am happier than that with my current plan.
Even for the White Hairs, it’s about to go broke. Plus, if you are not “vested” with 40 quarters will have to pay $233 per month, and a $1068 co-pay for hospital stays up to 30 days, and $276 PER DAY after that.
How are we going to pay for this?
Oh, that’s right – Tax and Spend.
You think that there’s no such thing as “too much taxes”, right?
@Decency: The problem is, yet again that decency is defined by cultural norm. What Muslims think is decent is different than you. And that’s why it cannot be made into policy. When you talk about murder rape and theft it has nothing to do with decency, it has to do with Liberty. The real law of the land should be clarified into, you can do WTF you want, provided your liberties do not impose on mine. Ergo, murder, rape and theft impose on me and my possessions, they should be against the law to keep society sorted out. But these efforts have nothing to do with “decency.”
You just need me to say all kinds of stuff to make your argument, huh? When did I say BO was the best thing since JFK FFS? I will tell you he’s the best thing to come along in the last 30 years, but that still is not a terribly high bar. I have no idea yet what kind of president he will be. I am really willing to give him a chance because I think his heart is in the right place. But his actual effectiveness is yet to be demonstrated.
@Reagan, Bush, McCain and Palin: They are not my enemy, they are the enemy of the middle class. In Palin’s case, she is not smart enough to be grouped in with the other 3. They would be just fine with a socially caste society where the rich get richer and the poor cannot reach up and out. Their philosophies are contrary to the essence of what our country was founded on. Thomas Jefferson is shitting a donut in heaven, looking at what the Neocons have done to our country.
@Medicare/Drugs: where do you get your numbers? Sounds to me like you’re pretty young. But yes, even Medicare needs to be reworked to make sure that it is solvent into the future.
@Too much taxes – your attitudes are a product of the right wing. It is vital for us to pay enough tax for us to provide for the commons – the things that overlap between us and make sure that our society is strong, vibrant and healthy. This means fire departments, police departments, roads, bridges, research for medicines, teachers and yes, health care. The right wing wants all the benefits of what we pay for without paying for any of it.
Oh yeah – your people are also fine with a war that is “off book” and nation building. so you’re fine with spending money on other people’s schools, but not ours. If your side is so concerned about the budget and spending, where the fuck were you for the last 8 years? Oh, right. Rubber stamping everything that Bush wanted, regardless of cost.
Who gives a flying sonut about “cultural norm”? We need to establish ourselves in that regard as other countries have. Use a little common sense! Some people think being in a gang is a good thing. The are wrong, and we need to establish that.
This nation was built on Chrstianity, not Islam.
Reagan is the best President to come along in my lifetime. He even had Dems loving him. He had the experience and the wits to leave the Democratic party.
Palin is a lot smarter (and more experienced that your president), but the Obama-Mania media wouldn’t give her a chance.
They would have crucified her if she had friends like Ayers, Rezco, Dorn or Wright.
Contrary to your opinion, I do research.
I have acknowledged that the Reps ruined themselves by acting like Dems, especially in the spending department.
Besides – that was the Democrat-controlled Congress’ fault.
WOW! Amazing!
Let’s see: we’re a Christian country rather than a country based on religious freedom, Palin was smart and the Obama-controlled media wouldn’t give her a chance and the Dem’s were in control during George Bush’s administration.
It’s a bullshit trifecta!
Now, at your 3rd point: if you really did any research at all, you’d know that all three of your other points are not only wrong, they are spectacularly wrong.
We are a country that is supposed to have the utter separation of church and state. Your notion of religion, spirituality, decency etc have no business in my life, behaviors or actions. If you see me exercising my liberites at the cost of another’s, then you’re in the right. But other than that, forget about it. Take a civics class and learn about what our country was *really* founded upon.
Sarah Palin is a self absorbed, self interested power hungry yahoo that got really really lucky to be on the stage she flew up to during the McCain campaign. She would never be anywhere near the popularity she is at had she not lucked into it. The Repubs will never let her win a primary because even they are not stupid enough to have that airhead in charge of the white house.
@Dem controlled congress: man you really need to check your facts. The dems were outnumbered for 7 of Bush’s 8 years – only the last one did they have a simple majority – which is almost useless in this hyper-partisan time.
And at the moment I see them exhibiting a deplorable lack of balls: they should be taking the mandate they got from the popular vote and kicking some neo-con ass all the way up and down the Potomac. It is the bane of Liberals existence that we think critically and challenge ideas, even if they are the right one.
It would be a lot easier to be a simpleton follower and just toe the party line like the Republicans, or regugritate the lies of the Limbaugh/Coulteresque airbags.
Much easier indeed.
We are a country FOUNDED on Christian principles. Notice the “In God We Trust” on the money? How many times is the “creator” mentioned in the Constitution and Declaration?
For the last year, yes. The “spending” was due to conservatives acting like democrats.
The same goes for PrezBO, times ten.
I think it’s dirty pool that PrezBO is trying to censor radio because they call him out.
What specific “lies” has Limbaugh told?
@In Go We Trust: e pluribus unum was around for a long time and has been a sort of colloquial phrase, but it was not until 1956 when, in Congressional record it states: “At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that ‘In God we trust’ be so designated as U.S. national motto.” It is often assumed that this was a response to the cold-war communism of the east that drove this assertion, as is the addition of one nation UNDER GOD which was added in ’56 I believe to the pledge of allegiance. Could be wrong on the actual date there.
But more importantly: when did Christianity gain an exclusive on the term, “God?” Note that the founding fathers believed that many people had a different notion of the creator and “God” and in fact, left England because the way that they wanted to celebrate God was being persecuted. So one of the founding tenets of the US is religious freedom – in other words, the LIBERTY to see religion as I see fit, or not at all. That is liberty and freedom.
@spending like democrats – you mean spending like politicians. All politicians spend – it’s just that they spend on what they want to. Reagan was a vicious spender – the so-called Star Wars program was like financial chemotherapy – it just BARELY broke the economic back of the Russians before it did us in. Don’t even go here. There is no frugality in politicians. And I don’t see that frugality, when it comes to the care and forwarding of the commons is a good thing. We need roads. Bridges. A healthy fire and police presence. Excellent teachers that help bring our youth into the future. And we need to be healthy.
@Sarah * 10 – Right. Whatever. I would’ve imagined that, as a 12 year Constitutional scholar at Harvard, and the first black president of the Harvard Law Revue he might have had some credibility as “smart” but hey, that’s up to you. You are completely entitled to your silly, but personal opinion.
@Censor radio – ROFLMAO WTF are you talking about?!?!
@Lies: We can’t even go here. Since you do not see it that way, there’ll be no discussing it. But he is a mountain of lies, and even the right wing know it – but he is too popular and so they must kneel at his feet. Pathetic.
@in god we trust
not founded on. Added after the fact.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html
@creator in constitution and DecInd
research is simple. do it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
ZERO for creator, ZERO for GOD
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
1 Creator. And it says “their Creator” not THE.
1 God. And actually, in context, it’s “Nature’s God” not yours or mine, lol
@nash
Learn to use the fucking internet for something other than just typing your fabricated horseshit into. Go to Google, search, learn, then spout your rhetoric if you still find it holds water, and feel empowered by having the information to back it up.
@Biracial. Moron. That means we’re all bi/tri/multiracial. You’re just a racist. Ex-Governor Palin quit because she could not handle the heat & stress of her job. Ex-Governor Palin is under investigation into ethics violations. Ex-Governor Palin also quit because she thinks that people will forget that she abandoned her post so that she could pursue national politics. She is a nightmare.
PrezBO is not doing anything to talk radio. That is a right wing talking point because they don’t want they’re domination of the medium exposed. The equal time act, cancelled by Reagan, ensured that a station would play both sides of the story. If it were to be reenacted (the dems in congress would like to see that, but BO has come out ambivalent) then there’d be no censorship at all. Only a requirement that a single owner cannot have hundreds of stations playing his politics without some form of political equality.
Radio censorship is one of the loudest and whiniest lies of the right wing talk circuit. I’m surprised that even you would fall for that one.
@Lies – not that I can’t prove once, it’s just that it is so continual and you won’t believe it, what’s the point? For example, tonight: he claimed that Planned Parenthood’s original purpose for existence was to “Abort non-desireable nationalities out of existence, no different than concentration camps and death camps of Nazi Germany.” See, we don’t even need to debate whether that’s a lie or not because it’s just so fantastical I am not sure if he’s joking.
But he’s not.
Rush Limbaugh is a supremely effective and verbose liar and mouthpiece for the radical right. He is the Josef Goebbels of our time. He is a national stain.
Oh, BTW – why “The USA is a laughing stock” – have you ever been outside of the US, or for that matter, even outside of your little town? Your misunderstanding of why we are not just laughed at but hated around the world (although that is beginning to ease) has nothing to do with my “Liberal circular logic” and everything to do with the presidents that you like LACK of logic. We are laughed at because you hold on to your ill-informed opinions and bigoted self interest as if it is of value. We are laughed at because we were stupid enough to hire Bush as a president, and stupid enough to allow Palin more than 10 minutes of embarrassment on TV.
We are laughed at because with voices such as Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck & Savage we demonstrate, time and time again, that we are simply stupid sheeple that can be commanded and bent by a loud enough voice.
Make no mistake: we are laughed at because of people like you.
You are so full of bullshit, I bet your eyes are brown.
EVERYTHING you just said is right out of the Liberal Bullshit Playbook.
I find it interesting that you overlooked this point:
PrezBO first said, “If you like your isurance plan, you can keep it”. Then he changed it to, “The Government will not force you to take this (health care plan).”
Yes they will.
How?
Because once his Socialized Medicine Plan is in effect, all employers will DROP their existing plan, and we will suddenly be forced to tkae it.
I just don’t understand how someone like you, presumed to be intelligent, cannot see that it is the liberals that are participating in lies, fear mongering, hate speech an hypocrisy.
Do you have PROOF that Governor Palin “can’t take the heat”? I see just the opposite.
Of course, the liberals always assume the worst simply because of the “Republican” label.
Prejudice at its worst.
I have to say, I do admire PrezBO for sticking to principle and believing that marriage is between one man and one woman. There may be hope for him yet.
I also agree with him on “looking out for” the middle class.
I also agree with giving diplomacy a chance, but with some people, it just will not work.
I also agree that the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts of the world can afford a greater share of the tax burden so that the middle class does not suffer.
I hope PrezBO can be a more “middle-of-the-road” president and find the common sense solution to our problems. I hope he gets these silly notions of gn control and wind farms out of his head.
The most disturbing thing, though, comes from the media sound bytes from Obama supporters thinking that PrezBO is going to take care of them, and because of him, they won’t have to worry about making their mortgage payments, or buying gas for their car.
This just in:
“Under the House Democrats’ plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don’t provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers’ wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
The plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
Three House committees will begin voting on the bill Thursday. Changes in the legislation are likely to satisfy a group of moderate and conservative Democrats who are withholding support.
The 1,000-page bill is unlikely to attract any Republican backing, and business groups and the insurance industry immediately assailed it as a job-killer.
The business groups also warned that the U.S. health care system could be damaged by adding a government-run insurance plan and a federal council that would make some decisions on benefits, as called for in the legislation. Thirty-one organizations signed the letter, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable representing top corporate CEOs and the National Retail Federation.
The House bill seemed unlikely to win broad backing in the Senate, where the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee was expected to finish its version of the legislation Wednesday in what was looking to be a party-line vote.”
Here are some public responses:
“Who will be defining the term “affordable”? What is affordable for one business or person is out of reach for another. It is time for people to be responsible for themselves and stop waiting on someone else to take care of them.”
“I won’t be hiring anyone with this nonsense. With my company hanging by a thread i must now pay another 8% to the employees that I don’t really need anyway? People are not spending and where is the extra 8% going to come from? It’s going to mean I’m done with trying to keep employees and get down to the bare minimum to run this place. So 8% of the employees will be immediatly be layed off and say another 25% to recoupe the unemployment I will have to pay.”
“Seems to me that when Obama was running for president he said that everyone would have the same health care that he and congress has. Are they going to give up what they have and take this wonderful plan?”
“Shouldn’t it require a Constitutional Admendment to add rights to the Constitution? Education, health care….what’s next, a car or nice home? The only rights given in the Constitution are those of life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. It guarantees the chance to make yourself into something; it does not to give you everything you might need or want.”
“First, how much is this going to cost an individual? We need to see those numbers before they sign this bill into law because the last report I saw was $300.00 per month for each individual. Secondly, 1.5 trillion for 10 years is not enough for 50 million uninsured since Medicare is costing 1 trillion for 1 year for 40 million seniors. So who will make up the difference in cost?”
Really?
So, Jimmy Carter had more “logic” than Ronald Reagan?
Or, are you saying that just because I “like” them, they lack logic?
Have you checked Presidential Approval Ratings?
GWB’s was higher almost a year into his presidency that PrezBO’s in hos first month (his highest peak).
Ill informed?
I do not read Fox News or CNN. I lesten to/read local news.
Bigoted? Are you serious? Because I don’t like liberals??
So, the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS are stupid, because they don’t agree with you?
Besides, Biden has made a bigger fool of himself than Palin has.
I know the names, but I do not listen to any of those. I have heard Neal Boortz, as he is on our local radio.
Why is there no “Liberal Talk Radio”?
Why did “Airhead America” fail?
Could it be that Americans see through the BS and just don’t want to hear that crap??
That applies to the people that lived off of the PrezBO sound bytes during the presidential campaign.
Excellent example, thanks…
Given what you say and the quotes you state, and the fact that you listen to local radio only, it is clear you must live in a very conservative, bible centric area of our country. So essentially you’ve created a tidy little bubble from which you can avoid facts and stats other than what you are fed by the local media.
So allow me assist you.
@ The Health Plan: the 1.5T mark is an extrapolation by certain sources, not what is called for in the bill at all. Every effort at the moment is to making the total cost of the bill under 1T and for it to be “revenue neutral” – in other words, not to increase the deficit at all by imposing it. This will take some hard choices and make some people unhappy. The currently proposed bill is not a complete public option at all. A boss will not just be able to dump you (unless the total income for the business is less than 250K/year, in which case he will be exempt because it is too expensive). You example is simply not true … given what the bill looks like today. Should they change that radically, or we go to a complete public option (which I am utterly in favor of) then things will be different.
@ Obama “taking care of people” I could care less what nutjobs say about what he’s going to do, his actions speak louder than their words. The way that he is “taking care of us” is by simply exposing the problems we currently have, and forcing people to take care of them. His tenor and actions have been consistent and strong (at least in this area).
@ Bigoted: you bring up race way too much for it not to be an issue for you.
@ Majority of Americans re. Palin: Here again, you are simply mislead. For people that identify themselves as Republican she currently has a 60% approval rating (ish, it moves all the time). However for the general electorate, and because the Republican party has shrunk so much of late, she has a less than 30% approval rating. Although she has seen a slight bump lately, her overall numbers declined sharply and are still on the way down.
@ no Liberal Talk Radio – there is. But it is not supported the way that conservative radio is on the stations that are owned en masse … so folks like Murdoch can flood the airwaves with political drivel while squelching liberal radio. This is a well known tactic and has been successfully implemented since about 1984. Liberal talk struggles because it does not get network support.
@ Air America: Failed? Did something happen today that I don’t know about? Because I listen to Air America every day when I’m driving about to see clients. I require it to get past the stomach ache I get when listening to Rush. Thankfully, because more and more people are finding that the Republican party and the shrill right wing agitators do nor represent them, networks like Air America are getting more play on stations like AM 1090 in Seattle, which is what I listen to.
@ PrezBO sound bytes: here’s the problem with your argument: hate and anger sells a lot better than live and let live. It sounds to me like the only way you are not afraid is if your politicians are hawkish and paranoid. In that light, I can see how a message of peace and balance would be frightening for you.
@ BD re. post #35 – sorry mate, didn’t check for spam comments yesterday, you got lumped in because of the number of links. Posted now.
Note to Nash: read his post and follow the links. The research will do you good.
Wrong again.
I am now in a “Red State”.
I get National News from local TV & radio affiliates.
I sometimes click on CNN.com and/or FoxNews.com. I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Really?
Even the Dems have admitted that they do not know how they are going to pay for it.
I bet they cut some from Medicare/Medicaid.
Here are some other issues with it:
Medicare and Medicaid are already operating in the red;
No one knows how much it will cost;
There are penalties for employers and employees if they disregard the mandate.
I brought up race twice – once, to describe a real problem that we have here and other inner cities, and the other to correct the common misconseption about PrezBO’s heritage.
I was referring that the majority of Americans like GWB and elected him to a second term.
I wonder why?
To get network support, you need to attract advertisers. To attract advertisers, you need listeners.
Actually, I misspoke there.
I was referring to the bankruptcy, Garafalo, Rhodes and Franken leaving, Malloy being fired, the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club controversy, and several stations dropping their programming.
There is no problem with it.
People heard the “Change We Can Believe In”, and fell for the media blitz like good little Sheeple.
Learn to use the fucking internet for something other than just typing your fabricated horseshit into. Go to Google, search, learn, then spout your rhetoric if you still find it holds water, and feel empowered by having the information to back it up.
Hey, dumbass…
1) Who the fuck do you think “their Creator” refers to?
2) If YOU do research, you will find that words like “God” and “Lord” were in the original drafts, and later edited.
3) “Google” and the Internet in general are not fool-proof resources. Anyone can put out a website and claim that their horseshit is fact. This website is a prime example.
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
June 16, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: The administration uses the “46 million uninsured” as a reason to nationalize health care. But the Census Bureau says about a fifth of those aren’t U.S. citizens. In fact, a goodly number are illegal aliens.
IBD Exclusive Series: Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure
At a town hall meeting in Green Bay, Wis., last week, President Obama spoke of the need to cover the “46 million people who don’t have health insurance.” At another point he simply referred to the “46 million uninsured.” At neither point did he refer to them as “Americans.”
That was wise, because not all them are, the Census Bureau says.
According to “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States,” a Census Bureau report published last August, of the 45.6 million persons in the U.S. that did not have health insurance at some point in 2007, 9.7 million, or about 21%, were not U.S. citizens.
The Census Bureau does not ask if anyone is here legally or illegally, so we can’t tell how many are actually illegal aliens. We do know that throughout the Southwest and elsewhere, emergency rooms have been overburdened by a continuous flood of illegal aliens.
Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more.
The notion that the uninsured are without health care is bogus, as well. They consumed an estimated $116 billion worth of health care in 2008, according to the advocacy group Families USA. Many of the uninsured are young and healthy (40% are between ages 18 and 34) and at this point in their lives, particularly in this economy, choose to put their dollars elsewhere.
Subtract noncitizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, and the number of uninsured falls dramatically. “Many Americans are uninsured by choice,” wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book “The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care.”
Gratzer cited a study of the “non-poor uninsured” from the California HealthCare Foundation.
“Why the lack of insurance (among people who own homes and computers)?” Gratzer asks. “One clue is that 60% reported being in excellent health or very good health.”
The uninsured are not always the same people, and many are without coverage only for a relatively short time. Devon Herrick, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, notes that “Being uninsured is a transitory state, since most uninsured Americans are only without coverage for a short time.”
Herrick is backed up by the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, which found a few years ago that only 19 million Americans go without insurance for a full year.
If the problem is the high cost of health care, there are private sector solutions the Democrats are ignoring. Some sensible ideas include ending costly one-size-fits-all mandates that drive up insurance premiums and lifting the ban on shopping for coverage nationally, allowing consumers to cross state lines to find the best deal.
Health savings accounts are another practical solution that is being dismissed by the Democrats. An HSA is an individually owned tax-exempt account that can be used to pay for routine treatment, including drugs, dental care and eyeglasses. There are no restrictions on choices of doctors, specialists, hospitals or tests.
People would be not just patients but consumers. Since HSAs are personal savings accounts, they encourage preventive care, since money not spent on illness is money that grows and accumulates. There is both a financial incentive to stay healthy and a nest egg of savings, should major illness arise. HSA funds can be used to pay health insurance premiums during job transition. They are completely portable between jobs.
The issue here is not providing health care, but who controls it. We believe health care is a matter between doctor and patient, not patient and bureaucrat. Obama says his plan is to ensure “that there is an option out there for people . . . where the free market fails.”
But the free market has not failed, except when it’s been overburdened by overregulation, mandates and litigation to the point that it is no longer free. Bleeding the patient didn’t work as a medieval medical remedy. Neither will bleeding the taxpayer and using bogus numbers to justify it.
Oops –
I meant to type, “I am no longer in “Red State”…
This forus is not as sophisticated as others in regard to editing…
Hmm. You don’t listen to Fox or CNN, then you do. You get national news from local sources, except that earlier you say you only listen to local news. Right.
@ How we’ll pay for it: it is fair to state that the exact method of payment for the health plan has neither been finalized or completely vetted. That would be expected at this point. But the right wing, which predicted 1.5T and Obama’s administration that came back with 600BB certainly makes for a discrepancy. They’ll figure it all out, which is precisely what this political process is about.
@ Palin, majority @ GWB: Well, if you were referring to the “majority of people that elected GWB and hired him” then you are talking about a poll from 5 or more years ago. That would hardly apply to an election a year ago, and certainly would have nothing to do with the fact that she is seen as just a fart in the wind by the relatively vast majority of Americans today. As they should. So I guess we can agree that your statistic and assertion is just completely bullshit.
@ Liberal radio: If there are is no liberal program on a station, then they cannot attract advertisers. The independent stations that play liberal talk today are doing well and have plenty advertisers – if Murdoch et al were to allow more time they’d be not just fine, but in fact probably very profitable. But this is not about profit through the radio, it’s about using the radio to change the attitudes of the people so that he (and the like) can profit more fantastically through their holdings in insurance, banking etc. Radio is only the medium and tool used to propagandize the positions of those that will benefit from the continuance of the status quo.
@ Creator: Your belief of “The Creator” has nothing to do with mine, and that is the beauty of America. Their Creator literally means “how I interpret creation” not a Christian God. This is a common prejudice and simply a distortion of history. And BTW, why do you think that they were edited? You’d do well to research that. Or not. It might mess with your head too much.
@ Google and this website: Well, I don’t claim to be a fact source, but I do quote from factual sources. My point here is to get people thinking, and you are a perfect assistant. You see, you argue from the position of well-worn neo-conservative talking points and topical ignorance, blended with some truthful-sounding talking points from (whatever the heck it is you watch/listen to). It’s a typical position for people that really don’t do any research, or don’t have a wide band of information coming in at them to distilled via critical thinking and fact verification.
It’s not that your unpatriotic or necessarily unschooled, its just that the arguments from the angry right appeal to you and you let them run in your psyche. Fair enough: they are built to do exactly that. It’s just unfortunate that you take them upon face value and do not question the intention or motivation behind them. We do here. We do not take liberal stances or Obama’s assertions at face value at all: things that I talk about have been vetted to my own satisfaction until I agree or not with them.
Congratulations on your move. I am surrounded by Red here in Arizona and it’s frustrating.
Just give it up guys.
He’s obviously either a troll or one of the stupidest people I’ve ever had the displeasure of witnessing. When you present hard facts, he puts his fingers in his ears and yells “NYAAAAHH NYAAAAHH!!!”. Look up there where he ignores your stats on medical debt with his insipid comment about credit cards. It takes a very strong will to be this ignorant, and it takes a stupendous amount of arrogance and utter contempt for your audience to fail to even vaguely address any of the arguments of your fellows.
I think I might have gotten just a little bit dumber each time I read one of Nash’s comments, and that’s completely ignoring the innumerable spelling and grammatical errors. I have enough respect for the people reading this paragraph not to waste your time with barely legible drivel.
I think “Their Creator” probably refers to Joe Pesci.
I have scientific evidence for this, in that George Carlin told me that he prays to Joe Pesci.
I yield.
Nash. My point about google was to research. Google is NOT a source of information, it is a path to it. So I agree with you 100%, but of course, you assumed otherwise, instead of actually understanding my statement.
the sites I list are usually THE authority or as close as one can get. You honestly going to tell me that constitution.net, history.org and treasury department websites are not fact? These are not just some average joe tossing spam out there.
@drafts. lol. nothing more to say. You said the constitution and DecInd, not drafts. The drafters realized the error in making it to God-ie, so it was finalized to be what it is now.
@Their Creator.
Shiva? Hebrew God? Christian God? Gaia? Klaxon from the Planet ZOR? Comet #20837? Don’t be so narrow of thought.
Uhboy. That’ll take some doing.
New player, Traci Li posts an investors’ business daily article. Tricky there, quite tricky. Well structured information that creates a different reality. I think there’s some confusing ink there.
Being a business-oriented publication, I believe we can assume what their perspective and position would be, but I will follow some of the references as see what I see as well.
A link to the story by Tracy Li can be found here: http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=330042258549199
I don’t agree that it’s well a structured article. Let’s pick it apart:
“Health Care: The administration uses the “46 million uninsured” as a reason to nationalize health care. But the Census Bureau says about a fifth of those aren’t U.S. citizens. In fact, a goodly number are illegal aliens.”
Does this red herring about non-citizens make it any less important for America to provide health insurance for the uninsured citizens who need it?
And do we want the children of those non-citizens to have no health care as they go to school with all the rest of our children?
And why do groups like Investor’s Business Daily care only about ‘illegal aliens’ when it comes to paying for their health care? If they really wanted them out of this country, the business community could do more to police themselves to ensure they don’t hire illegals. But the truth is, they want cheap labor, and don’t want to have to pay for health care for workers. I have no sympathy for a business community that is crying about illegals because they are the ones who have hired them in the first place.
“We do know that throughout the Southwest and elsewhere, emergency rooms have been overburdened by a continuous flood of illegal aliens.”
If these people had access to a general practitioner, costs would be cut in visits to the emergency room.
“Also among the uninsured are 17 million Americans who live in households where the annual income exceeds $50,000; 7 million of those without coverage have incomes of $75,000 a year or more.”
A household income of $50,000 is not exactly rolling in cash to the point where you can afford the cost of health care without insurance. Even $75,000 isn’t a lot if you have to pay for certain medications or have surgery or other medical needs to tend to.
“Many of the uninsured are young and healthy (40% are between ages 18 and 34) and at this point in their lives, particularly in this economy, choose to put their dollars elsewhere.”
What an absolute bullshit argument to make. Young people between 18 and 34 usually don’t have “dollars to put elsewhere”. Young people today are struggling with debt just to get by and start their careers and in this economy, they are the first to get laid off and are being hit harder than the rest of us. They don’t get health insurance because they need to get through college or need to start a career and get set up before they can afford insurance. Young people can have health problems too, and if they don’t have health insurance, they can be in deep trouble. They often need a government safety net more than older citizens.
“Subtract noncitizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, and the number of uninsured falls dramatically.”
That supposition was not even close to proven in this article. Common sense dictates that people would choose to have health care coverage if they could afford it. Nothing in this article proved that there is a large population of people out there who just don’t want it. Just because 60% may be in good health (meaning 40% are not), does not mean that they don’t want health insurance. People who are healthy know that if they play sports they could break an arm or a leg; if they get sick, they may need to see a doctor; odd things can happen to even the healthiest people and young people can get serious health conditions that require medical care. Anyone with a brain knows that it’s risky to run around without health insurance no matter how old you are.
And this article did nothing to convince me that employers who hire non-citizens shouldn’t have to pay for their workers health insurance. It’s good public health policy for non-citizens to have healthcare (especially children) so that we can help prevent public health conditions that impact all of us. (Swine Flu and other communicable diseases do not check papers before being passed… even a libertarian should see the wisdom in protecting all of us from spreading disease)
“If the problem is the high cost of health care, there are private sector solutions the Democrats are ignoring.”
Fine. The Democrats don’t need to pursue every option out there – just the best ones, including a Public Option that creates competition among providers and forces the insurance companies to offer services at a fair rate without gouging consumers.
“The issue here is not providing health care, but who controls it. We believe health care is a matter between doctor and patient, not patient and bureaucrat.”
First, in the bill proposed by Congress today, they offer a public option that doesn’t take control away from the patient, but just provides another option for another third party to be involved if you choose it. So control isn’t the issue – this is about offering more choice. But more important, the patient and doctor are already being burdened by a third party who’s been causing them more trouble than any government bureaucrat could – and that’s insurance providers whose incentive is to make money, not to provide a service.
Tracy, you never have to use the Public Plan if you don’t want it, but I want to have the option myself. This is America and I’d like to have the freedom to choose a government option if I damn well please. And most of all, I want the public option to be offered so that it will drive down the cost of health care in general because if you remove insurance profits, the cost of healthcare will go down, and the cost of health care has been burdening this nation for too long now.
@Perkiset
“I had to do a radio show a bit ago and argue the position etc…”
A radio show? Who the hell would allow you to be on the radio? roflmao:
Serious Perk, what show? That’s pretty cool…
you sling “Liberal” around like it’s a 4 letter word.
To me, it is.
They’re all a bunch of bed-wetting, tree-hugging, same sex-marrying, Cindy Sheehan loving, God-hating, Kumbaya-signing, free-loving, herpes-spreading moonbats.
roflmao: roflmao: roflmao:
“Their Creator literally means “how I interpret creation” not a Christian God. This is a common prejudice and simply a distortion of history.”
That’s true. In fact while I was watching MSNBC yesterday I learned that all those pilgrims were actually Atheists. It’s true.
Well not all of them, the religious ones were Islamic. Anything but Christian. It’s also absolutely true that no president has ever made a positive public statement about God. Never. Not once!
They don’t open congress with a prayer either. And when you go to court it is absolutely true that there is no BIBLE in the courtroom.
It is actually a historical fact that our country has always been based on godlessness. The founders left england not because of protestant and catholic arguments but rather because they were all liberal atheists. That’s what “Freedom From Religion” means right?
It means that I can demand that religion be banned from the public square because I don’t like it! Freedom From Religion.
“”Their Creator literally means “how I interpret creation””
Yeah that’s what it means. If you look up “Our Creator” (with a Capital C)in the dictionary it says, “How I interpret creation”
I wonder what would give Nash the idea that Our Creator means God!? I mean, where on Earth could he get that from?
Everybody knows that when you spell Creator with a capital C it means, “How I interpret creation”
@God on Money
This has gone too far this time and I need to set the record straight with facts:
It was a misprint. They meant to say Dog. In Dog we trust. That’s because back then Americans put their trust in Dogs with a capital D (which means “However I interpret Dogism)
GWB was re-elected in 2004, even after the controversial 2000 election and the so-called “unpopular” war. Even though a lot of people didn’t like GWB, at least they had the common sense to see that Kerry was a lot worse.
Again, that is media portrayal.
If “The Right” has a monopoly on radio, then the Left certainly has a monopoly on TV.
I don’t know why people insist that Governor Palin is a “fart” and ignore the fact that your current VP, Mr.”Plagarized-His-Way-Through-Law-School” has had more than his share of brainless gaffs, even in the mainstream liberal media.
Yes, I am sure that that’s what the liberals have programmed you to believe.
Listen to Neal Boortz for a week, or visit his website, then report back to me anything he says that has been proven to be factually incorrect.
The liberals can be accused of the same, as all of the cable stations are liberal propoganda.
Actually, I didn’t move. The state I live in was “Red” for a long time and suddenly started voting “Blue”. Very frustrating. For a long time, we were free thinkers, but the majority of residents all of a sudden became Sheeple.
Nothing to be congratulated about.
I understand that the Left Coast kind of lives in their own little world. That’s fine. The problem is when you think that the whole country should conform to your idealogy. You claim that “The Right” are all hypocritical hater-mongers, and at the same time you are oblivious to your own party’s shortcomings and your own hate speech.
You have no credibility.
Do some research of your own.
Look back over presidential approval ratings. Everyone was so excited about PrezBO being inauguarated, but at his peak (so far), he still didn’t score as high as GWB’s peak.
You will also see that the Republican presidents average score was higher.
Jimmy Carter will always be known as the worst president at least in recent history, and Clinton is the only democrat president that I know of that has been re-elected in my lifetime (I’m in my 40′s).
To get back on-topic…
The Dems are eage to push this “Health care Bill” through ASAP because enough people are seeing through the confusion and discovering the facts about health care. The same thing happened in ’93-’94 when support for Hillary-Care went from 71 percent to 43 percent (USA Today/CNN polls, 1993, 1994).
There are not 46 million uninsured people claimed throughout the last presidential campaign. The real number is closer to 8 million people.
If the goal was to really provide health insurance for the truly uninsured, a health insurance voucher would cost $16 billion a year. If it were provided for five years, the cost would be $80 billion. So why are the president and Congress trying to find $1.5 trillion to pay for a government health care plan that will most likely end up looking like Medicare’s ugly twin sister?
There are better options than the bill in DC right now. For instance:
Allow the purchase of insurance across state lines. It is worth exploring for the sake of competition.
Expand Health Savings Accounts/ Flexible Spending Accounts.
These accounts are available at most banks and allow you to save money tax-free for current and future health care expenses. But as usual, the government has set stupid limitations and regulations. One of the best features of the HSA is that money not spent from the account in a given year can be carried over to accumulate an emergency health care fund that you control.
Imagine that – You control the money and not the government!
The answer is that it’s not about providing health insurance coverage for the uninsured. It’s about more government control, and another government bureaucracy.
Of course, we all know that PrezBO feels that the government should be the answer for everything…
The most misleading perception is that somehow our government will be able to run a completely socialized system better than any other country in the world.
BTW –
I found this little nugget…
It seems that your president agrees with President Bush on the “wiretapping” issue….
“This summer Senator Obama voted for a bill that would continue wiretapping procedures vital to the Bush administration’s war on terror and a law enforcement campaign of locating enemies within the United States. The bill provides that wiretaps found illegal by courts at a later date will still be treated as admissible evidence. The bill allows wiretapping to take place without the issuance of warrants. The legislation is a surprising and robust endorsement of President Bush’s domestic surveillance policies. Senator Obama’s vote was an important endorsement to the President’s overall agenda on terror and was a noted departure from his common legislative practice of voting “present” when confronted with difficult controversies. The vote stands as an important feather in Senator Obama’s limited bi-partisan political cap.”
“Hard facts”?
WHAT hard facts??
All I have seen are claims with no real data or examples.
Look it up.
The major causes of personal debt is loss of job, divorce, poor money management, underemployment, and gambling, in that order.
Medical expenses are WAY down on the list.
I’m not saying that personal medical expenses are not an issue. I know they are. What I am saying is that the libs exaggerate the problem, and that the current government solution is not the answer to the problem.
I have acknowledged my spelling errors.
It happens to everyone in here just as much as it happens to me. However, I believe your “grammatical” error accusation is another exaggeration.
Plus, I am on a government computer…
@Edgar: Nice to see you back, and I’m not sure if you and I are actually agreeing of you’ve just been big sarcastic.
But in any case, I thought you’d enjoy this: What does an Agnostic, Insomniac Dyslexic do?
Wait for it…
Lies awake all night, wondering about the existence of Dog.
Edgar you might want to wipe that stuff off your lips. Your argument from tradition speaks volumes.
Quite frankly the wall of separation between church and state, spoken of in the Federalist Papers, is much more to the point of your and Nash’s “Creator” argument.
Also, how about Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, where the majority of the Framers (including GW) undersigned the phrase “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
You probably won’t even answer me though, because I pointed to actual historical documents and you seem to prefer point to vague superficialities with which no one can disagree since there is no substance to your argument.
It gets old, it really does. It’s like having to explain very simple concepts over and over to a child.
@ Nash – well, I guess you listen to your facts and I’ll listen to mine. When you say, “Do your own research” I assume that means to imply that you’ve done some. Unfortunately, your posts do not show any evidence of that at all – only that you conform to what the right wing says. And now you’ll claim that I am conforming to what the left is saying. That would be incorrect. I agree with the left because, after listening to both sides of the story (pretty much everyday) and often following up one what is said (it’s often as simple as going to factcheck.org) I find that the right wing is simply trying to hang on to their vested interest in the status quo and not thinking about the benefits to the common man. They wrap their arguments in such a way that it SOUNDS like it will be good for you, but in fact, it’s just another way of screwing us out of our cash. If you follow the essential neoconservative philosophy, from Reagan till now, you will see that the motivations and mechanisms have not changed. It’s about the haves having more at the expense of anyone else.
@ debt: now you’re just being silly. You mean to tell me that job loss is a contributor to debt?
C’mon Nash. That’s just crazy talk. BTW: did you happen down any of BrainDonkey’s urls – like the us government sites? I realize you cannot trust websites, but if you trust YOUR websites, you might want to give the government data the benefit of the doubt… when you say “no hard facts” then it is simply clear that regardless of what is placed in front of you here, you will not go look at it. It’s the old “You can drag a horse to water…” argument. Your opinions are meaningless if you don’t address facts presented.
@ SFNathan – man it’s great to see you back. Excellent dissection of the article and I appreciate your time on it.
@ Edgar re. radio show: it was a health show called Knowledge is Power, centered around breast cancer, disease and treatment, but they did all kinds of ancillary stuff as well. Called me in to discuss the different health care systems around the world. It was a hoot, and I spent about 2 weeks before hand researching my brains out to make sure I was not an idiot over the airwaves. The net-net was that I am pretty solid about my healthcare opinions and facts now.
Ooooh! VS is in the house. I am always amazed by your command of historical, particularly philosophical facts, old friend. I think that you and my two brothers and I would have a ROCKING good time over a few pints.
And BD, if it happens, you’ll be the first to get dragged over here as well
Thanks Perk. Kind words.
I put great philosophical emphasis on how revolutionary the formation of the secular government of the United States was. It saddens me to see people dragging a legacy of tolerance and even respect for all religious ideas and creeds through the dirt because they have been miseducated.
At least, I hope it’s miseducation. Lack of education is correctable, it’s much harder to correct an attitude that does not want to be educated. That’s wilful ignorance, and my purpose for commentary is not to be didactic.
Facts are facts, regardless of which side presents them.
Are my facts regarding presidential approval ratings incorrect?
I’m trying to point out that 2+2=4.
You’re trying to tell that even that is a Right Wing lie.
That is a good synopsis of ObamaCare.
Nope.
Here’s the link:
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/debt/debt_manage_2004/top-10-causes.asp
People lose their job, but still have the same expenses. They use credit cards to manage. That simple.
I have not seen anything here that could be considered cold hard facts. In fact, I have been able to refute your “facts” with a little research – and got you to admit that you don’t know how much ObamaCare is going to cost or how it’s going to be paid for.
Make no mistake –
Your beloved Medicare, which you cite so often, is now operating IN THE RED.
How could ObamaCare be any different?
Oh P.S. the fall is looking good for us to come out and see you.
Probably Octoberish…I’ll let you know about any developments.
Um…
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Asarcasm&cts=1247762054380&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g4
I don’t know why you’re listening to the opinions of a guy who takes government handouts all day every day on a subject like this.
Nash *lives* on government handouts.
His viewpoint is completely biased.
Also @Nash:
I don’t know what it will cost and neither do you. I know that it won’t cost me a penny more than what I currently pay in taxes as I am fairly intelligent in organizing my assets so that in spite of the fact that my wife and I fall into the 33% tax bracket, we’ve never paid more than 10%
I’m hoping to meet up with Perks soon so that he can expand my tax knowledge arsenal. I would posit that this is a more worthwhile use of your time for you personally than trying to convince a bunch of people who can see right through you that you know more about taxes, economics, and politics than they do.
Food for thought.
It’s just a matter of common sense.
Ever visited a Kindergarten class as an adult?
There are twenty-some kids all in agreement that what’s best for them is to eat candy and have recess all day.
They resist and resent the teacher as s/he insists on structure and instruction. The kids want what they want and they think that the teacher is crazy and wrong.
Just think of me as the Kindergarten teacher. I’m trying to provide a service here.
Yeah, we’re kindergarten students. Keep telling yourself that.
Kindergarten students worth more than you’ll ever see in your lifetime. roflmao:
P.S. what are you doing right? Are you wasting your employer (the government)’s time so that you’ll get another free handout at the end of this pay period?
I’m relaxing and doing whateverthefuckIwant right now, just like I do every day.
LOL @ kindergarten teacher. Yeah Nash, you’re just a beacon of factual debate and intellect.
Your notion of what is “fact” and what is not is laughable. 2 + 2 = 4? And you want to say that the Liberals don’t get it?
Let me ask you this: when was the last time you spent 3 hours with Thom Hartmann on his radio show? I am not even going to get dragged in, yet again to your silliness because you have no competing input to your opinions. You listen/take in only what suites your personality. And no, that is not what I do. You try reading Mother Jones and The Nation in the same day. Try listening to Rush and Randi Rhodes in the same day. Listen to Thom Hartmann, arguably the most intelligent radio personality available today. And guess what: about 70% of his guests are conservatives that he debates with. It’s intelligent, thought provoking and will give you a lot more to think about, than either your church or local radio will.
Common sense? Clearly a rationed commodity here in these United States, and I can see that you’ve unfortunately been placed at the end of the line. Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Perky,
Thanks for proving my point.
You are your cronies live in your own little world.
I see now why you created this website – it’s kind of a “club” for the 5 of you to fist-bump with each other and think you’re significant.
FYI, local radio and TV carry different national news affiliates. That way, I eliminate the bias.
Our local newspaper is sickeningly liberal. In short, I get a well-balanced diet of input. It from years of that that I have learned how to sniff out the truth.
Women’s right to choose? A no-brainer, because we are endowed with liberties. When the Right Wing says that Roe V. Wade should be overturned because of what God says, that goes against separation of church and state.
My point? The same as it has been all along.
I am not a conservative and I am not a liberal. I deal with facts, not opinion.
For years I have been examining every issue realistically for what it is, and I have found that except for women’s right to choose and stem cell research, the liberals are dead wrong. They are just plain clueless.
PrezBO wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment. WTF? Does hoe not realize that our framers wrote that to be constant, and that he cannot change the Constitution at will just to suit himself?
But, I digress.
In any event, this country is going into the crapper because ultra-libs really hate America.
Can you think of any other country that would consider making burning the flag legal? If they think that this place is so F’d up, why don’t they just leave?
For the good of the country, I just hope that PrezBO will be sent packing back to Chi-Town in 3 1/2 years.
Why would you mention liberals and Obama together? He’s right of center, buddy.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
Newsflash – the conservative American Medical Association that almost single-handedly blocked the Clinton Health Care Plan just today endorsed the Obama supported health care plan approved by Congress this week. Story here:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/07/16/breaking-ama-endorses-house-bill.aspx
OMG: I live in my own little world? With the sources I quote you call this my own little world?!?!?!? And by listening only to your local affiliate you eliminate bias? You;re actually going to stand on that argument? And from years of listening to that source, you know how to sniff out the truth?
Wow. That is just simply amazing.
@ you deal with facts, not opinions: well, since you think that anything outside of your little news feed is all the facts that are necessary, I can see how you’d come to that opinion. In my little bubble called the entire rest of the globe (I also stream radio from Europe, just to get another perspective) we see things a might differently. Since you both lump liberals into the pseudo-grouping that is defined by rightwing neoconservatism (liberalism cannot be canned up the way that right wing neoconservatism can, because by its very nature and definition it is open to new ideas and debate) and also think that they are “clueless” then you make your bias and prejudice clear. Regardless of what you call or do not call yourself, you are a right wing water carrier.
Holy smokes – BO wants to do away with the second amendment? And you say you’ve done some research? Or that I’M in a bubble? Good lord. Please: find me any quote, precedent or legal action that demonstrates in the tiniest way that he is bent on eliminating the 2nd. Please. That would be delightful. And oh, BTW: newspaper op-eds and such are a no-go. Please find something that he has said, or that he has done that in even the tiniest ways proves your point.
And we finally come to it: the ultra libs hate America. And you call yourself anything other than a right-wing noise maker? Tell you what Nash: I love America more deeply than you could ever imagine, or equal. I demonstrate that by traveling around it, questioning it and working to uphold the values and principals put forth by our profoundly Liberal founding fathers. I keep the Constitution on my iPhone FFS.
Burning the flag is such a stupid strawman argument. There are no other countries on earth that have the essential tenets of free speech and freedom of expression that we have here. When we decide that some of that speech is no longer free, we will have truly surrendered what our country is about. Believe it or not, the notion of the United States is a lot larger than a flag, and certainly larger than someone burning one. If your love of country does not extend beyond the symbol of it, then you are blind and deaf to the philosophy under which it flies.
If you do not understand this, then you are simply someone who lives here and enjoys the freedom that men and women have given their lives for, and not really the patriot that you’d errantly label yourself. Although even the founding fathers understood that there would be many like you, which is why Benjamin Franklin put forth and created the first public libraries – so that knowledge would not be unattainable for the masses.
Oh, damn. Anyone can write a book, just like the internet – right? So those niggling little facts are just hooie also.
Bummer.
@ SFNathan: Wow is that news. I’m shocked and a little worried: perhaps the bill isn’t as progressive as it should be then
SFN: What do you think if it (or at least as much as we can tell)?
This is funny as hell! I can’t believe this.
I had to get my coffee ready to read all these comments. I can’t believe you guys have gotten yourselves all worked up over this.
Perk, thanks for the welcome back. Nice to see you blogging again.
Now, I have to say that Nash is being treated unfairly here. You guys are too angry and emotional for anyone to take you seriously.
Stick to the topic and stop with all the name calling:hater, angry, bigoted etc… it’s a constant effort at misdirection. Why misdirect the argument unless you want to steer it away from where it might end up?
@Drew
“Edgar you might want to wipe that stuff off your lips. Your argument from tradition speaks volumes.”
Just remarking on our cultural history. I’m not arguing from tradition Sloathey.
“Quite frankly the wall of separation between church and state, spoken of in the Federalist Papers, is much more to the point of your and Nash’s “Creator” argument.”
Side Stepping the constitution now…
“Also, how about Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, where the majority of the Framers (including GW) undersigned the phrase “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
I’m speaking more in a cultural sense. Cultural and historical.
@Perk
“But in any case, I thought you’d enjoy this: What does an Agnostic, Insomniac Dyslexic do?
Wait for it…
Lies awake all night, wondering about the existence of Dog.”
LMAO! That WAS funny, thanks.
@Perk: The New Republic article I linked has what they think was the deal-maker for the AMA.
What Congress was willing to give to the AMA in exchange for their support of the Health Care Plan (including a Public Option), was revising the Sustainable Growth Rate formula for Medicare. From a liberal perspective, I think that works for us. It just means medical service providers will be paid more under Medicare and the new Health Care Plan. The programs will become more expensive, but still will be far less expensive for consumers than private insurance.
@Edgar, anger and emotion: it is difficult not to when, under the guise of patriotism, one would cast aspersions upon the very foundations of the country they claim to love and then, do it with false facts and arguments.
BTW – did you catch where Nash called me (well, Liberals in general) a bedwetter etc etc etc…? and whom, exactly is overly emotional or moving away from the argument? LOL
@ religion and politics: They do not belong together. Period. It’s one of the best parts of our country. And recently, one of the most misunderstood and forgotten. It is impossible to have a logical, cold and socially oriented debate when someone drags in the magical voodoo of religion and faith.
I am totally unaccustomed to it, so I am as yet unsure if we are agreeing Edgar ROFLMAO but it sure looks like it
@SFNate: so the medicare rates paid to doctors will be more in line with inflation? Is that what you are saying? That would be an excellent step forward and probably eliminate a large portion of doctor angst for it if so…
@Perk – what I think of it? It seems to me like we are on the verge of passing something close to passing a public health care option that would be an option alongside private insurance coverage options (as opposed to a single payer option like the one in Canada).
I think in America, this is the right approach for health care right now. The American public is eager for change on health care, but nervous about what would work best. Offering a public option and covering all Americans will do two important things:
1. Under the proposed plan, uninsured Americans will be insured. This is good for the health of all of us. It’s not just important for all of us to be healthy, but it’s important for all of us to prevent communicable diseases. As a society, we are healthier if everyone has access to the care they need.
2. The cost of health care will go down if we offer a public option that can provide less expensive service than insurance providers who are in it for profit.
It’s common knowledge that prevention is the best way to keep people healthy and drive down health costs. This program will help everyone in the country to take care of their health care before they wind up in the emergency room (which skyrockets the cost of health care for all of us).
“@SFNate: so the medicare rates paid to doctors will be more in line with inflation? Is that what you are saying? That would be an excellent step forward and probably eliminate a large portion of doctor angst for it if so…”
That’s exactly what this agreement was intended to accomplish.
I’ve always said that I would never ever burn a flag. It’s pointless.
That is, unless it became illegal. I will host two flag burning parties every day when it becomes illegal, because at that point the flag has ZERO meaning.
@ Canada and single payer – actually, it’s a bit different there, even though some call it a single payer. Doctors actually get paid from the government -in other words, their paycheck comes directly from the government. National health cards are more of a formality than anything else, because there are 15 different agencies that actually run things up there it’s a bit confusing.
The problem with Canada’s system is that doctors are not incentivized to take new patients – they are paid their rate no matter what. The number of patients does not affect their income. I am completely opposed to a Canada-like system.
This is in stark contrast to the French system which is a true single payer: Doctors get reimbursement through government insurance, they are not on the government’s payroll. Why this is is significant, is that if a doctor sucks, no one will take their business there. No patients, no money. So this points to a very clear parallel to our capitalist society: if you work hard and do good work, you will prosper. A true single-payer looks like Medicare here in the US.
If Americans really understood the difference I think they’d be more open to the notion – it’s the Canadacare screamers and the people that distort what is actually trying to be done that is creating the biggest FUD.
@VSloathe – you’re my kind of guy pal. I agree 100%. Burning a flag is really a pretty pathetic way of protesting IMO … but if it became illegal I’d be all Mr. Civil Disobedience and such. I think most of my family would happily go off to the clink with me
Here is the AMA endorsement letter supporting the H.R. 3200, the Obama Health Care Plan:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/16/1998891.aspx
July 16, 2009
The Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Rangel:
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform. We urge members of the House Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means Committees to favorably report H.R. 3200 for consideration by the full House.
In particular, we are pleased that the bill:
• Promises to extend coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms;
• Provides consumers with a choice of plans through a health insurance exchange;
• Includes essential health insurance reforms such as eliminating coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions;
• Recognizes that fundamental Medicare reforms, including repeal of the sustainable growth rate formula, are essential to the success of broader health system reforms;
• Encourages chronic disease management and care coordination through additional funding for primary care services, without imposing offsetting payment reductions on specialty care;
• Addresses growing physician workforce concerns;
• Strengthens the Medicaid program;
• Requires individuals to have health insurance, and provides premium assistance to those who cannot afford it;
• Includes prevention and wellness initiatives designed to keep Americans healthy;
• Makes needed improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative that will enable greater participation by physicians; and
• Initiates significant payment and delivery reforms by encouraging participation in new models such as accountable care organizations and the patient-centered medical home.
The AMA looks forward to further constructive dialogue during the committee mark-up process. We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
This year, the AMA wants the debate in Washington to conclude with real, long overdue results that will improve the health of America’s patients.
Sincerely,
Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA
Your “sources” are very slanted.
Just because you “listen” to different sources does not mean that you take them to heart or agree with them
IF you have ever listened to Rush, I’m sure it was just to pick him apart.
I SAID that my local stations have national news affiliates. The local news goes off at 6:30 and the national news begins.
I steer clear of the CABLE news networks like CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS. Keith Olbermann used to be a great sports commentator, now he’s just an idiot.
Nope.
I approach each issue on merit, not party.
From his own web site:
“As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right.”
That most likely means that he is going to press the States to ban guns.
It’s a legal loophole.
I’m sure he’ll get around to trying to outlaw my gun. Why do you think that people are making a mad run to the gun shops for guns and ammo?
Burning the flag is NOT “Free Speech”
It is vandalism.
@SFN – that looks pretty good man. OK, cautious optimism is warranted.
Nash doesn’t sound like a “States’ Rights” kind of guy.
(I’m a states’ rights kind of guy, for the most part)
Most of the ones you have quoted are mainly liberal.
Do you listen to Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Ingraham or Boortz?
You’re just not getting this…..
I do NOT listen to ONE “single source.
There are 3 local TV stations, 2 newspapers and at least 3 talk radio stations here. Plus the various web sources.
No, I’m not.
I have stated, SEVERAL times, the issues on which the right wing is incorrect.
You are a left wing radical mouthpiece.
All liberals claim to be “unbiased”.
Yeah, riiiiiiiiight….
We’ll see.
Do you have any idea what the Framers had in mind when they came up with free speech?
They meant political speech.
They meant that you have the right to spaek out if you disagree with your representation.
True free speech does not exist. For instance, you cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded movie theatre, or take out a full page ad in a newspaper claiming that Nancy Pelosi is a transgender without encountering serious legal repercussions.
Burning a flag is an action, particularly vandalism. In my opinion, it is the same as treason.
Some lawyer somewhere convinced a group of people that that should fall under “Free (Political) Speech”, and it is yet another principle perverted by someone that wants to change rules to fit their perspective.
We went from, “Don’t let the flag touch the ground” to, “Burn ‘em if you got ‘em”.
That’s progression?
lol
Hyperbole much?
The burning of a flag is a political statement, you insipid simpleton. If burning a flag is not political speech, I don’t know what is! You realize that the founding fathers broke lots of really important laws to English people who would sound just like you if you brought them back here, right?
I’m sorry Nash, I cannot edit my comment now but I should not have called you an insipid simpleton. It’s not polite and there’s no need for name calling. My bad.
@ my sources: first off, I thought you didn’t know any of those names. Well well, I guess you do. However had you browsed back or been paying attention earlier you would have noticed that Rush and The Nation are my two conservative sources as well as the WSJ for light-right.
@ Your sources: You’re all bullshit. First you’re “I don’t know any of the national right wing names,” then you do. “I only listen to one local station,” then it’s no I watch 3 of them, read 2 newspapers and listen to 3 talk radio stations. I call bullshit. Either their all right wing trash or you only read the parts that make you happy. Also: there is more to reading than moving your eyes over a page. Try interpreting and understanding, rather than simple acceptance.
@ 2nd: indeed we will.
@ free speech being political: That’s just plain ignorance – you simply do not know what you’re talking about.
Free speech is different than imposing on my liberty. You see, if you yell “Fire!” in a crowded movie house, then you are imposing on the liberties and pursuit of happiness of others. You are playing a prank. Pranks, or actions that cause suffering or an effect on another would not be labeled as free speech, just as the Klan can stand on the corner and talk about how African Americans are inferior and they are the superior race blah blah blah but as soon as that turns in any way to oppression or action, it is civilly unacceptable. BTW – that doesn’t make what the Klan has to say “right” in my opinion – in fact, I find them the worst kind of stain on our country. But I would fight for their right to stand and be heard because that IS the essence of free speech. Note to Nash: Real democracy and a free people is NOT an easy thing. Advanced citizenship is a really tough thing to grasp and maintain. Don’t worry, I don’t expect you to grasp that. The “Fire!” argument is another classic distraction and fallacy. Imposing upon others has nothing to do with free speech. BTW – I believe I heard Rush use that line in about ’93. It was just as stupid then.
Similarly, if you make a claim about someone in particular, they have a legal remedy: they can claim that you were directly trying to hamper their liberties or pursuit of happiness by causing demonstrable harm to their reputation or life. That clause, however, is deeply attenuated when it comes to “Public People” whom give up a certain amount of freedom to pursue litigation on the grounds of libel. That’s why Nancy Pelosi would probably just have to laugh at your aforementioned newspaper ad, just as Ann Coulter has too every day. Except that Ann has an Adam’s Apple and Nancy does not. So it’s a little more funny.
@ So burning the flag is treason, eh? It is unfortunate that your notion of patriotism is that limited and superficial. It is neither vandalism or treason – it is a statement. It is a piece of cloth that is being rapidly oxidized to make a point. Granting it anything other than that is just silliness.
No one has perverted anything at all (with regards to free speech) – you’re just trying to add in your own notion of what it actually is to the discussion. Which is your right, but that does not make it correct. Please find for us where “Free Speech” is qualified through history as “Political Free Speech” only. I’ve got a bright shiny nickel that says you can’t find anything at all.
I said, in post #41, “I know the names, but I do not listen to any of those. I have heard Neal Boortz, as he is on our local radio.”
I know the names because Boortz mentions them.
Boy, you REALLY do not pay attention, do you?
I said, and you can scroll up and see this, “But, I do not watch any cable news channels regularly, only local.”
Note I said “channels” – plural.
“Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by many state constitutions and state and federal laws. Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted. There are exceptions to the general protection of speech, however, including the Miller test for obscenity, child pornography laws, and regulation of commercial speech such as advertising. Other limitations on free speech often balance rights to free speech and other rights, such as property rights for authors and inventors (copyright), interests in “fair” political campaigns (Campaign finance laws), protection from imminent or potential violence against particular persons (restrictions on Hate speech or fighting words), or the use of untruths to harm others (slander). Distinctions are often made between speech and other acts which may have symbolic significance. Efforts have been made to ban flag desecration, for example, though currently that act remains protected speech.”
Boy, Boortz is right.
The best way to get a liberal flustered is prove him wrong.
roflmao:
ROFLMAO. Did you actually read that before you posted it? It says very important things like:
Criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy, such as racism, are generally permitted.
Right after that, it describes exactly what I said above: if your free speech imposes on my liberty, then it is not protected.
All that said, just how hard did you have to work to find the opening paragraph of Wikipedia for your quotation? That really put a sweat on you bucko? I generally prefer a little more heady fare, and by acknowledged authorities. Here is a Congressional report on exceptions to the First Amendment: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf it distinctly notes that Congress shall pass no law that inhibits free speech in any way, unless such speech could cause harm [like] pedophilia and other unmentionables.
But really, the best reference is always simply the Amendments themselves: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Personally, I find the actual document to be stronger than Wikipedia.
I am certain that you would find the ACLU a bunch of loonies, I however am a card carrying member. Here is a link to the top of their Free Speech section: http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/index.html
An ancient posting in the Encyclopedia Brittanica is also nice, as it it even stronger: …as stated in the 1st and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content. A modern legal test of the legitimacy of proposed restrictions on freedom of speech was stated in the opinion by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenk v. U.S. (1919): a restriction is legitimate only if the speech in question poses a “clear and present danger” — i.e., a risk or threat to safety or to other public interests that is serious and imminent. Many cases involving freedom of speech and of the press also have concerned defamation, obscenity, and prior restraint …
Nash, you’re really going to have to learn to understand the words you are spewing, or your just going to continue to look really, really bad.
I’m trying to help here, man.
My point is in the second sentence.
It outlines what “speech” they intended to protect.
Um, of what? The Wikipedia article? The second sentence is what I quoted. OH WAIT, I get it: you think that they are saying that that sentence is ALL that is protected. Understandable misconception, both because of how you read it and because you’re using Wikipedia as your reference. And because you think it reinforces your argument.
Did you note that the Constitution is specifically ambiguous? That’s because there is no limitation on free speech. That was challenged, however, in 1919 as pointed out in the legal precedent that demonstrated where there *could* be a limitation on free speech. The way it works here, is that the Constitution is a specific negative rights document that says where the government cannot get into our hair. It essentially says that the government can’t stop us from saying what we want to say. This has been challenged in court over art, expression, all manner of free speech. In the example above, it was demonstrated that you cannot express yourself in a way that can cause harm to another, which is why the “Fire!” example is baloney.
You see, this is not easy stuff and can be confusing. And here’s where it gets fun: interpretation of the Constitution by lay people over things like, “What they were trying to protect” is just intellectual jacking off. The only thing that matters, is when a case is brought before a judge and is decided, whereas there becomes legal precedent. There is plenty legal precedent to tell us EXACTLY what is allowed and what is not allowed: and as of right now, burning a flag is legal. As it should be.
This is also why the flap about a Constitutional amendment to halt the burning of flags would be so bad: it would be the first time that the Constitution was used to limit PEOPLE rather than the government. That is avery bad thing, and a very bad precedent. Although I think all the political wind around that hootenanny has gone away, thankfully.
Not, it should not be.
If something upsets you to the point that you feel you want to shi* all over the flag, it’s time for you to get the hell out.
A couple of years ago, someone was offended by the sight of a Christmas tree in the UNC library. They were made to remove it.
(Someone’s “freedom of expression” rights were violated by that move.)
This is bullshi*.
If the sight of a Christmas tree offends you, then pack your bags and get the hell out.
Again, I am talking about the original intent of the idea of freedom of speech. I am quite sure that our Framers had no idea that someone would even WANT to burn our flag. If they had, they would’ve included a law forbidding it.
And they should have.
@ sh*t on the flag: actually I agree with you, partially. If you are so damn hateful of the US that you no longer like it here, then get out. Go in peace. But if you are so disgusted by the twisting of the nature of our country and wish to see it straightened out, then perhaps burning a flag might be an effective protest vehicle. Personally, I don’t see it as that effective. But it certainly does make a statement.
And it’s protected speech.
Now, at Christmas: that is not true, it did not impose on someone’s free speech or freedom of expression, it was a potentially illegal blending of church and state. If you want to put Christmas trees all over your house, your yard, or anything that is yours, please – be my guest. And I will support you in that. However, if you want to put that up in the commons (ie., taxpayer supported space) then it must not violate that separation. Although I too find it kind of silly, I get where people would want to use that as legal precedent to clean up the recently very blurry lines between church and state.
@ your notion of original intent: there is no legal precedent, or anything in any law (and we are a land of laws) that supports you in that assertion. That is YOUR OPINION of original intent. Original intent is debated and argued all day long in the halls of justice: if this were really a truism, then it would have been put the the test legally, long ago.
Our framers were a lot more brilliant that we make them out to be. Remember, they came about as children of the age of enlightenment – they were about as liberal a people as the world has ever seen en masse. The specifically left things ambiguous so that details of interpretation would be available to the populace for all history. See, things change and the framers knew that. So rather than writing all the rules, they wrote a framework for rules (the Constitution) that would allow for the people to govern themselves and create laws and a legal framework for society to flourish .. but also to adapt and evolve as we, as people and a society, adapt and evolve.
The framers never envisioned a lot of what we have today – but their brilliance show in that they understood they could not envision the future – so they created what is arguably the finest piece of liberal doctrine that the world has ever seen: our Constitution, followed by the Bill Of Rights.
You may not like it (burning the flag) and that’s cool. I don’t like the Klan. That’s also cool. But both, provided the freedoms taken do not impose a lessening of freedom upon another, are protected.
As they should be.
@Vsloathe
“The burning of a flag is a political statement, you insipid simpleton. ”
Why the juvenile name calling? Knock it off would ya? I’m trying to enjoy myself reading this SHIT load of new content and you keep spoiling my mood man.
Drew, there is another blog that we debate on from time to time. On that blog you complain about name calling and such and call for clean debate. But here you talk like a drunk jerk.
I’m starting to skip your replies because your phony outrage is just silly. Why can’t you be like sfnathan and the others who refrain from dragging the debate down to a mere squabble?
Sheesh!
@Burning the flag
Who decided that that was speech of any kind? If I go to my car and punch the windows out with my bare fist is that speech also?
When you go to court you MUST remove your hat yet it’s ok to burn the flag? Such nonsense.
Burning the flag means Death to America! However, even Justice Scalia maintained that flag burning was protected by freedom of speech.
I don’t know where to go with this one.
@vsloathe
“I’m sorry Nash, I cannot edit my comment now but I should not have called you an insipid simpleton. It’s not polite and there’s no need for name calling. My bad.”
Huh. I can’t edit my comment either LMAO!! Didn’t see your humble and proper apology there drew. My bad too.
Kumbayaaaaaa…
Nash, I’m sure you feel about flag burning the way I feel about book burning. The message communicated in destroying a flag or a book (which symbolizes the destruction of an idea) is abhorrent. (one key difference is that book burning actually attempts to remove public awareness of an idea, because books are sometimes the only way knowledge is kept alive, but I see them as similar acts).
But while I find these things abhorrent, I find laws banning these activities even more abhorrent. Books and the American flag symbolize freedom. Taking away the freedom to burn books/flags takes away the very ideal of freedom that they represent. And I care more for the ideal of freedom than the cloth/paper that these objects are made of.
@SFN
“But while I find these things abhorrent, I find laws banning these activities even more abhorrent”
Why do you find flag burning abhorrent?
Personally, I think flag burning (and book burning) are most often done as malicious acts. The acts attempt to take something that is important to someone else and demonstrate the destruction of that idea that someone else cherishes.
However, I can envision an art performance with burning flags or books that actually honors the things being burned. And I can envision someone burning them in effigy because they felt the idea behind the flags/books wasn’t being truly honored.
If I watched someone burn a flag or a book, I might find the statement abhorrent, or I might find the statement something I never thought of and actually respect. But the beauty of a democracy is that someone else gets to make the statement and I get to listen, and we can keep the free-flow of ideas going so that the two of us can learn something. The minute you shut down the ability of either one to speak, there is nothing more to learn.
@Edgar: if you chose to make a statement by breaking the windows of your car with your bare hands, have at it man. I’m pretty certain I wouldn’t understand, but that’s cool. Free speech is about understanding freedom to express, not necessarily the expressed idea.
I get that you, Edgar, and you, Nash, may well utterly despise the act of burning a flag. Really, I get it. And I have no argument with that. The challenge, as SFN points out, is to recognize that free speech is not freedom of what *I* like, it is protection of what I DON’T like. it’s a way of ensuring against the tyranny of the majority. It’s a way of making sure that the tiniest voice may still be heard – without repression or repercussion.
Honestly, I get it lads – I get how much you may hate that form of protest. But it is the bigger man, the more noble American in us that can grapple with that which we hate, and protect it in honor of that which we love. That paradox, and the solution to it, lay in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. It is important to look beyond your prejudices to see that other people think differently than you do – and that, and the protection of it, is ultimately American.
@perk
“The challenge, as SFN points out, is to recognize that free speech is not freedom of what *I* like, it is protection of what I DON’T like. it’s a way of ensuring against the tyranny of the majority. It’s a way of making sure that the tiniest voice may still be heard – without repression or repercussion.”
I agree fully that freedom of speech is meant to protect offensive speech. Someone could say, out loud, “I hate America and I hope it is attacked again by terrorists soon” – and I would be fine with that.
But if they try to say it by burning the flag it carries a sort of treasonous smack to it.
I also kind of equate it with having to remove your hat in court. If you don’t they can find you in contempt of court but what if you are trying to make a statement?
What if your hat wearing court escapade was merely an expression of free speech? Say for instance I wanted to express the idea that I think the system is rigged and unfair. I’m going to wear my hat in court as an expression of free speech.
Can I still be found to be in contempt of court? What if I find no honor in the court because I think it is corrupt and I want to express that in a non distracting, non violent way, such as refusing to take off my hat?
See what I mean? You are supposed to have respect for some things in life. Respect for those who died for freedom. That’s a part of what the flag represents too. At some point there is a line of decency that should not be crossed. Just for the sake of decency and nothing else.
Again, it’s not completely about the fact that I don’t like it. It’s just that certain things are below the belt.
So flag burning seems in some way treasonous to me. Say what you’ve got to say another damn way ya know?
One more thing.
Flag burning seems to communicate a threat. That suddenly became clear to me. That’s what I’m feeling on the receiving end of a flag burning.
Maybe that’s why I felt it was somehow treasonous. Flag burning is a form of speech I guess but I think it means, “I’m one of the guys that’s going to bring this country DOWN!! Muhahaha!!!”
That’s what I feel when I see someone burning a flag. It’s like they are saying, “wait mutha fuc*ers! Just wait.”
I don’t like that at all.
If you made a statement, Edgar, by wearing your hat in court and got arrested for it, dude after I stopped laughing my ass off I’d be right there with ya. I think that the hat wearing jazz is just silliness as well, but hey – if someone ginned it up that way, then whatever.
To me, you wearing a hat in court does *nothing* to me personally. It does not affect my court date, make it more or less likely that I would win or harm or create the threat of harm to anyone. So if that’s the way you want to express yourself, I guess I’d get to be OK with that.
And again, I hear your notion that some things are just below the belt – may I offer, that perhaps that’s precisely why the protest is made? Perhaps, to some, this is the only way they feel that they can have a loud enough voice to be heard?
At the core, I agree with you in action but not in philosophy: I don’t like the image of someone burning a flag, or someone burning a book (I tend to align myself more with SFN here, the burning of knowledge is even more repugnant to me) but, again, for me to demand that whatever I want to say exists in freedom, I must as well protect whatever someone else wants to say.
I have to give you a more poignant example – one that hits really hard with me. If a skin head or klansman or other racist motherfucker crosses my path and spouts his crap, I want to demonstrate some of the finer techniques of my martial arts career to them. Personally. Time and time again. It is sometimes *blisteringly* hard to refrain. It is support of even those people and their opinions that I find strength to debate with you on this one. Flag burning may be your “red light” issue – mine is racism and hatred.
If I can do it, so can you. Find it in yourselves to be bigger than the issue. Find it in your fellow Americans to see WTF is so nasty that some bonehead needs to burn a flag to make a point. Perhaps, it’s silliness and we can all go home. Perhaps, it will be an issue that wakes you up and causes you to take action. You just never know.
@ Edgar – guess you were posting your second comment while I was posting my first.
@ Threat: well, I get that, but the law states that it is protected so long as it is not an imminent threat. In other words, if you or your people are not being put into harms way by the statement then it is protected.
@ Going to bring this country down: 2 things. First, there are a lot more protests that involve flag burning than just assholes that want to see the US burn. And second, they’re not going to be able to do it. Period. You have my permission to laugh at them and their stupidity. But until they actually DO something, don’t let your ego get bruised by someone that is burning a flag just to bruise it. Recognize what it is and let it go. It is nothing. F’reals.
We see footage all the time of people on the other side of the world burning the US flag and it infuriates us.
How should we feel when one of our own does it?
Covering flag burning under “freedom of speech” is a stretch. You can see that it went before several judicial reviews before they “decided” that it could be characterized as “speech”.
How does this tie in to the current thread?
Wait for it…
Health care is not a right.
It’s not in the Constitution.
Now wait – you may say that it is covered under the “pursuit of happiness” part.
The Constitution says that you may pursue happiness, but it does not say that the government will provide it for you.
What is “pursuit” and “happiness” anyway?
What if my “happiness” was to have a harem of 17-year-old girls? Can I have that?
I doubt it, because it infringes on someone else’s liberties.
Well, to make health care a “right”, that means that someone else, a health care provider or administrator, has to basically arrange their schedule to accodate you. Doctors would have to give up a piece of their thriving practice to cater to citizens on the public health care list.
Health insurance is out there. It’s not like we’re not covered.
The current system is not perfect, but I believe that it can be re-worked a lot cheaper and more effectively that having government bureaucrats dictate their own system which has not been tested, proven, or accounted for.
This is from Investor’s Business Daily:
“Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
From the beginning, opponents of the public option plan have warned that if the government gets into the business of offering subsidized health insurance coverage, the private insurance market will wither. Drawn by a public option that will be 30% to 40% cheaper than their current premiums because taxpayers will be funding it, employers will gladly scrap their private plans and go with Washington’s coverage.
The nonpartisan Lewin Group estimated in April that 120 million or more Americans could lose their group coverage at work and end up in such a program. That would leave private carriers with 50 million or fewer customers. This could cause the market to, as Lewin Vice President John Sheils put it, “fizzle out altogether.”
What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.
The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.
With HSAs out of the way, a key obstacle to the left’s expansion of the welfare state will be removed.
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.”
Joe Biden: “We Have to Go Spend Money to Keep From Going Bankrupt.”
God love ya, Joe…
I’m wondering how many times you’ve left the country, Nash…
There is nothing to what makes this country great except its freedom. And I’m not talking about the vague superficial notions of “freedom” that people give lipservice to when they’re listening to some trite platitudes about “those who’ve died for our freedoms”, I’m talking about the Jeffersonian ideal. Real, actual, freedom. The freedom to say things and espouse ideas that you might not necessarily like.
The majority of Western nations are just as free as the US. Every monkey is proud of the tree that he just came from. I remember the times that I’ve been to Africa. These people are proud of their country, in spite of the fact that it’s a god-forsaken latrine of a place with a corrupt despot in charge, rampant poverty and disease, etc. It doesn’t take “courage” or originality to be proud of where you’re from just because. Every idiot in the world already does that. What takes real courage is saying “I could care less about this country or its government. It is the ideals on which it is founded about which I care.” The moment that the government stops standing for this freedom, the flag no longer stands for this freedom, and the United States was. Just was. There is nothing left to be proud of when we are not free, and if we cannot say and do what we like freely, in spite of whom we might offend (provided we’re not hurting anyone), then we are not free.
You would seek to take away my freedoms. Don’t be surprised if I get a little emotional about it.
By “Africa”, I meant Kenya and Tanzania. Africa’s a big place.
However, people think they are free, or have the right to do whatever the hell they want.
By that logic, I guess people are “free” to steal my PINs or act vulgar in front of my young daughter on a public street.
The problem is that people want to push the envelope and then make new rules for everyone.
Are you old enough to remember a Brady Bunch episode where the Dad told Greg not to “drive our car” for a week (or whatever), so he ended up driving a friend’s car? The dad said, “I told you not to drive.” Greg said, “No, you said not to drive our car.” The dad says, “You know what I meant”.
Yes, Greg did know exactly what was meant, but he decided to look for a loophole and missed the point entirely.
A lot of people are trying to interpret the Constitution to fit their own needs. You have to keep in mind what the Framers intended when they wrote it.
Do you think that they had flag burning, gang bangers, socialized medicine or illegal immigrants in mind when they wrote it?
I’m sure they’re turning over in their graves…
You have no clue what their intentions were.
Please don’t pretend that you do. I’m not.
All we have to go on is what they wrote, which agrees with me.
It is clear to me that you would rather I did not trespass on your lawn.
Sure you do –
All you have to do is read the history to get an idea of the times.
Well, DUH!
:doh:
Ah yes, read the history.
So have you read any Dostoevsky? How about Hobbes’ Leviathan or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense? Paine’s Age of Reason? What about John Locke’s Treatises on Government?
John Adams read all those and more. I have too. There are hundreds of seminal works for the Constitution of the United States, but it’s not terribly hard to get through them all in a month or so. After all, so much has been published since, and all they really had to read was some post-enlightenment emergent texts. You could call that period in history laissez faire with regard to religion and especially philosophy if you had read what the Founding Fathers wrote outside of the Constitution or Declaration of Independence.
I understand the history.
@ Edgar re. healthcare & rights: by that logic, we should no longer be financing a fire department, or police department, or teachers or any manner of already-socialized services. They are not in the Constitution or the BOR, so they are not viable.
I submit that just like we’ve come to the notion that not having our homes burn down is an essential, social right, so should we not let our bodies burn down. It is arguable that stopping a fire burning at *your* home will keep it from getting to mine ergo, it’s a liberty & POH enhancer. Well, if you come home with swine flu and you infect a nation that does not have the capability to take care of everyone, then you might give my kids a disease and the same effect is in effect.
The health of our people is as essential to our national growth and security as the fire department. But we have been convinced, that a for-profit entity, stuck inbetween us and our doctors (the insurance giants) is the best way for us to get health care. Well, privatization in action: we pay more than twice what EVERY OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD does for healthcare, yet we rank 50th, just below Morocco for actual health of the nation. This includes indicators like infant mortality, life span, diabetes and heart disease. It’s simply pathetic. How we can imagine that leaving an entity that makes money when I DONT get health care in between me and my doctor is a good thing, is just simply beyond me.
I see health as part of the societal commons, ergo part of what we all require to move forward. You don’t. I get it, but disagree.
@Nash re. pedophilia: you’ve just really got this wrong. Happiness is YOUR OWN happiness and is based on your liberties. As soon as your liberties get in the way of someone else’s, then they are neither protected or, in most cases, legal. Your notion of finding happiness with a little girl is just a fallacious argument, and I think you know it. What this says is that you neither care, or read, or understood my argument above about yelling Fire in the theater.
@Nash re. the framers and reinterpreting their intentions: VS is right, you have no damn idea. You read Wikipedia, I read findings by lawyers that have interpreted the Constitution. You say that people like Obama, whom not only graduated with advanced degrees in law, but he spent 12 years as a professor at a law college, do not understand the document, but you do. You hilariously throw “read the history” out to VS, whom has probably done more schooling in philosophy & religion than all of us here put together.
The problem is a paradox: your opinions are voiceable because we live in a country with free speech. But they are not valid, because they only pertain to the way that YOU SEE THINGS rather than taking into account the gigantic diversity that is The United States. Your pigeon hole view of the US, and indeed the world, makes it so that your assertions are silly and small rather than viable and plausible, because they deny anything outside of your self-centered way of thinking. That’s what VS means when he asks, “have you ever even been outside of the country?” Until you can really grasp and empathize with the way people other than yourself live, think & believe, you will never understand our United States or the philosophy that makes it great. Never. Our founding documents were BUILT on the notion of empathy for that which we don’t understand, yet you’d choose to use them as a way to limit diversity beyond what you deem “decent” or “normal” or “acceptable.”
I submit that it is you and your ilk that are endeavoring to reinvent the Constitution, and to do so in your own image and to your own liking – not at all in the spirit from which it came.
@Perk
“@ Edgar re. healthcare & rights: by that logic, ”
What are you referring to exactly?
He’s referring to how you said healthcare isn’t a right.
Just like not having your house burn down isn’t a right, or having a police officer come and assist you when you break down in traffic isn’t a right.
@vsloathe
“He’s referring to how you said healthcare isn’t a right”
I’m looking for it but can’t find it. Where did I say that?
@Perk
“@ Threat: well, I get that, but the law states that it is protected so long as it is not an imminent threat. In other words, if you or your people are not being put into harms way by the statement then it is protected.”
I think a lot of people take flag burning as a threat. Cross burning is a threat too in my opinion. However I don’t consider book burning to be a threat, but I hate that too.
If burning a flag is a form speech and that speech is a threat then that can’t be right.
You just can’t go around making threats can you?
Now if someone says to me, “I’m gonna frieken KILL you!” is that person exercising free speech?
He could say, “I didn’t REALLY mean that I was going to KILL him, I just wanted to express my extreme dislike for …”
Second Point:
Vsloathe and others seems to think that if we can’t burn the flag then ALL of our freedoms have just evaporated. We no longer live in a free society if FLAG BURNING is not allowed.
I don’t know about that. I live in Massachusetts and here you have to wear a seat belt when you drive. If you don’t you can get pulled over.
Am I now not living in a free country because I have to wear my seat belt? What about me just living my life the way I want to? As long as I’m not threatening or hurting anyone that is.
I find the notion that the right to burn the flag is somehow the symbol or cornerstone of our unique liberties to be misplaced.
I don’t consider it a significant factor in undermining our rights any more than having to wear my damn seat belt.
But I do take it as a threat and I bet a lot of other people do too.
Burning represents hate as clearly as anything else could. Again, just look at the KKK and how the burned crosses. That was hate speech right?
A year or two ago there was quite a scandal in which some white kids hung a noose from a tree at a college or school. I can’t remember exactly but I’m sure you know what I’m talking about.
Anyway it went through the courts and whatnot and it was decidedly considered hate speech.
Bottom line (I welcome all of your opinions regarding my bottom line guys):
Flag burning could well be considered hate speech. I think the case could be made either way and it is not a black and white issue.
I don’t think flag burning should be so easily categorized and dismissed as free speech. There’s a lot more meat left on that bone.
It has no marked symbolism though. Burning a cross was given a well-understood meaning. A noose hanging from a tree is designed to communicate something very specific. You can’t have a hate crime against an entire society. I abhor the name and the concept of hate crime just as much as anyone else. My bottom line is that you cannot ascertain anyone’s intentions with certainty, because you weren’t in his head. On top of that, it’s enough that you kill someone. You should be put away for it. It shouldn’t matter who you kill, there are enough tangibles on which we can judge a person’s intent without having to create a special class of crimes.
Flag-burning has no such inherent meaning. It means whatever you think it means. I think that in most cases it means something along these lines:
“I think things are so fucked up…I just can’t…I..[spark]…yes. That’s how fucked up I think things are.”
But again it comes down to the fact you don’t have the right not to be offended by other private citizens. You do have the right to go and wave a flag and sing the star-spangled banner in front of their flag burning party, if you so choose.
There it is!
You have now officially used every trite cliche’ from the liberal propoganda guide.
You know what, Perky?
You’re really freaking boring.
Is this website and forum supposed to be so that people can freely exchange ideas?
All of your posts have only been a vehicle for you to brag about where you’ve been, who you’ve met and what you’ve read.
Do you honestly think that that makes your opinions more significant than others?
So, if you want to run your idealism down everybody’s throat so you can feel important it some way, then go ahead.
It is entertaining, but not informative.
You are nothing more than a Leftist Rush Limbaugh.
See ya.
roflmao:
http://www.socuteurl.com/ittypuffypaws
“I submit that it is you and your ilk that are endeavoring to reinvent the Constitution, and to do so in your own image and to your own liking. ”
Oh, but the consitution is “living breeeathing dooooocument”
@vsloathe
“It shouldn’t matter who you kill, there are enough tangibles on which we can judge a person’s intent without having to create a special class of crimes.”
Am I understanding you? You DON’T like the whole concept of hate crimes?
“Flag-burning has no such inherent meaning. It means whatever you think it means.”
If burning a cross means what it means then burning a flag means the same kind of thing, and it should be taken as a threat to the country. A literal threat. Someone burning the flag is saying, “I’m filled with hate and if you are not part of my revolution then you are the enemy”
If you want to shit on a picture of george bush or obama, or if you want to paint a picture of uncle sam with shit and call it your expression of discontent, fine.
If you want to say exactly what I have a special disliking for…GREAT! But if you burn the flag you are saying DEATH.
Fire has a symbolic meaning to many. You don’t think so? Then that’s you but I think the majority of people see it the way I see it.
It has nothing to do with offensiveness but more to do with the actual message behind, namely a threat.
You may not see it that way but I don’t think it’s clearly a pedestrian act. I think it leans the other way, a non verbalized threat.
Wow, this post drifted eh?
Back to my prayer rug.
@Edgar: Crosses burning in a public area have no more or less freedom than burning a flag: the most typical burning of a cross was done on the lawn of the threatened individual – I have never heard of Klansmen burning a cross in the street and getting popped or restricted in their speech, even though it is linked rather intimately to terror and death. If you scream at someone, I’m going to kill you, you will certainly become a person of interest in the event that the person is harmed – but up until something untoward is done, there is no harm no foul.
By limiting some of this you may start getting towards the nanny-state notion which is pretty horrible (note here how my notion of Liberal does not allow for the conversion to government CONTROL so much as empowerment). You actually make the case quite well for the flag burning Edgar: in a country where cross burning, symbolizing the death of uppity black people is still legal as a form of expression, flag burning must certainly be as well. Although you may take it as a threat, there is no direct threat to you ergo, you may not “do something about it.” (not saying you would, just making a point) There is a good book, called “In The Gravest Extreme” which discusses this very notion of just when you really are threatened, and what you are allowed to do about it legally. Very powerful, written by an ex-policeman.
@ living breathing document: totally agree – it evolves all the time and that is good. But let’s not lie to ourselves and say that we know that the original intention of the document is different than what we are seeing today, especially when the thing in question is pretty reasonably settled law. I agree that it must challenged all the time, but for Nash to assert that HE knows what it really meant, and in more than 200 years of life, the questions he raises have not been raised or become tort, then I think it’s fair to assume that it’s probably not that valid.
I have no problem with people trying to make flag burning against the law or a Constitutional Amendment. But know that there will be a gigantic amount of people that will swat that crap down, just as has been done already because IMO it’s just wrong.
@ Nash and Really Freaking Boring: That’s pretty funny man. A leftist Rush, huh? I’ll have to put that one in a signature sometime. Right next to where another guy from another place called me a Limousine Liberal. Equally funny, if not even a bit more clever. It’s also funny that you don’t find the site informative, because you’ve had some massively important and pertinent data laid at your feet. You’ve partaken of none. Ergo, it’s not that this site is not informative, it’s that you do not choose to be informed.
That is unfortunate, but hardly unexpected.
Go well then. I wish you peace.
“If you scream at someone, I’m going to kill you, you will certainly become a person of interest in the event that the person is harmed – but up until something untoward is done, there is no harm no foul.”
Ever heard of a thing called Criminal Threatening?
“By limiting some of this you may start getting towards the nanny-state notion which is pretty horrible (note here how my notion of Liberal does not allow for the conversion to government CONTROL so much as empowerment)”
I SEE that and it’s actually a little surprising to see you draw that distinction.
“I have no problem with people trying to make flag burning against the law or a Constitutional Amendment.”
I agree. Where we disagree is exactly what message is being sent by burning the flag. If you agreed with me that it is a portentous sign that carries a threat then you might see the whole issue my way.
But if you see flag burning as a mere expression of discontent with the current gov’t then there is no problem.
Either way, and this is my point, I think the issue of flag burning has lots of room for valid debate on both sides.
By the way, I’m burning a flag of your site! roflmao:
If flag burning becomes illegal, then saluting the flag while reciting the pledge of allegiance needs to become illegal too. I find it offensive.
I think anything that I don’t like should be considered offensive and banned. I mean when you salute the flag and pledge allegiance, you’re not just making a trite statement of national pride, you’re pledging to kill and be killed for your country. I also find the sound of children reciting the pledge unnerving. They have no idea what they’re saying, they haven’t reached the age where it’s appropriate for them to decided whether or not they’re proud of their country.
I don’t actually think any of that, but it sounds awfully familiar…
Perky said;
roflmao: roflmao: roflmao:
If by “massively important and pertinent data” you mean, “hand-picked liberal propoganda spun for my benefit”, then we finally agree.
If by “..it’s that you do not choose to be informed” you mean, “..you can resist our attempt at brain-washing”, then you would be correct.
Thanks for proving my point that you are a legend in your own mind.
I was correct in assuming that you would respond with more of your liberal BS, and I am sure that you will respond to this as well…
vsloathe said:
I not the sarcasm, but the point is missed.
It’s not that things that certain people dislike should be banned, it’s things that are inherantly wrong.
For instance, I don’t think any sane-minded individual would think that cold-blooded murder, rape, or child abuse is “okay”. Common sense dictates that no good comes from any of these, and they are not acceptable in a civiliztion. That’s why there are laws against it.
There are several rules and guidelines for the care and handling of our flag (look it up). They have to be displayed properly, they should be “retired” when they become tattered, and I had always heard that they are not to touch the ground. I had also heard that they should be “buried”, and not thrown away or BURNED!
There are other ways to express your discontent about America. Burning the flag is not necessary. The only reason people do it is to push the envelope. To me, it’s the same as killing someone with an AK-47 instead of suing them if they have wronged you.
As for the Constitution, why even have one if it is being changed constantly?
People that consider it a “living” document must see that eventually, under that idealogy, it can be changed to mean the opposite of what it says. Our freedoms can be erased. If we can change it constantly to fit our lifestyle, then that already makes it worthless.
roflmao:
@Nash: Gee man, I thought you were gone. Another canard, like being well researched or not knowing any of the right wing talking head, right? I should be so lucky.
So our links to places like the US Government, Congressional review and Encyclopedia Brittanica are hand picked liberal propaganda. Your commitment to ignorance is impressive. Regarding you avoiding our brainwashing, yes I guess that is correct: the right-wing’s brainwashing is considerably stronger than logic and reason.
Oh, and BTW to your point about changing the Constitution to fit our lifestyles: Natch, why your flag burning amendment was knocked down before it got out of the gates. Although Edgar is correct that it is a living, breathing document, the very process that allows for modification via amendment takes a long enough time for cooler heads to prevail, and for things that are REALLY worthy of addition to bubble up. The framers knew what they were doing here.
@Edgar re. criminal threatening: yes of course you are correct, but the actual act of that is difficult to prove and involves a much higher standard than simply yelling at someone, and certainly more than burning a flag. The way it is interpreted is that burning a flag is a protest, getting in someone’s face, particularly if you have some implement in hand and the person involved feels thrown into a corner and that physical damage is imminent, is considerably different – you’d have to agree. Much the same way as burning a cross in a public square is a protest, which is why, despite the protestations of other people, it has not/cannot be stopped UNLESS someone can prove that it does, in fact, tie directly to a criminal threat.
@ valid debate and one’s feelings of burning the flag: yes indeed, completely valid and frankly healthy IMO. I encourage anyone with a beef to keep up the fight. One of two things will happen: you will win, or after plenty fight and no success, you will surrender (the macro “you,” not you yourself Edgar) You know I’ll be doing the same
@ flag of my site: hey, before you burn them all could you send me one so that I can wrap myself in it and claim that burning them is treason? roflmao:
Perk,
I see you missed the whole “brainwashing” point…
“Correct”?
There you go again – presenting your personal opinion as if it were fact.
So, you assume to know more about the Constitution than Antonin Scalia, associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, huh?
Doesn’t surprise me….
I am ashamed of myself for getting sucked back into this vacuum.
However, this web site is a combination of like a train wreck that you can’t turn away from and a “Three Stooges” movie.
There is something strangely entertaining about completely clueless people. I guess that’s why people are so facinated with things like “American Idol” (and Barney Frank).
Anyhoo, it is apparent that everyone here is bent on forcing their opinions on someone else. Debating opinions is like trying to teach a pig to sing.
Your ideas are authoritarian, Nash.
No government has the right to tell me what I can do with a piece of cloth that I own.
I’m well aware of flag etiquette. I’ve had a government job or two in my day as well
WOW you’re amazing. So, the structure of our government is unchangeable, eh? What exactly are those “Amendment thingies?” And are you saying that Antonin Scalia is against any amendments to the Constitution? That the amendment process is errant and needs to be eliminated?
I’m really beginning to doubt your capability to read or interpret anything beyond See Sally Run. Or perhaps See Sarah Run, which would certainly be a presidential candidate equal to your intellectual prowess.
I really love the part where you say “if you don’t like it, you can get out”.
That’s exemplary of why nothing you say matters.
You need to realize that some people actually love their country for its ideals, and not some shallow, empty-headed lipservice thereto.
You cannot claim to love freedom and be in favor of a law prohibiting any form of free expression that does not infringe on another’s rights. These are two ideas that are fundamentally at odds. They are cognitively dissonant.
Edgar likes to use logic when it suits him (I’ve seen it plenty of times), so show me how it’s possible, syllogistically, to hold both two conflicting ideas, which are:
1) Individual personal liberty is the highest ideal.
2) Demonstrations of individual personal liberty should in some cases not be allowed, in spite of the fact that they violate no one else’s rights, based on the opinion of a majority.
Ah, but there’s the rub. Nash, do you know who the person is for whom you’re allowed to make decisions about right and wrong?
I’ll give you a hint.
It starts with “y” and ends with “ou”.
Fuck you for even insinuating that you can tell me what’s right and wrong for me.
I should make sure that my readers have context, as I’m sure I’m espousing some very new and revolutionary ideas here.
There was this thing like, 300 years ago or so. They called it The Enlightenment.
It’s called “Common Sense”.
Do you think rape is “wrong”? Are you saying that you don’t think someone should decide that “for you”????
A true American burning a flag is a lot like a Christian burning a Bible.
Hello! Wake the “F” up, will you??
Alas, the age of enlightenment has long passed and was replaced by the barons of the 1800s.
EXCELLENT question posed, regarding the love of liberty, yet not allowing liberty. Well done.
To a “True American” burning the flag is like a Christian burning a bible? You are so full of yourself Nash.
I understand that you think that way about it, but the fact of the matter is that others don’t. In fact, a majority of Americans don’t, or else there would be more action on it. Welcome to the real America Nash – where people disagree and some don’t get what they want – in this case, you and flag burning.
When will you begin to understand that infringement of personal liberty is never acceptable, but non-violent protest is protected expression? It is ever more silly that you would equate a violent, personal assault to someone burning a flag. I suppose the incredible irony of the 1950s notion, that if a flag touches the ground you must burn it is also lost on you? Wake up Nash. Our country is about a lot more than your pedantic notions of patriotism.
Nash
You seem to not understand what a “personal liberty” is.
If you drink 4 ounces of hard liquor, in your house, and then stay there for let’s say 8 hours. You are affecting no-one else’s personal liberty.
If you drive right after, you are placing other people’s personal liberty in jeopardy by driving drunk.
If you force someone else to drink, you are affecting their personal liberty.
You are not affecting their liberty by drinking in front of them, even if they are a recovering alcoholic.
You ARE affecting personal liberty when you give alcohol to a child, because that child does not yet have the experience or knowledge to make a correct decision about accepting the drink or not, and is without understanding the ramifications of it.
Replace alcohol with anything and the point is the same.
Discomfort != outlaw
Anyone may make a jew uncomfortable by eating pork. Anyone may make a hindu uncomfortable by eating beef. Anyone may make a straight person uncomfortable by screwing the same sex. But it does not harm you as the observer, nor has the intent to harm you. Emotional discomfort is a personal problem, due to personal beliefs or opinions, not due to the person performing the act.
For example. Guilt.
You cannot MAKE anyone feel guilty. You can only suggest that they feel guilty about it, but in reality it is YOU that actually have an issue, and would have felt guilty if you were in their shoes.
You left out the most important part…
Flag etiquette states that you must burn it IN A DIGNIFIED MANNER.
:drama:
In a dignified manner? Jeez man, this gets better by the moment.
Did you read BD’s post, or will you cleverly avoid that well outlined example as well? Note that there is no Liberalism, no Democratic dissertation or communist manifesto. That is straight up logic that is clearly based in the law of our land.
Which you seem to be blissfully unaware and unconcerned by.
This place is always so entertaining.
:popcorn:
All i know is I am obviously a fucking genius because nothing I say gets responded to.
Hows that for logic.
@Vsloathe
“If flag burning becomes illegal, then saluting the flag while reciting the pledge of allegiance needs to become illegal too. I find it offensive”
You are such a fuggin stoner man! What’s up with you? You need some serious correction because what you said missed the mark completely. Pfft!
Pay Attention Vsloathe and put your frieken bong down long enough to follow this simple thought if you can…
IT’S NOT ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT’S OFFENSIVE.
I referenced this a few times above but you must have missed this:
“It has nothing to do with offensiveness but more to do with the actual message behind, namely a threat.
You may not see it that way but I don’t think it’s clearly a pedestrian act. I think it leans the other way, a non verbalized threat.”
Go read my post in its entirety before you junk up the conversation arguing points no one (like me) is making.
You’ve GOT to be a total stoner. GOT to be…
MORE VSLOATHE STUFF
“I think anything that I don’t like should be considered offensive and banned.”
Isn’t it already understood by EVERYONE commenting here (everyone!) that it’s not an issue of offense?
Don’t we ALL agree that freedom of speech was meant to protect offensive speech?
Vlsoathe, go and READ the posts. :doh:
@ Edgar: I think that’s the point meng – that although it is offensive (and yes, offensiveness has been taken to task in this thread) that is ALL it is, because it has not legally been proven that it does, in fact, demonstrate a real and present threat.
I think if it were to, then we’d have a completely different story and dialog here. But ATM, the courts do not agree with you that it is an implied threat, which is why it is still legally protected.
This is an interesting line of thinking, because red neck asswipes that might see a black man walking side-by-side a white woman saw HIM as a clear and present threat and, since the government wouldn’t do anything, took the law into their own hands. Since I am going to assume that you would find this sort of racist bullshit as repugnant as I would, I’d wager how you can see how the notion of “threat” can be a subjective discussion – which is why, even if it has been tested in court (I do not know if it has) then it has been struck down that it represented a REAL threat.
@Vsloathe
My head is going to explode! Man…
Try to read this whole damn comment ok?
“Edgar likes to use logic when it suits him (I’ve seen it plenty of times), so show me how it’s possible, syllogistically, to hold both two conflicting ideas, which are:
1) Individual personal liberty is the highest ideal.
2) Demonstrations of individual personal liberty should in some cases not be allowed, in spite of the fact that they violate no one else’s rights, based on the opinion of a majority”
That logic is correct but it is based upon a false premise. The idea that you are refuting is that I want flag burning outlawed because it is offensive to me.
My whole point which perk seemed to understand and respond to in the appropriate manner is that flag burning is, quite arguably, not merely a harmless expression of free speech. There’s room here for each side to have a valid argument drew.
I wrote:
“I agree fully that freedom of speech is meant to protect offensive speech. Someone could say, out loud, “I hate America and I hope it is attacked again by terrorists soon” – and I would be fine with that.”
PAY ATTENTION VSLOATHE…
I wrote:
“Flag burning seems to communicate a threat.”
So you can see that I am not saying that flag burning should be outlawed because it’s just too offensive. Not at all!
The main point?
If a flag burning communicates a threat to the country then it is not merely free speech. We therefore need to definitively define whether or not the message flag burning communicates crosses the line from being merely offensive to an actual threat.
As others have agreed with me here, there is much meat left to be picked on this bone and there is room on both sides of the argument to make a strong and interesting case.
I think you should not be so easily convinced and try to understand the dynamic at play here between offense and threat. That is the interesting part.
Another Gem:
Vsloathe: “No government has the right to tell me what I can do with a piece of cloth that I own.”
Oh yeah? What about that piece of cloth you own called a seat belt? You do live in Massachusetts rigth? You no longer have the right in massachusetts to do as you please with your own damn seat belt.
Big Brother says you MUST wear it or else!
Dig deeper man.
Keep this in mind.
This is a quote from Ayn Rand.
“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”
As for nationalized health care, there will come a time when the government tells you that you can’t have a particular medical procedure because you’re too old … or too fat.
Why should taxpayers pay for medical care for people that now have medical conditions because they smoked tobacco, drank too much alcohol, or ate too many Big Macs?
As for flag burning –
The point is that if you live in America, you shouldn’t want to burn the US flag, even though you “can”. Simple human decency should kick in and tell you that it’s the wrong thing to do.
As for the seat belt, it has been proven that they save lives. Why wouldn’t you want to wear it? This is something that’s for your own good, so I do not understand why people balk at it.
@Ayn Rand: Her philosophies may have, at one point, had a certain amount of validity or at least a provocative nature. Since they neither take into account the realities of the day or account for the possibility that corporations are peopled by the same asswipes that populate government – except that they have a for-reals profit motive to scrape me of money (the government’s profit motive is simply to keep it’s job) I find her to be irrelevant and inconsequential.
@Nash, re. fat, alcohol or too many big macs: And back to my point. Why they should be have a fire department, because clearly you CHOSE to have that TV that went bad. Or a police department because, having purchased that TV you were inviting thieves. Or because you chose that dress, you were inviting rapists. Because we’ve decided as a society that we’re all better when we’re all better. Period. Anything other than that, especially from someone that has a notion of “decency” should certainly understand that. But I have given up hope that your posts will make any real sense.
But you wouldn’t care in any case, because clearly you make all the RIGHT decisions about what you eat, weigh etc. Certainly, you will be genetically predisposed to never have any health issues, and of course your mad skillz will make it so that you are never without work and never without health care. Honestly, I pray that the fall comes lightly to you when you discover that these things are not true. And for the welfare of your family, may you have it only difficult enough that you begin to learn some form of empathy for people other than you, and not have to go through what so very many people in this country do.
You’re probably the type that would not want to pay for taxes related to schooling as well if you didn’t have any children in school, not remembering that YOU were put through school by other people’s taxes. Or that you drive on roads and infrastructure that was put together by the taxes of other people. No, you strike me as a very selfish one that way. Ayn Rand and the notion of “rationalized self interest” is probably an excellent enabler for this deficiency in your personality.
@ Flag burning & decency: “Simple decency” is your opinion (which clearly does not include the health and well being of others). I personally find it utterly indecent that we’ve sent our best and brightest off to a foreign land to die in the name of oil profits and worse, that they are paid SHIT compared to what the new private military is paid. I find it utterly indecent that people cannot eat in the wealthiest nation in the world. In fact, I find both of these scenarios utterly disgusting. But I’ll bet your picture of “decency” is different. And if not you, there’s plenty others. Decency, is in the eye of the beholder.
Which is why I could care less if you find burning a flag indecent. I don’t recognize your position to be “decent” either.
I really don’t give a flying donut if you do or don’t. You have proven to be irrelevant and inconsequential.
Kind of a generalization there, isn’t it?
A little prejudiced against ALL business people? I suppose you work for a non-profit?
For the record – the government, specifically the current government is interested in staying in power.
When this health care fiasco is over, you can bet that our congress people will keep their current “private” plan.
What?
Are you serious?
People smoke cigarette KNOWING that they are unhealthy. It’s written on the pack, for Pete’s sake! Same for alcohol.
The problem with insurance is that people like me end up paying more for insurance because these dolts keep smoking and eating shit AFTER THEIR DOCTOR TOLD THEM TO QUIT, and my insurance company had to pay for their care.
It’s called common sense and personal responsibility.
Wrong again.
You should quit making assumptions. You always get them wrong.
You know what they say about “assume”, right?
No, it is not.
It’s very simple to figure out.
Didn’t your parents ever teach you “right” from “wrong”? That’s a good start.
Kind of like these asshats that think they have the “right” to smoke in public. Do they honestly think that their right to pollute the air supercedes my right to breathe clean air?
It’s the whole “I have a right to be an asshole” attitude.
And before you say anything about “private business”, keep this in mind – restaurants may be “private” businesses, but they serve the public.
Okay, you are a freaking moron.
I hate people that think the war is about oil. Further proof that you have been indoctrinated by the moonbats
If it’s about oil, WHERE IS IT??
So, you are unappreciative of people that gave their lives to protect your freedom? Friggin’ ingrate.
Same for people that want to burn the flag. Only an ungrateful asshead would think of that.
The USA pisses you off? Get the hell out. We don’t need you.
Of course you don’t. You don’t have the capacity. You strike me as an idiot.
Whether or not you find Rand relevant is actually irelevant.
What she states in that quote is fact.
It’s simple math.
Here’s another fact for you:
Socialism does not work.
When people feel that they are entitled to something and get it for free, they stop working.
I don’t like paying high insurance premiums.
I don’t like the fact that medical costs are so high.
I don’t like the fact that my insurance company can drop me.
However, what can be done?
Science and medicine costs money. Big money. That’s what motivates brilliant minds to become health care professionals.
Who’s going to pay the “big money”.
Also-
As for “right” and “wrong”, let me give you a scenario…
Your child steals an MP3 player from Target. What is the correct, proper, decent course of action?
It’s a no-brainer – the parent forces the child to take it back and apologize to the store manager, offer to buy it, and you and your child have a long talk about why it’s wrong to steal, companies lose money, have to lay off people, you’re not entitled to an MP3 player, etc..
If the parent says that there is nothing wrong with the child keeping it, “no harm done”, etc., that is their dumb OPINION, and not the correct answer.
In EVERY situation, there is a DEFINITE “right” or “wrong” course of action.
Now, “free speech” or not, it is WRONG to burn the American flag, because it goes against flag etiquitte, and it is just plain indecent and disrespectful.
People don’t need to be an asshead and burn the flag just because they can.
@Definite right or wrong action.
You are in a room with 2 buttons.
in the room next to you is your wife/kid/whoeveryouholddear.
There is a window between you so you can both see each other.
1 button kills your wife in a gruesome way.
the other button kills you in a gruesome way.
you can only press 1 button.
Which do you push?
How about a mother in rehab, who is a good mother, just addicted to something. Do you take the kid away forever and put them in foster programs and group homes? Or do you keep him with the mother? Either way can go bad or good, just a roll of the dice.
It is tremendously naive to believe that every choice has a right or wrong answer and can be boxed up so simply. You are forgetting an important piece of the human condition, empathy and sympathy. And additionally cause and effect from desperation.
@socialism doesnt work.
Full-bore socialism, sure.
No one ever said America should become a full socialist country.
But socialism does work when you apply it to services that benefit the masses as a whole. Like, health, education and safety, transportation, communication.
First, to address your one question about, “What can be done?” regarding healthcare. Given my client base and connection to doctors and billing, I am well connected to see what Medicare pays, versus what Insurance companies pay. At the end of the day, there is very little difference (the difference is by-procedure: a screening mammogram from Medicare does not pay as well as a diagnostic, but medicare pays better for a diagnostic than screening. Medicare will pay for a bone-dexa (density test) but most insurance will not). The new legislation will increase Medicare payments to make sure that doctors are paid an amount that reflects their costs and profit and increases over time with inflation. That is a good thing. Insurance, on the other hand, continues to squeeze the doctors until several of my clients take ONLY personal payment or medicare, because insurance is so hard on them. For example: in the case of my wife’s breast cancer mastectomy, she had 6 surgeries, 6 months of once-a-week doctors visits with an expander and a wide variety of cosmetic work to try to give her back some of what was taken during her surgeries.
Insurance paid our doctor $600. For the whole thing.
The hospital received $40 for aspirins however, and there was a charge for the bedpan which was unreal – and paid.
The two entities that need to get out from between us and our doctors are insurance companies and lawyers. If the government covers us in the same way that insurance does, then everyone still goes to the doctor (ergo, your question about where does the money come from? Right there) and in fact, more people see primary care physicians, but there is no requirement for the government to profit from the exchange – in fact, it can’t. So the net cost of healthcare goes down as everyone is covered.
This is precisely how it works in France, where they pay about 3/4 what we do (in terms of GDP) for their health care yet get a spectacularly better net-result. And everyone, even down to the last 1% of people, are covered.
Now, to address the other hooie in your post:
So we’ve gone from opinion to Ayn Rand speaks fact.
And you think that we’re not in the middle east to control our access to strategic supplies of oil.
And you think all medical insurance bills are high because of smokers and overeaters.
And you make the REALLY big assumption that my parents taught me the same “Right” from “Wrong” as you.
And I’m an unappreciative ingrate for people that fought for my freedom.
And I don’t need to be here, so “get out.”
Oh, and I’m the one that is irrelevant and inconsequential.
Here’s a quickie Nash: The USA does not “piss me off.” People like you do. Stuck and opinionated, holier than thou windbags that do not understand our country, our freedoms, our laws or from whence they came. People like you that could give a shit about anyone else but yourself and how the rest of the world affects YOU. People like you that simply believe what you are told, then spout it back out in anger because every time you’re confronted with real facts, real data from real sources, you are thwarted and exposed as a fake.
We are fortunate to live in a great society Nash – and maintaining that society and the members of it takes money and effort. Things like being safe from fire, safe from crooks, safe from bad bridges and safe from each other. Healthcare will go a long way to helping those situations. If you don’t want to support the United States, but are only worried about how the United States is taking money from you that it shouldn’t (“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.”) then perhaps it is YOU that should go find another place to live, since clearly, taking care of your country is not in your financial best interest.
First of all, I was speaking of everyday, real-life situations..
In the case of the mother in rehab, there are more options. A family member, perhaps. My wife deals with that stuff all the time.
And, you cannot have socialism/collectivism in some areas and be “free” in the rest. Your current government will never stand for it.
I agree that basic necessities of life – food, shelter, energy, gasoline, medicine, etc. – should be affordable and available to all, but instead of the government placing regulations, they should step out of the way and let free market competition solve it.
“And, you cannot have socialism/collectivism in some areas and be “free” in the rest. Your current government will never stand for it.”
We already do Nash, that’s the point. Police, fire, military, schools, infrastructure, even medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). We’ve been doing it quite successfully for a long time.
Ayn Rand is CORRECT (it is not opinion).
If the government gives someone handouts, ot must be paid for by some other means.
If you don’t get that, you failed Government 101.
We are NOT in the middle east to control our access to strategic supplies of oil.
Smokers and overeaters and other “high risks” do make our insurance payments more expensive.
There are not different “Right”s from “Wrong”s.
People like you, opinionated and holier than thou windbags that want to make decisions for the rest of us based on YOUR opinions piss me off. You simply believe the opposite of George Bush because the Cindy Sheehan Sheeple types tel you to.
The problem with this country is the people that think they “have the right to be an asshole”. They abuse freedoms and try to interpret the laws to fir them. We have gangs running our inner cities and nothing can be done because people will immediately yell “Civil Rights violation!”.
I am ashamed of myself for sticking my head back in here, but it’s kind of like when a child keeps making noise, you stick your head in the door and say, “Quiet down – I don’t want to have to come back in here..”, and 5 minutes later, they didn’t listen and I have to go back in…
The one cool thing about this website – besides the comedy relief – is that it has inspired me to go to REAL web sites with REAL factual information from REAL intelligent people, not self-righteous jerkwads.
Quiet down – I don’t want to have to come back in here!
Medicare (operating in the red)?
“Government” schools?
Yeah – we should be proud…
I believe the Cosntitution calls for a Post Office and a military, but damned if I can find anything about health care in there….
@Perk
““And, you cannot have socialism/collectivism in some areas and be “free” in the rest. Your current government will never stand for it.”
We already do Nash, that’s the point. Police, fire, military, schools, infrastructure, even medicine (Medicare and Medicaid). We’ve been doing it quite successfully for a long time.”
Perk, you are giving the word socialism too much lattitude. We are talking about a certain level of gov’t interference in the economy. Not firestations and libraries.
Regulation is necessary (economic) but over regulation and economic meddling drifts into socialism.
Both communist and capitalist countries have firestations. That fact does not define a country’s politic or economic system.
Instead of misrepresenting the idea of socialism by referring to libraries and such, try giving us some facts about a country that has had success with the economic system called socialism.
France? England?
Find a country that has been defined by the entire world as a socialist country that has proven socialism to be successful.
That is a better way to refute Nash’s judgments about socialism, and my judgments as well.
The whole “police, firestations” etc. statement is a Red Herring anyway.
These are not on the Federal level. They are on the State/Local level, and not included in the Constitution.
Plus, Police and Fire are trained to respond to emergencies, a service that all taxpayers/citizens are entitled to, even the guy that shoves Big Macs and Marlboros into his pie hole after the doctor told him to quit.
However, his stats will drive up the cost of my health insurance because they have to pay for his care.
No Edgar you missed the parallel I was drawing.
What if I see people reciting the pledge of allegiance as a threat?
“Threat” is as subjective a word as “offense”. Neither means anything because they’re both affected by the perceived party.
I actually thought “Maybe I should make a followup post, just in case someone like Edgar tries to misconstrue my meaning”, but I thought it might insult the intelligence of my audience.
Oops.
I’ll try not to overestimate your reading comprehension skills again.
If he doesn’t have health insurance, you’re already paying. Through the nose. Because of the cost of healthcare, which is because of insurance companies.
So try again.
We’re already paying for health care for illegal immigrants, but I digress…
Anyway, as far as medical costs go, their cost is subject to inflation like anything else. It has nothing to do with health insurance. It has to do, for one thing, with doctors having to pay hugh malpractice insurance.
We are not concerned about the cost of health care. We only care about the deductible.
Flexible spending accounts are available, and most people don’t use it.
@police and fire being state level.
Ok then. FBI, NIFC, National Parks, FEMA.
Are they in the Constitution??
No, but neither are the interstates you drive on. The point is, you are provided with services at a national level, that you may not realize you need or use, until you actually need them.
Every summer, I see the benefit of NIFC, when we get stormed by shitloads of flying fire tankers, protecting lives and livelyhood.
Fema, although the massive fail of Katrina response has put them in a horrible light, smaller more manageable incidents are much less horrible with them around.
The “it’s not in the constitution” argument is silly. So I will get silly. Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the RIGHT to marry. Nowhere does it say you have the RIGHT to have kids. Nowhere does it say you have the RIGHT to read books.
@Vsloathe:
You stated clearly what you meant and how you felt when you said,
“If flag burning becomes illegal, then saluting the flag while reciting the pledge of allegiance needs to become illegal too. I find it offensive.
I think anything that I don’t like should be considered offensive and banned.”
Your argument is clearly about tolerating offensive speech in a free society.
You failed to grasp the more subtle point that flag burning could very easily be construed to be a threat. There’s room for valid debate on both side of that subtlety.
There is no room however for your parallel. No one is going to even come close to successfully arguing that saluting the flag while saying the pledge is a threat.
This is the real world vsloathe. You are always a step behind.
roflmao:
Saluting the flag has the intention of showing respect.
Burning the flag has only one intention – to show disrespect.
There are better ways to show your displeasure and disagreement other than a blatant show of distrespect.
Just because you can be disrespectful doesn’t mean that you should.
It’s one of the things that separates us from the apes…
Farting in public isn’t very respectful either, but that doesn’t mean we should make laws against it.
I thought burning the flag was a threat? Now its a disrespect? So why would it be illegal? Im having a hard time keeping up…
Pedantic aside…
“I wish you would die” not a threat.
“i’m going to kill you” threat.
“I wish someone would kill you” not a threat.
“if you don’t change, your gonna get killed” not a threat.
Which one of those is burning the flag? Do you really think that someone who, is a citizen of the US, when they burn the flag, is announcing that they are going to “kill” the US? Of course not. They are saying #4. “change or die”. Not necessarily by their hand either, just a warning in general, which does not make it a threat.
@v
My kid would be in jail for ever then if farting was illegal. We should have named her tooty…
I can think of a number of scenarios where it could be considered a threat. What if you were a minority, especially a brown-skinned minority, in the days following September 11? What if you lived some place like Alabama?
Are you kidding me?
Do you really think that’s a parallel??
We are talking intent.
Legal experts even recognize it (“The Intent to Sell”).
If you happen to have a gastric problem that hampers your control, that;s one thing.
However, if, as a child would, you willfully force yourself to do that just to shock other people (“intent”), then you are being disrespectful, indecent, and yes, you should incur some form of punishment.
So you think there should be laws against farting in public?
roflmao:
Did I say that?
I said that if you have hostile intent, you should be held accountable for such.
It can be a noxious substance, not unlike cigarette smoke….
In any event, people should have the basic human decency to not want to do it in public.
Hostile intent. see, there’s the rub.
If i just stood in the middle of a park, with no expression, no speach, and pulled out a flag and light it on fire. Im a dick, but not a terrorist.
Where do you draw the line of distinction? The flag burner said things that hurt your feelings? Do you arrest all the people around that responded positively to the flag burning? What about the people who threaten to kill the flag burner? What about the media, who probably broadcast it? Do you try them for inciting hate?
The law itself recognizes that ascertaining intent is a difficult nut to crack, and intent alone cannot be used as evidence for a conviction, so I fail to come to your conclusion Nash.
“If i just stood in the middle of a park, with no expression, no speach, and pulled out a flag and light it on fire. Im a dick, but not a terrorist.”
Its not about what you are until we know what you are saying.
Flag burning expresses a threat. It expresses hate too. Now whenever there is a threat or hate it only logically follows that it stems from some sort of disagreement or discontent.
So by merely emphasizing discontent as the message behind flag burning, you overlook the threat and hate that also is expressed with burning the flag.
Personally I don’t have a problem with someone expressing hate. I think hate laws are way too politically correct and idiots should be allowed to express their hate.
But threats are threats and flag burning could well be considered a threat.
To me it means the flag burner is filled with seething hatred, which clouds your judgment and is therefore dangerous and unstable in some way.
It also kind of means down with america. That’s what it means all over the world when people burn our flag. If you say down with america then doesn’t that make you an enemy of america?
You don’t want your loved ones to go down right? You want your enemies to go down. So anyone burning the flag like that is declaring himself an enemy of america.
Flag burning foreshadows violence. Farts do not. What a stupid parallel from vsloathe re farts and flag burning!?!?
It doesn’t really matter, because we’ve talked the subject to death.
Your entire argument is predicated on the premise that flag burning must be taken as a threat. That’s your own personal hangup. I could care less. Doesn’t threaten me. What do you have to feel threatened about, exactly?
Here’s the deal:
Be the best American you can be.
Keep your kids in school, off of drugs, and out of gangs, and away from STDs.
Don’t drink and drive, give the right of way, slow down, get off the phone.
Work hard, pay your bills, live within your means.
Don’t burn the flag, don’t fart in public, smoke only in your own house.
These are just a few that I can think of right off the top of my head…
Meh. Disagree with the work hard part. I would do what I do whether or not anyone paid me, but they do and I live very comfortably. I’m a firm believer in not doing things that you don’t want to do.
Clarification: I pay someone else to do the things I don’t want to do.
Cripes! I step away for a quick 3 days and miss all the fun!
@ the Nash Commandments: An excellent list, frankly. And one that I’d daresay my children would agree fits our household ethos quite nicely. Our personal commandments are a bit more concise and bned a little more towards a Buddhist outlook, but I have no problem with it. However, let me be so bold as to add a few, specifically if I am talking to my children (yikes, not all children anymore
Don’t stop at being the best American you can, be the best HUMAN you can. This may include compassion and empathy for races, religions and outlooks that are radically different than yours.
Don’t be self righteous.
Don’t allow your actions or personal beliefs to impinge on the liberties of others.
Don’t be afraid to stand up for what you believe in.
Don’t be cowed by people that will tell you that being outside of THEIR beliefs is in some way wrong. Your beliefs are every bit as valid as theirs. Remember this, for it is one of the things that makes you American.
Don’t be lulled into the notion that America is about the current attitudes of it’s people and government – be willing to grapple with the framers notions and live from there. Be willing to look at what they had to say in relationship to today to build a foundation for belief in the American Dream that transcends both yourself and your adversaries.
@ flag burning == threat: This is really simple. If burning a cross in a public square is not threat enough to make it illegal, then burning a flag should not be either. And they aren’t, so we’re just jacking off here.
Boys: it’s not a threat. If it was, as Edgar has pointed out, it would be smote down and the perpetrators would be made to pay restitution (in some way, jail time etc). So the fact of the matter is that the opinion that is IS and should be illegal is simply contrary to the laws of the land.
@ Edgar, socialism: I don’t believe I am giving it too much weight: what exactly do you think it is? Socialism is not an absolute in the way that communism is – it defines an economic and practical relationship between public works/commons and taxpayers. Medicare is, in fact, socialized medicine. Regardless of it operating in the red (the way it was originally scoped out it imagined reasonably steady growth and summit, not explosion and implosion as happened from the baby boomers to Gen X/Y)
Socialism, as an umbrella concept, is a damn fine thing when implemented correctly. The idea that there are some things that we, the people all need to do in concert, or be involved in, or need access to being managed by a not-for-profit government entity makes perfect sense. Privatization simply imposes a profit-hungry middle man for elements of society that we all need. Like firefighters, teachers, police, construction, etc – and BTW it doesn’t matter if it’s paid for federally or state-to-state, if the government pays for it, it’s socialized. We have a socialized fire department. So Nash: get over it.
In fact, to force certain commons into the private sector is simply a little slice of corporate welfare! Consider what Haliburton is doing to our country, by privatizing our military. This is one of the most frightening things you can imagine, because they are whores: they fight for money. Ergo, the highest bidder will get the job. Ergo, by privatizing our military and allowing for control outside of our elected officials, we make it conceivable that we could undergo an armed insurrection and coup. Think about it. Then consider how arguments about socialism is unpatriotic and I think you’ll get where it may, in fact be the ultimately patriotic design.
I am not saying that I favor government over business. I favor an uncomfortable and sometimes adversarial balance – an economic Yin/Yang that keeps each in check. Too strong a government and you failed communism. Too strong a private sector and you get corporatacracy and fascism. It is the balance of the two that creates real protection AND growth for the common man.
I disagree with the drugs part too.
Drugs are good.
Well, as a dad I’m inclined to go the other way anymore. But It’s also really important IMO that we take victimless crimes as such off the table and get to the real legal issues we face.
@perk
Your answer is fine but I really want you to give us an example.
“Socialism, as an umbrella concept, is a damn fine thing when implemented correctly.”
You asked me what I think socialism is. Let’s actually define it in that umbrella sense that you are talking about.
First pick one of the countries (european I suppose) that all educated people agree is a socialist country.
Then please show how it has been successful. Perhaps show how it has been more successful than our current form of democracy.
Maybe you could do a whole post on it? Maybe not. But either way could you address it like that?
Health Care in not a right, nor should it be.
And no, it is not covered under the “Pursuit of Happiness” clause.
Humans need food and water to sustain themselves. I don’t see anywhere in the Constitution that says they will provide us with such.
To me, having food and water makes me happier than health care would.
Actually, this debate is not about health care, but health insurance.
Health care is out there.
Heatlh insurance is out there.
You just have to buy it like you do food, water and gasoline.
So, breaking it down to its core, it would appear that this debate is whether or not the US Government should pay our medical bills.
IF the Government assumes financial responsibility for our health care decisions, you can bet your last Frappacino that they will have some say in it like they do the banking and auto industry.
I do know this:
The single-payer system idea is not even on the table.
The bill most likely will not pass because even the Dems see that it’s too expensive.
And, the dem-led Congress is SO CONCERNED with our well-being that they’re going to wait until after their vacations to finish it…
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/93m8z/my_wife_recently_had_a_baby_this_is_the_bill/
I recommend you read the first comment from a Canadian, too.
@Edgar – a fine idea. I’ll give that some thought and see if I can eek out the time for a well-researched post. The list is long of countries that I can use, so I’ll consider it. Thanks man.
@Nash: Regarding if it’s a right or not is arguing semantics. The fact of the matter for me is that we pay more than double any other country in the world for healthcare, yet we have an absolutely horrible record of it. Our health is locked up between insurance companies and lawyers, and we all wind up paying through the nose for the privilege of giving them our money. It’s asinine. The only way to really get rid of all of it would be to limit malpractice awards and eliminate the requirement for insurance companies.
All that said, I do believe that healthcare should be a right. We are the wealthiest nation on the earth – and we argue that we have the best medical system in the world, yet our people’s health is 50th, just behind Morrocco. We are THE ONLY INDUSTRIALIZED NATION IN THE WORLD that does not provide basic healthcare to it’s citizens. Perhaps that IS why we’re 50th.
I understand you feel it should be a right to be as unhealthy as you want and die in your own way. So be it. But right now over 70% of Americans think that a single-payer system would be the way to go. And I’m with them.
To that: I don’t think a single payer system is on the table because that would be just too much to cram down our political system’s throat. This will need to be a work in progress for a long time, I think. This is an excellent step in the direction though.
You have no freedom with your medical system today unless you pay in cash. If you are involved in insurance then you are locked into
Actually there is little to fear with the current plan thats on the table.
Its a single payer OPTION. Meaning, if you find a better plan from a company, go ahead, take it. Obviously there are details, but thats the short version.
The republicans are fear-mongering calling it “government insurance” which of course sounds horrible. It’s all word spin, but the democrat name of “single payer option” seems to be more in line with what the plan actually is. An option.
@socialized country.
there are no countries in the western world that are socialism. They have socialist parts, but are democratic/capitalist overall. So, if we count that as a “socialist country” then…
I will suggest Denmark. Constantly rated as the happiest country on earth. The people there have no worries other than the ones they bring upon themselves.
LOL I guess I never finished my thought on that last post …
@ Denmark: and the ladies are fine. Let’s move there.
@ Repubs fear mongering: the unfortunate thing about the Dems not getting a vote out before August is that the insurance companies will not take a day off … Congress just gave the insurance companies several months of unrestrained fear they can lobby against the American people. The commercials are going to FLY at us, just you watch.
BTW – Conyers is a COMPLETE moron.
Health care a “right”? The thinking person says “No”.
Look … it’s this simple.
In order for you to receive health care, someone else has to either expend time or property. To claim a “right” to health care is to claim a “right” to someone else’s time.
That is, a right to a portion of their life: whatever portion of their life it takes for them to either render the health service or produce the medical implement or drug that is being used. Hate to break this to you … but who in the hell do you think you are to claim a portion of someone else’s life as YOURS?
There.
That should settle this “health
care is a right” thing.
According to Rasmussen public support for the healthcare plan is way down.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In a side note %70 want the borders secured as opposed to the %22 that prefer legalizing the status of illegal immigrants.
When I compared rasmussens findings with gallap and other polls I noticed that rasmussen had a lower presidential approval rating. However, after obama was elected the actual voting statistics were compared to pre electiong polling results and Rasmussen was the only polls that was dead on. Exact.
The poll indicates that more people trust republicans than democrats, consider border security more important than changing the status of illegal immigrants (70% to 22%) and are against the obama health care plan.
Specter is trailing his republican counterpart by double digits.
Looks like the house of cards is beginning to fall down.
If you listen closely… you’ll hear Perk scurrying across wikipedia ( or one of his OTHER credibal sites)looking for ANYTHING that might support his liberal nonsense!
roflmao:
roflmao:
LOL scurry my ass. Doing too much real work to argue with people that are bound and determined to stand against their own best interests. I’ll post again next week sometime. Till then, you all can continue to soothe yourself with meaningless right-wing drivel.
I understand. It’s all you’ve got.
it appears all the left wing drivel you’ve got, has already been spued onto the blog.
We can tell, because the slim pickings you’ve been posting has no meat to it. It’s all fluff.
You expect to debate on the premis of one single republican station taking a legal tactic against a couple who couldnt handle there FIRST task on the job!
Have you not read any article from ANY of the drive by liberal media in the past decade…
Talk about calling the kettle black!!!
Weak Perk… Very Weak!
(secretly Perk is figuring a way he can vote for Romney in 2012 and be able to justify it to his liberal cronies)
Well I guess Perk just doesn’t want to talk about the healththcare bill because the white house is now considering taking out the private option, caving in the to the Rush goons. LMAO!!
Nor does perk want to talk about Obama’s approval rating. He probably doesn’t want to talk about waning public support of the healthcare bill.
Not to mention the fact that many republican congressmen up for election in 2010 are gain major ground over their liberal counterparts.
What is there to talk about? It’s all bad news for perk and his ilk.
thats ok. Libs really wernt cut out for the driving anyway… they’re more ‘backseaters’ if you know what I mean!
roflmao:
I am impressed that you boys think that my liberal drivel is enough, even in it’s scant quantities, to keep coming back. Methinks you protest too much.
But don’t worry, I’m far from done. Don’t take my silence as anything other than I’m too busy to spend much time here ATM.
“I am impressed that you boys think that my liberal drivel…”
Well technically your drivel is not liberal. I would say your drivel is more like that of a fanatical leftist.
Maybe that’s not fair. Let me think… How about radical militant marxist? Ya, that’s pretty good.
and no words from the cronies either…
just sheepishly waiting for Perks command.
You can’t be too hard on Perk. He’s just regurgitating what he has been spoon-fed.
And, you have to remember –
Like The Rush Limbaugh Show, Perk’s site is for entertainment, and is not meant to be a reliable information source.
Now, I agree with Perk on one fundamental issue. I am all for taking care of the middle class. Exactly how to do that is where we differ.
The liberal perspective – and not necessarily Perk’s – is that we as a country should not only embrace but “promote” the so-called minorities, such as illegal immigrants.
When you have a LAW that defines illegal immigration, it is the duty of this country to enforce this law.
It is actually assinine that Osama Bin Laden can come here illegally and create baby with an illegal alien (for instance) and that baby would be a legal US Citizen , to which OBL would have rights to! Is that absurd??
Illegal immigrants are ruining our economy and, if PrezBO has his way, would get benefits paid for by people actually paying taxes. That burns my butt.
Also, I feel that ANY & EVERY company breaking the law by paying these people “under the table” should be fined 10 times the amount of the taxes they avoided.
Another liberal “habit” burns my butt.
I, along with many others, have provided irrefutable and concrete eveidence that proves the Al Qadea/Saddam/911 connection, but what do they choose to listen to? The whiny Cindy Sheehan types!
What the hell??? That’s nothing more than a slap in the face to our country’s finest.
Nash-
It’s the liberal way of avoiding facts. If you get a chance read some of “hate as a family value” post somewhere here at perks. you’ll see how even after statistics and facts are provided, they will simply deny them and continue to feed you more fluff.
I will say this… from time to time they will actually make some good points.
I think this is what we call the buck shot approach, just keep shooting till you hit something.
Still no order from princess Perk to his minions to take up the battlefield I see… roflmao:
This is friggin great! A right wing circlejerk!
Go man! Don’t let me stop you.
:popcorn:
lol
i been on vacation and sick.
aside from that, its more fun just watching you guys blither cookey fruitnuts.
ok…ok… i got one for you!
I’m overly sympathetic, easily offended,
unreasonable, unrelenting, confused, and metrosexual!
What am I?
Any guesses?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/5136176/Baby-shot-dead-in-US-troop-raid-in-Afghanistan.html
Looks like Obama the baby killer is at it again!
He just loves killing innocent babies… that war monger
“This is friggin great! A right wing circlejerk!”
ya… and some whining liberal is the pivot man!
roflmao:
Back to something serious.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090817/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul
Obama is losing major support among his base. Howlin Howie Dean has some things to say in the above link to the ap article. The left is all riled up over Obama’s capitulation not to mention the inept way the democratic leadership is failing to push this health care bill through.
A filibuster proof majorit and they just can’t get it together.
roflmao: roflmao: roflmao: roflmao:
No you haven’t. That wouldn’t be possible, since it doesn’t exist. I know, I’ve looked – in that type of place you’re *supposed* to look for important stuff like that – the Library of Congress.
Whoa now, the word “innocent” is three syllables. That’s pretty impressive for a mouth breather like you. Have you gone back to middle school?
Apparently nothing I say makes a dent, so I’ve given up. They want to act like children so I’ll treat them like children. They talk like neanderthals, they can’t spell worth a damn…it’s just not even worth my time trying to talk some sense into them.
Sometimes ridicule is the only thing that gets through to people.
It sounds like you’re some caricature of a person dreamt up by the insipid mind of an unimaginative adolescent. I’ve never met anyone who fits the description you give, and I’d imagine if I did he’d be quite droll.
What are you Trent, like fifteen years old? Some day you might read a book on economics or history, and you’ll feel like such an idiot man. Such an idiot.
roflmao:
So, you rely on and trust your government to give you the “truth”?
Anyone that would laugh at the Library of Congress as an information source… as if it is filled with lies, is not even worth talking with. That is stupidity of the first order.
I’m having a great time, because you boys are demonstrating exactly who and what you are with aplomb. Thanks VS for coming by … I realize what a waste of time it is.
Hey, we’re just doing our part to inject some objectivity and to put some substance in place of all of the propoganda.
I understand that once the truth is revealed, your little circus act here will pretty much be ignored.
God Bless the 1st Amendment!
Nash, don’t you work for the government?
It must be hard to actually maintain that level of hypocrisy. The cognitive dissonance in your brain must be positively crippling on your ability to think critically. I think I understand you a lot better now.
Nice try.
Predictable, as well.
When you are cornered and have no argument, you simply insult.
Anyway –
I work for local government, more specifically, a government school system. It’s a paycheck.
At any rate, the Iraq/Al Qadea link proof is there for all to see. I wonder if that data is in the Library of Congress as well.
I do not like the idea that whoever runs the Library of Congress to have the authority to possible “oversee” what is housed there as “fact”. Maybe it’s on the up and up, who knows. I like the “checks and balances” system of a free press myself.
However, if they are an open and factual institution, then these same facts that I quoted should be there, so no harm done.
I just don’t like the idea of a bureaucracy running my retirement, healthcare, or deciding what “facts” to present to the citizens.
My God. So you attribute your “sources” more validity, and therefore your opinion more weight, than the combined resource of the Library of Congress – citing possible political bias of the librarians? And you expect to be taken seriously?
What’s most funny is your line about, “I don’t want any bureaucracy running my retirement, healthcare or deciding what “facts” to present to the citizens” … so you work for the local government, getting a paycheck. That means you probably have a retirement fund created by the local government, probably have a health plan that has been provided by the local government you work for and are involved in an institution (government school system) which is utterly involved in providing facts for citizens. You are personally involved and benefitting from a socialized system.
You are the single largest hypocrisy I’ve ever seen.
@Vlsloathe
Why do you always have to start a Food Fight? Calling trent an idiot and judging nash to be cognitively dissonant.
“They talk like neanderthals, they can’t spell worth a damn…”
Oh, should we spend our time now looking for spelling errors?
“Sometimes ridicule is the only thing that gets through to people.”
I think this statement is very telling indeed. Ridicule proves nothing and fails to persuade.
I guess if you have nothing constructive to say but just can’t keep your mouth shut then ridicule comes into play.
So here is a moral lesson from Vsloathe. It’s good to ridicule people when they disagree with you. Let’s all do that shall we? The whole country. That should solve a lot of problems and lead to some form of enlightenment.
Well until there is some real debate here I’ll just turn on the tv and see if the Nazi’s in the white house have successfully assembled their death panels yet.
Can you imagine that? In AMERICA!
Let me see if Obama has rolled back the Patriot Act yet. You know, the egregious expansion of executive power that bush just gloried himself in.
I am not counting on the “retirement” to be there when I retire. I have an IRA.
I am actually on my wife’s health insurance plan.
The last part made no sense.
Anyway, I’m actually getting the taxes back, in the form of a paycheck, that I’m paying in. Pretty sweet deal.
This government school gig is temporary, by the way.
Regardless of whether you think it will be there or not, you’re on a government pension.
“Anyway, I’m actually getting the taxes back, in the form of a paycheck, that I’m paying in. Pretty sweet deal.”
WTF? Is that some sort of rationalization for monies being paid into a health care option? Rationalization for your retirement account? Boasting about the fact that you’re not paying your fair share of the commons tax burden?
So you get ALL OF YOUR TAXES back? So you’re a 1099 not a W2? Or do you have a corporation and take your income that way? Regardless, if you’re “paying in” then you’re on the government health care system.
So let me be clear:
Regardless if it’s temporary or not, you’re on a GOVERNMENT PAYCHECK you hypocritical fuck. That means that while you’re harping your CRAP about socialized liberalness, MY TAXES GO TOWARDS PAYING YOUR SALARY. My businesses, paying taxes, put food on your table. So SHUT UP.
Your voice is meaningless. don’t bother me anymore.
@perk
“Regardless if it’s temporary or not, you’re on a GOVERNMENT PAYCHECK you hypocritical fuck.”
Perk, he is working for the money.
Let me try to explain this. See, if you actually work for the gov’t in some way, shape or form, then it’s OK to get paid by the gov’t.
If you don’t work for the gov’t and they give you a paycheck then it’s a handout.
It seems like you think Nash is on welfare and not actually working for his money.
What about all of the other people who work in the gov’t who are against liberal programs? You mean to say that because they work for the gov’t then they should stand behind every liberal issue?
Doesn’t make sense to me. What’s going on here anyways? It’s like this blog is in the twilight zone lately.
I remember when we actually used to have real debates on this blog of yours perk. It was actually interesting and fun.
I guess there is nothing to talk about especially since it’s hard to avoid the fact that Obama is basically expanding on Bush’s policies.
Nobody wants to talk about that do they? Didn’t think so…
How about the war in Iraq. Obama was ‘against the war before he was for the war’ I think one could rightly say.
Obama was ‘against the patriot act before he was for the patriot act’ and now that he is president he’s in NO HURRY to kill that sucker.
Bush started with the bailouts and obama followed suit with much vigor.
What about that great post partisan era obama promised? It’s becomeing MORE partisan!
The arab world feels that obama’s policies toward the middle east is just more of the same with a different face.
Bush increased spending and obama is increasing spending.
Bush increased the size of gov’t and obama is increasing the size of gov’t.
Bush failed to do anything to really secure the boarders and Obama hasn’t even tried anything yet!
What about no child left behind? Obama has spoken against it but has been extremely vague as to his plan in that regard.
This guy has been in office since january and it’s closing in on september. What has he done besides following Bush?
He’s been in office nearly 9 months! That’s long enough. If he can’t handle the presidents job because there is too much on the presidents plate, then he shouldn’t be there.
Edgar I usually don’t have a problem with you because you’re mostly reasonable and intelligent.
These clowns bring out the worst in you though, and you seem to be all for it, so I have no problem lumping you in with them.
You just don’t get it, do you?
So what if he’s working for the money? If people like you and he had your way, there would be no government jobs to be had doing what he does! I’ll bet both of you support private education over a public option.
This is the hypocrisy Edgar. We understand that he is not on the dole. It’s like me saying that I have moral problems with gambling, and then going to work at a casino. It just doesn’t compute.
I would love to continue our civil conversations, but I didn’t start the name-calling or circle-jerking here, you conservaparrots did.
Read this thread. I’ll respond in kind to people. I don’t have to pretend to respect stupid opinions – you certainly don’t pretend to respect opinions that you consider stupid.
Saying that Saddam Hussein had any ties to Al Qaeda when the record books show that he systematically had Al Qaeda members executed is stupid. If you can find a link to Al Qaeda from Saddam, that means you went in looking to find a link. An objective, reasonable person would conclude that there is none. You need to really dig deep to contrive that link, and you need to deny a whole bunch of facts too. We put Saddam in power. Maggie and Ronnie armed the bastard! We sent thousands of tons of biological payload, as well as solid and liquid propelled rockets to Iraq throughout the 1980s. There were well over 100 sites about which our intelligence knew where all these rocket parts and biological weapons were stored. We still have the satellite images of them, unclassified! But you know what we did when we invaded? We left those sites to sit, unguarded. Now fast forward to 2006 and 1 in 8 trucks crossing the border into Syria scans radioactive.
Yeah, the war was all about protecting us from terrorists. Or maybe it was just so that Al Qaeda could get its hands on all of Saddam’s weapons?
Man, what a trip you guys are. Read a fucking book.
Yeah, right, you worthless asshole.
Vsloathe,
You are directing your anti iraq war arguments at me but I have not said anything about that subject. I think you are confusing me with nash.
Now about respecting stupid opinions and arguments:
I’m not asking you to respect those things. I’m not asking you to respect me or anything for that matter. I’m just remarking on the level of the rhetoric of which you are not excluded.
I think we’ve had some decent debates and I’m not finding any here anymore. That’s fine. Debating is my hobby you might say and I enjoy is very much.
But only when it’s serious debate. I don’t like the Food Fight kind of debates. I appreciated some of the debates we had at matts blog. We should do more of that.
No crying though…
You’re goddam right!!
I work for a school system, so I know how inadequate these people are!
Nash you SORRY IGNORANT FUCK.
I’ll bet you were put through public school. Meaning that OTHER PEOPLE PAID for you to have the miserable excuse you’d call an education. You make money from from a socialized job. You get your health insurance from your WIFE’S employment FFS.
I have 8 teachers in my family… EIGHT. My father alone was a professor in community college for 48 FUCKING YEARS. My wife was a 4th grade teacher. My mom still owns a math and tutoring facility for children with learning challenges, after having taught in the public system.
I am a very successful businessman, went through public school 100%, I’m in the top 3% of earners in the US. I’ve owned many different companies, including one that my partners and I grew from only 6MM/year in sales to 80MM/year in just under 3 years, then sold it. I’ve had over 500 employees to none. I’ve been a W2, a 1099 and worked under the table. I own 3 corporations today which provide business services, retail services and internet services to a fantastically wide array of clientele. I sent my kids to private school while still paying my taxes for public happily BECAUSE IT IS MY DUTY TO PAY BACK WHAT WAS PAID FOR ME. I have traveled, lived and learned ALL OVER THE WORLD. I do business with several different countries EVERY DAY. I’ve almost died 3 times. I’ve supported my beautiful and wonderful wife through breast cancer and the health care crap (she is now a 9 year survivor). I am closing in on 50 and have had 3 different career paths. It is from THAT perspective that I tell you we need a public health care option in this country. NOT SOME STUPID MADE UP FOX NEWS HORSESHIT PHILOSOPHY THAT I’VE BEEN FED AND REGURGITATE BY PEOPLE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF MY IGNORANCE. I am happy to debate people that want to talk about how to make our country and government better, not people that would SPIT ON IT WHILE TAKING MONEY FROM IT.
You come here, KNOWING that you’re on the government payroll and spout your crap? GROW A PAIR OF BALLS AND DO WHAT YOU SCREAM. Go start a business. Self insure. Have 3 kids and put them through private school. Endure the health care system in a REALLY SHITTY WAY. DO IT. DO IT. Walk the talk, you hypocrite.
DISGUSTING. And you should be ASHAMED of yourself.
No, no, no, no, no, no, NO!
I gave a link that PROVES the involvement. If you STILL think there was no connection, then that fits my definition of “ignorant”.
Anyway –
I took a job a few years aog because I needed one. I am currently looking for another one. I have even less respect for our government schools now that I have seen then from the inside.
Our government is not perfect. Necessary, but not perfect. I am glad that we have police and the military, but I don’t like the government trying to run our private companies.
And, Social Security is almost broke. Medicare is in the red.
Do you really think that the Library of Congress is the ultimate authority on “truth”?
I do not like paying high health insurance premiums, then paying a co-pay, and then having to pay the “balance” and prescriptions.
But, I also do not like the idea of the government making my health care decisions, having a bureaucrat telling me when to have a prostate exam, decising if I “really need” that chemotherapy, and making me wait 6 months for an appointment with a cardiologist.
The “ideal” scenario would be to have the same level of health care that we have now at a lot less cost with no danger of being “dropped”.
But, it ain’t gonna happen. That’s not what PrezBO is proposing.
You think health care is bad now? Wait until the 3 Stooges get through with it.
You ObamaManiacs were duped.
His health care plan is going to fail, his approval ratings are dropping, and the only thing he’ll be remembered for is his infamous “beer summit”.
Now, you “change” fanatics put all of your eggs in one basket, thinking your Messiah was perfect, and that he was going to fix everything. Are you REALLY that gullible? He even made you believe that he’s black!!
roflmao:
All kidding aside, this country is going downhill fast, and all of you ObamaManiacs are to blame.
Of course I did, but I had no choice!!!
I found out real quick that these government schools were stupid. I almost dropped out of school, but I worked part-time when I was 17-18 and paid my private school tution. I wouldn’t have graduated otherwise.
I failed a grade and had a 2.0 GPA my Junior year. When I went to private school for my senior year, I graduated with a 3.6 GPA.
I worked odd jobs and was “self-employed” for a little while, then, at the age of 38, enrolled in college. I have almost completed 2 degrees – one in IST and one in Management, a member of an Honor Society and maintaining a 3.8 GPA.
But actually, none of that is any of your business.
So, Ed, shut your fucking piehole, you dickless shithead. Fuck you.
WOW!!! The sleaves have really rolled up, here!!
Vsloathe:
“Whoa now, the word “innocent” is three syllables. That’s pretty impressive for a mouth breather like you. Have you gone back to middle school?”
So… it’s okay when you and your ilk, attacked president Bush, in the same manner, but if we bring to your attention the parallels bewteen bush an obama, your frickin head comes off and your true intelligence spills unto the blog. the word hiporcite comes to mind.
“It sounds like you’re some caricature of a person dreamt up by the insipid mind of an unimaginative adolescent. I’ve never met anyone who fits the description you give, and I’d imagine if I did he’d be quite droll.”
These words perfectly describe a ‘typical’ liberal, and judging by your little hissy fit thrown here today, I’d say it fits you well.
“I would love to continue our civil conversations, but I didn’t start the name-calling or circle-jerking here, you conservaparrots did.
Read this thread.”
BD #22
“Ugh. here were go again with another tard that insists on purporting intelligence, yet continually misrepresents what his opponent says.”
oops! Vsloathe didnt do his homework. Looks like a lib threw the spoon full of mashed potatoes.
“you certainly don’t pretend to respect opinions that you consider stupid.”
Vsloathe #49
Vsloathe #50
Vsloathe #63
Wow!! a real show of respect there Vsloathe! comments from a brilliant scholar I presume!?
All you guys are so tough to dish out the rhetoric, but you REALLY cant take it.
I am truly sad for you!
I may dish it out, but i dont think i’ve ever whined because someone said something that OFFENDED me. Stop it already. No one cares if your offended, and you dont care that you offend anyone else. So stop the phony outrage!
Check out the ratings re obama, health care, tax cuts…
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
This seriously just blows my mind, dude. Journalism may be dead, there may be no such thing as unbiased reporting anymore. We’re not talking about that. We’re talking about a library. The largest library in the world. By definition, if the LoC is censoring information, that means every other library in the world must be censoring it ever so much worse, since every other library in the world excludes more information than the LoC. Do you see the unreasonableness of your position yet?
It’s like you just make stuff up. Who said anything about your health decisions being made by anyone other than you or your doctor? This just doesn’t happen my friend. You have been lied to. Sure, no healthcare system is perfect and if you don’t have a job in one of the countries with modern healthcare, you might have to wait in line, but for the most part it works quite well. Much better than ours, by every measurable statistic, actually. How embarrassing.
I’m not a liberal. It’s a shame you need to pigeon hole yourself into being exactly what someone else thinks you should be. For example, I am not a liberal because I like my guns. You probably think I’m a liberal because I don’t agree with your ideas that have no merit. But I don’t agree with you not because you’re a conservative and I’m a liberal. Far from it. I could care less. I disagree with ideas that have no merit.
What? That makes no sense in context of my post. I was speaking to Edgar, and I made mention of the fact that you guys who like to troll here have never held back your opinions on how dumb you think we are.
Oh don’t flatter yourself. You don’t posess the influence over me it would take to be offensive. This isn’t outrage at all, whether real or phony. Why would I waste that kind of emotional energy on a troll?
It must be like idiocracy, here. I insult him, but he can’t understand the words I use so he tells me I’m whining. Sorry about that man, I’ll stop talking all “faggy”.
I’ll be honest and tell you i don’t know much about health care in other countries.
I’ve heard we’ve got one of the best systems. Altough this may or may not be true, i can tell you the issue is wether or not the policies Obama wants to put in place will improve our current system.
I say nay.
I think the system may (god help me for saying this) need more regulation on the current system.
Everyone seems to be raping everyone in the whole health coverage deal.
I see in this post a lot of mixing up between the actual health care we are getting, and the money we are paying to receive said health care. I dont beleive that as a whole, our health care itself is lacking. I beleive it lies within the insurances and medical billing.
The hospitals charge the insurance companys three times the ammount of what they would normally charge to compinsate for the brutal ass fucking the insurance companys get away with in the medical billing world.
Then theres the law suites. Wich now the hospitals charge a little more to compinsate for there losses there.
round and round we go.
fix these problems first before tagging on more potential problems.
Vsloathe:
so… all the name calling and insulting was simply out of context… I see!
btw:
Just because you like guns doesnt mean your not a liberal.
Although I have seen you debate intelligently before vsloathe, on THIS post, there was little sign of that intelligence OR debate. Your obviously a pretty smart guy. I just think you think to highly of yourself. Perk is the same way.
Before you start attacking me and calling me names, be sure that I am completly aware of my short comings. So hearing insults from your or the others does not bother me in the least. At least I can say I am aware of them. I dont beleive you or Perk could say the same.
edgar #251
This is HUGE! Even bushes approval ratings didnt waver like this until his second term. If this keeps up, He’ll be another lame duck pres.
And thats not good for anyone, by the way. We NEED him to start doing SOMETHING! This economy is in the toilet and we’ve just blown trillions of dollars. With that kind of money spent, you SHOULD see some improvment pretty quick (provided it was spent correctly)
Nice observation Edgar!
“I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me.”
saw that quote somewhere. thought it was much needed here!
Vsloathe, you are a liberal man. What in the world would make you say you are not a liberal? Guns? That’s ridiculously superficial. Are you serious…guns? LMAO!!
What kind of thing is that to say?
Tell them the truth, you’re a postmodern pragmatist agnostic skeptic verificationist who believes that all things can be explained without reference to god, and because you are not bound by the moral prescriptions of God your views sometimes coincide with main stream liberalism ie esp when a moral law is adopted and unfairly burdened upon us which has it’s roots in religion (in essence legislating from the bible) hence the understandable tendency of some here to recognize you as a liberal when we focus on certain topics.
This is interesting. Please tell what exactly it is about liberalism that you don’t agree with or like.
Really??
PrezBO takes over financial companies and then dictates to them how much their executives can be paid.
PrezBO takes over the auto industry and then dictates to them what kind of cars they cannot build.
Once PrezBO takes over your health care, do you REALLY believe that the government will not be running it in some way, especially if they are footing the bill?
If you don’t think so, then you truly are one of PrezBO’s sheeple.
Trent, thanks for the thoughtful replies. I apologize for being rude to you earlier, and I really do appreciate you showing yourself to be a bigger man. That is what I was looking for.
Incidentally you are mostly right, though our healthcare system is far from the “best” in the world. We rank about 37th in a list of the 39 industrialized countries in the world.
Classical, post-enlightenment Liberalism, I’m cool with. The modern definition of “liberal” is right of center. Obama is right of center. If you call Obama a liberal, then there is no way in hell that I’m a liberal. We just don’t see eye to eye on far too many things. He was clearly the best candidate who had a shot at winning (since Kucinich, Nader, and Paul did not), but that doesn’t mean I’m a huge fan. I’m not a hater either though. I mostly kept my mouth shut about Bush’s fuckups, because I voted for him in both elections against certain parts of my better judgement.
I don’t have any problems with any gods. As you know from my posts elsewhere, I’m a Christian Theologian with some pedigree. Everyone’s an agnostic, by the way. That is, unless you gnostically believe something e.g. “I know that there is a god” or “I know that there is no god”. I’m an atheist. I don’t use the term because I don’t believe in fairies either, but I don’t go around calling myself an a-fairy-ist. I happen to be an agnostic atheist instead of an agnostic theist, while you are an agnostic theist, Edgar.
I don’t think it’s right to make laws because the Bible says something any more than it would be to make laws based on the Bhagavad Gita or the Qu’ran. Laws ought to be based on reason alone, because they govern everyone. In that way I’m kind of libertarian – my rights end where yours begin, etc.
But the reason I’m more anarcho-syndicalist than libertarian is because I see the L’aissez Faire elements of libertarianism as causing some social ills (like the robber barons of the 19th century) for which I consider syndicalism the remedy.
Executives are shielded. I know because I am one. Nash, do you think it’s right to bankrupt your company, lay off thousands of people, and then take home hundreds of millions of dollars in salary?
But regardless, this seems apropos:
http://xkcd.com/558/
I don’t know that I agree with his decision here, but I could pretty much care less. There hasn’t been a domestic car worth buying in about 20 years now. Poorly designed, poorly manufactured, over priced junk. If you were an engineer you’d be appalled at the difference between Toyota’s factory specifications and Ford’s. Toyota uses a sixteen thousand dollar wrench to tighten the bolts holding the head to the block of their engines so that they can get the torque within .00001 micrometer/mg – THAT’S INSANE! By insane, I mean insanely smart from an engineering perspective, and insanely dumb from a profit perspective. But that’s what’s great about Japanese companies – their short term planning is for five years, and in the US that’s our long term planning. Sorry for the tangent.
I think it will probably be similar to the systems in other countries. While the government certainly maintains some control, that’s not a bad thing. The government “controls” the food you eat too. Would you rather risk getting sick every time you eat a burger, or have some standards in place?
There is no such thing as a truly “domestic” car anymore. Fords have foreign parts, and Toyotas have parts manufactured outside of Japan.
Do you know why American car quality has declined?
Two reasons – labor unions and high corporate taxes.
Now, I’m all for government involvement as far as for safety standards, but that’s it.
Not the same thing.
There is already government involvement in health care that protects the patint from improper care.
I just don’t want the government making my health decisions.
I want what I have now, but at a cheaper rate with no possibility of being dropped.
Private industry isn’t going to give it to you. It has no incentive to. The insurance lobby is more powerful than our federal government. If this were not the case, there would be actual *competition* in that sector. Alas, there is no competition. It’s all the worst parts of capitalism + all the worst parts of socialism, all rolled into one!
What?
There are plenty of health insurance companies (and car companies) in competition with each other.
Besides, no one should “give” it to you.
Also, PrezBO is going to raise your taxes to pay for health care. And, if you are one of the “evil rich”, making possibly $100K/year or more, your taxes will go to pay for health care for the “inner city” looters that have a handful of kids by different fathers.
@vsloathe
“The modern definition of “liberal” is right of center.”
Not to go off on too much of a tangent but please explain this idea that the modern definition of liberal is right of center.
I understand that the word liberal has meant different things at different times so you don’t have to explain that. What I’m interested in is knowing how you define ‘the center’ and then I can understand how it is that you think modern liberalism is right of that defined center.
Agnostics–
An agnostic is one who witholds judgment about the existence of god.
An atheist is someone who says “There is no god” and a theist is someone who says, “There is a god”
You don’t need to be able to verify gods existence to be a theist. You simply make a judgment based on the information at hand.
In other words if you believe that theism is the more plausible worldview then you are a theist. Not an agnostic theist.
It’s not the absolute proof or lack thereof that determines if you are a theist, atheist or agnostic, rather it’s the way you cast your judgment. Agnostics withold judgment. Theists judge that there is a god and atheists judge that there is NOT a god. Agnostics withold judgment.
I’m a theist meaning that I believe theism is the more plausible worldview.
Yours maybe, not mine.
I am.
If they need it, I’m glad to provide it to them. Again though, I won’t be affected. I know how to do taxes. I have my own accounting department, an external auditor, and a tax attorney.
No, you’re still confusing definitions. Agnosticism is compatible with religious belief or religious nonbelief. This describes it really well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability
You can be agnostic and religious or agnostic and nonreligious, or you can be gnostic and religious or gnostic and nonreligious. I have never been a gnostic. I “know” that there’s not a god like I “know” that there’s not an Easter Bunny. That is to say, I don’t know for sure and I don’t claim to, so the logical position is atheism and a-bunnyism.
Agnosticism has to do with the nature of reality and knowing, not belief. Agnostics do not think that knowledge about such things is possible, so we’re content to work with what we’ve got. You may be agnostic in that you know there’s no way that you can know *for sure* that there’s a god, and it has nothing to do with your belief. You think it’s more plausible that there’s a god so you believe (though if you want my opinion, you believe in god because it’s a comfort).
Unless you claim a gnostic faith (which isn’t faith), you’re agnostic. People have muddied this term over the years by misusing it as “atheist lite”. It has nothing to do with theism or atheism at its core, it has to do with knowledge.
So if the government is allowed to compete with them, they’ll go out of business?
I can see that, since Fedex and UPS are doing so poorly right now. roflmao:
I can already hear the “but that’s not what Obama wants to do!”
Look, there is no “healthcare bill”. There are half a dozen. I don’t support getting rid of private insurance altogether, I support competition. I think governments should compete for citizenship, honestly, on the same level that corporations compete for customers.
No, it’s more that I don’t want to be lumped in with people with whom I vehemently disagree about the majority of topics.
Here:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
That’s what I mean. Obama and Biden are members of the Authoritarian Right. I’ve already said that I identify most closely with anarcho-syndicalism. That means I don’t believe in silly notions like state sovereignty, or borders between nation states, etc. I think people ought to be free to form their own syndicates to govern themselves. Labor unions arose as a form of anarcho-syndicalism. I am against power concentration, I am for the proliferation of power into and amongst the smallest possible populable unit.
But, I am also a pragmatist. That means that I realize that the world is not yet ready for what I think is the best form of government, and we have a lot of work to do within our current system of government to catch up with the rest of the world; Both in our attitudes and in our actions.
If you’re one of the “evil rich” and I’m stuck firmly in Middle Class, you’re the one he has his sights set on.
The government plan will force the private ones out of business.
PrezBO will make it tough for employers to keep their plans, and will force them to take the government plan. Then, if the employees want to keep their Anthem coverage, they’ll have to purchase it independently at a much higher rate.
Vsloathe:
“though our healthcare system is far from the “best” in the world. We rank about 37th in a list of the 39 industrialized countries in the world.”
now… are you talking of the actual health care, or health care coverage?
Vsloathe
Dawkins outline explains my point nicely ie you are not forced to be an agnostic:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, ‘I do not believe, I know.’
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. ‘I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.’
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. ‘I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.’
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. ‘God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.’
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. ‘I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be sceptical.’
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’
7. Strong atheist. ‘I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung “knows” there is one.’
As I said and as Dawkins agrees, people like me are not accurately regarded as any kind of agnostic but rather a defacto theist.
You seem to lump 2 and 3 together where Dawkins and I see a distinction.
Comfort and God
You have to show that there are no other reasons to believe that the theistic worldview is the more plausible one before you leap to that assumption ie we believe in god to find comfort.
I would say that the case could be made that you withold judgment about god (there is no god) because of intellectual laziness.
What comfort is there in believing in God from the Atheist point of view?
Belief in God requires, usually that you need to conform to a mega burden of moral prescriptions. No one wants that.
Not only that but these moral prescriptions are unacheivable.
On top of that if you are a Christian then you most likely believe that an extremely small group of people will ever really make it to heaven.
On top of that there is the “fact” that you will burn in hell for your moral transgressions.
On the other hand there is comfort in atheism and or agnosticism, namely the lack of accountability. The atheist will never go to hell by definition and there is comfort in that.
There are no heavy moral burdens that an atheist has to live with other than the ones he choses for himself. For instance homosexuality.
Moreover a devout Christian should give up the persuit of his own happiness and instead devote his life to spreading the gospel. In other words throwing your life and all it’s potential away for the sake of chasing some unproven religious doctrine.
There’s much more comfort in choosing to be an atheist than choosing the cumbersome burden of theism.
Nash:
“Also, PrezBO is going to raise your taxes to pay for health care.”
This is one of the big reasons this health care plan is a bad idea. It’s actually because he’s NOT going to raise taxes. That leaves the problem with where the $ is coming from.
Really expensive with no ways (presented as of yet) to pay for it.
Nash:
“And, if you are one of the “evil rich”, making possibly $100K/year or more, ”
This is NOT common sense. Not everybody who makes 100k plus has had to lie cheat or steal to get it. Some of them actually had to work for it. Thats what really got my goat on Obamas tax increases on the wealthier. I personally think if your doing well, you SHOULd help the unlucky, but I also beleive that is a choice that our country should protect. We shouldnt be forced to pay out, just because we are succesful. That leaves less incentive to BE succesfull. The goverment needs to promote the idea of the american dream not squish it.
Vsloathe:
I could be wrong but from what I have found, those rankings where from almost 10 years ago.
Yeah trent, I think nash was being sarcastic.
Vsloathe, all good.
But the normal definition of agnostic is, paraphrased, to be in a state of withholding judgment. Agnosticism isn’t really a world view but a state of mind that one encounters before settling on a worldview.
The agnostic is really on neutral ground as the Dawkins outline showed.
I’m a 6 on the scale.
To be clear: It’s not that I don’t think it’s very improbable that any broad definition of gods could exist, but not the ones major world religions worship. They’re all pretty much eqiprobable in that they’ve all had centuries to produce evidence and haven’t a shred. Why bother? The honest people I have met will admit that their religion is a product of the culture around them and their upbringing, so how could it be that you won the cosmic lottery, being born in the US instead of Japan, or Iran for that matter? The exclusionary principles that religions have espoused are arbitrary and cruel. They play on our baser instincts to ostracize the other. They’re a relic from our tribal past, not something to be celebrated or respected. Let reason rule the day.
@ Trent:
“. Not everybody who makes 100k plus has had to lie cheat or steal to get it. Some of them actually had to work for it.”
I’m with ya, man. I was being sarcastic.
Vsloathe
There is a difference between the credibility of established organized religion and God.
You make the case against mainstream organized religion. I also presented similar sentiments on the issue of mainstream organized religion in an earlier post either on this thread or another one, when you asked me to explain where I fall in the scheme of organized religion.
Attacking organized religion or the way that people interpret or misinterpret their religion has no direct bearing on the plausibility of the existence of God and theism as a whole.
It also does nothing to build an argument for atheism or show any good reason to believe that atheism is the correct worldview, not that you are strictly an atheist. I say atheist in an a-theist sense.
Assumptions
You are a 6 and I am a 2 on the Dawkins model. Let’s look at that for a minute.
“6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.’”
This is a very interesting point. Even Dawkins realizes that there is no sound and irrefutable string of logic that leads to the belief that God does not exist. One must still make an assumption or to use a word that theists are not afraid of, faith.
This is interesting because agnostics and atheists both pride themselves on forming their worldview based on the scientific method and thus claim their world view to be more plausibly correct.
Yet at the end of the day even the atheist or defacto atheist must embrace a leap of faith in the absence of evidence, much as the theist does.
This is logically and inescapably true.
Not really. I examined the physical world using the data available to me, and I could not find evidence that even points towards the existence something outside of the material realm.
I like my life on the assumption that unicorns, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, the entire Greek pantheon, Brahman, Vishnu, Thor, etc. do not exist. You do too. I just go one god further and assume Yahweh doesn’t exist either.
oops like=live in the above sentence.
We’re all atheists to 99+% of the gods humanity has ever worshipped, some of us just go one god further. If you say that there is a god but that he’s beyond human understanding, well then I’m not really interested in something that I’ll never understand. Sorry.
But for the record (sorry for the rapid-fire posting, too much caffeine), the Christian God is very easy to understand. I spent most of my life trying to make him fit in with my reason and sensibilities, but I could not. I couldn’t rectify the stories of the Old Testament (for which we have scant if any archeological evidence) that represent a brutal tyrant unworthy of worship with the vision Christ supposedly brings us in the New Testament.
It’s all just so absurd and arbitrary. Like I said, cosmic lottery and all that. So god creates the universe, waits 14 billion years and then decides to fuck with the heads of some desert nomads. When they rebel, he has to send his son down who is really himself so that he can die and come back to life (rendering him a zombie, by any technical definition) so that people can be saved by telepathically telling him they accept him as savior and then symbolically cannibalizing him. Actually you’re right, I don’t see how I could have missed it before!
Perhaps you can teach me something Edgar.
I’ve asked many religious men who are older and (ostensibly) wiser than I this question, and none has been able to answer it satisfactorily:
What made you choose Christianity over other faiths, and what convinced you (in your mind, I’m not interested in emotional reasons or “I just choose to believe”, because they are both copouts and you know it) that your beliefs are correct?
You’ve always claimed to be a skeptic and very logical, so perhaps you have an answer with which none of them could come up.
Vsloathe
How am I going to comment on all of this at once? Let me try to cover at least a few of the things you brought up.
First I said, “Yet at the end of the day even the atheist or defacto atheist must embrace a leap of faith in the absence of evidence, much as the theist does.
This is logically and inescapably true.”
To which you replied (I think),”Not really. I examined the physical world using the data available to me, and I could not find evidence that even points towards the existence something outside of the material realm.”
I don’t see how your answer refutes my and Dawkins claim that one must embrace faith or call it assumption when making a final decision about the existence of god.
Furthermore you should agree with me that absensce of evidence is not evidence of absense.
Second
“I like my life on the assumption that unicorns, leprechauns, the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, the entire Greek pantheon, Brahman, Vishnu, Thor, etc. do not exist. You do too. I just go one god further and assume Yahweh doesn’t exist either.”
That is partly understandable. There are no good reasons to believe in unicorns or the flying spaghetti monster. On the other hand there are good reasons to believe that god exists.
Third
“We’re all atheists to 99+% of the gods humanity has ever worshipped, some of us just go one god further.”
Discriminating against the belief in one god or another is a matter of religious belief which falls lies the context of a theistic framework.
To not believe in someone else’s version of god does not make you an atheist in any way, shape or form. As long as you believe there is a god then you are never an atheist of any kind.
Fourth
“But for the record (sorry for the rapid-fire posting, too much caffeine), the Christian God is very easy to understand. I spent most of my life trying to make him fit in with my reason and sensibilities, but I could not. I couldn’t rectify the stories of the Old Testament (for which we have scant if any archeological evidence) that represent a brutal tyrant unworthy of worship with the vision Christ supposedly brings us in the New Testament.”
Biblical inerrancy, the interpretation or misinterpretation of apparent moral abominations fails to address the core issue of the existence of God. Since we were talking about everyone being forced to fit categorically as an agnostic, this argument about moral contradiction fails to support your claim.
Biblical criticisms do not address the core argument of the existence of god.
Fifth
“What made you choose Christianity over other faiths, and what convinced you (in your mind, I’m not interested in emotional reasons or “I just choose to believe”, because they are both copouts and you know it) that your beliefs are correct?
You’ve always claimed to be a skeptic and very logical, so perhaps you have an answer with which none of them could come up.”
First of all when you asked me a little while back exactly which denomination I fit into I gave you an answer that didn’t squarely fit into what we recognize today as mainstream Christianity. You were surprised that we didn’t have more in common. Remember?
I would love to argue points regarding Christianity but that’s a big debate.
For now I’m happy to show that both the theist leaning and atheist leaning person both apply faith (assumptions) to their worldview.
And that we are not all correctly and accurately described as agnostics such as you claimed. There is a distinction as Darwin (an atheist) and I (a theist) both agree.
Drew, you should fine tune your definition of agnostic.
It’s not my definition though. I would never call myself “agnostic”, because it doesn’t accurately reflect what I am colloquially. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t accurately reflect what I am in truth, from the literal meaning of the word. It may not reflect what you are in its colloquial usage either, but I dare say there are very very few people alive who don’t fit the technical definition (a Fred Phelps character might be someone who I will admit is not in any way agnostic).
But again here, I can only comment on and consider specific allegations about the nature of a god or gods. To say that god exists is utterly meaningless unless you give him specific characteristics. But then that opens up the door to anthropomorphism and bestowing upon your god human characteristics (god is angry, god is jealous, god is love), while simultaneously bestowing upon him logically inconsistent characteristics that no being resembling a human could possess at the same time (omnipotence + omniscience = impossible).
I am pretty sure that if you believe in a god, you have some idea of what he’s like. Otherwise, what’s the point of believing?
I’m not so sure you would. I was a very polished apologist at one point, and I know all the arguments well. I don’t think it would go very far, to be honest.
In fact, the other day I had some JWs come to my door and busted out my Koinea Greek New Testament and my copy of the Codex Alexandrinus to show them where and how their copy of the scriptures got it completely wrong. I have spent a couple moments pondering these things here and there throughout my life, if you catch my drift. Some in grad school, some in seminary, some in the papers that I have published in peer-reviewed journals.
Also just to be clear, I’m telling you where I’m coming from. I’m not appealing to authority. I’d be glad to discuss any of it with you, but know that I’m going to get what you say down to its atoms. I know my scripture. I read the original language and I understand the cultural context because I spent decades of my life studying it.
Vsloathe
“Unless you claim a gnostic faith (which isn’t faith), you’re agnostic.”
“I would never call myself “agnostic”, because it doesn’t accurately reflect what I am colloquially.”
I’m glad to see that you have tempered your definition and application of the word agnostic.
Very good vsloathe!!
I’m not reluctant to debate you on anything at all, as long as I believe in what I’m debating. I have reasons for what I believe too.
Just don’t forget that a major component of your worldview is based on faith or assumptions as Dawkins put it.
That was my other point in my earlier posts which you have dropped completely.
Let’s debate the existence of god. Which worldview is more plausible, the theist worldview or the atheist worldview?
I say that
oops, posted by accident,
I say that the theist worldview is more plausible than the atheist worldview.
Sounds good. Can we start with what evidence compels you to think that a theistic worldview is more plausible?
none of the points here prove or disprove the positive or negative impact the new health care bill will have on the country. I don’d beleive religion will have any direct impact on the proposed bill.
Vsloathe:
I’m curious. You’ve studied religion (christianity primarily, from what I gather)for quite some time.
Why?
Were you looking to prove it’s validity or were you looking to disprove it?
In my opinion, someone who studies something that long and hard has more than a simple curiosity behind there motives.
And by the way… the recent bombing in Iraq was believed to have been carried out by Al Qaeda(as reported by CNN)
They are still there. They have always been there, and because of our withdrawl from Iraq, they will continue to thrive there.
Vlsloathe,
I would be glad to argue this point with you but not here. Trent is right. No one besides me and you want to be bored to death with this topic.
I’ll start a blogspot blog or something and we can argue there. Better idea?
I’m not bored. Just don’t want to interrupt the flow. :popcorn:
Because I was a Christian before I applied critical thought to that area of my life. I was brought up that way, and I was on the path to becoming a theologian or a pastor/priest/vicar.
Now, my younger brother is rising to prominence as a theologian. He’s being published more and more, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is a Jim Wallis character in a few years. This is good because he’s a strong proponent of Christian social justice.
vsloathe:
If you dont mind me asking… how old are you?
If nobody was paying attention, it’s being said, the new health care reform will most likely be modeled after the Romney system in Massachusetts.
If this becomes the case, this will be a NIGHTMARE for Obama in 2012. With not much else going well for him, this Health care reform was going to be his baby. Turns out it will be the republican counterparts baby. (guess he should have had a dna test roflmao:)
Good luck with all that. Note that Congress is on recess and Obama is on vacation. This is a long game with many innings to go. It’s all hash and toss ATM.
Perk
“I’m not bored. Just don’t want to interrupt the flow”
I didn’t see that comment perk. I started a blogspot blog anyhow. I couldn’t seem to find an available domain to my liking though. Something that used the word Philosophy in one way or another. Seems that people on blogspot are into philosophy!
Perk, I think this could be a really good argument but I want to approach it seriously with drew.
The domain is http://agelessquestions.blogspot.com/
I have not posted yet as I’ve suddenly run up against a bit of life and reality here in Massachusetts. Lot’s of BS going on at the moment that needs my attention. But, I will state my case for the existence of god and present my argument that theism is the more plausible worldview.
I’m going to debate drew and leave the comments off until we are done with the debate. Then I will open comments up and you guys can make your points. I just want the debate part to be easy to follow.
Again, this debate will focus on which worldview is the more plausible, theism or atheism. Neither side needs to prove beyond doubt that god does or does not exist but rather which worldview is more plausible.
I need an email vsloathe so I can invite you to participate in this debate as I have comments off right now.
Scratch that vsloathe. I don’t need an email. I will just leave the blog open. However, I will moderate the comments and until we finish the debate only you and I will be allowed to comment.
Now, Healthcare Deform will fine companies that don’t provide insurance?
Companies don’t pay fines – they pass them on to customers.
What we need is complete coverage and choice for a fair price without co-pays and risk of “droppage”,without bureaucrats managing our health.
Anything less is unacceptable.