|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
The state of Texas is turning down billions of federal dollars that would have paid for health care coverage for 1.5 million poor Texans.
By refusing to participate in Medicaid expansion, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, the state will leave on the table an estimated $100 billion over the next decade.
Texas' share of the cost would have been just 7 percent of the total, but for Gov. Rick Perry and the state's Republican-dominated Legislature, even $1 in the name of "Obamacare" was a dollar too much.
"Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration's attempt to force us into this fool's errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system," Perry said.
Texas Republicans have moved steadily to the right — to where the very concept of public health insurance of any kind is looked at through narrowed eyes. Still, it's not easy to walk away from $100 billion from the federal government to help your state's poor, elderly and disabled, especially when you have powerful stakeholders like hospitals, doctors and cities clamoring for the state to take the money for their sakes.
Texas hospitals stand to lose about $7 billion.
Source
|
On May 24 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +The state of Texas is turning down billions of federal dollars that would have paid for health care coverage for 1.5 million poor Texans.
By refusing to participate in Medicaid expansion, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, the state will leave on the table an estimated $100 billion over the next decade.
Texas' share of the cost would have been just 7 percent of the total, but for Gov. Rick Perry and the state's Republican-dominated Legislature, even $1 in the name of "Obamacare" was a dollar too much.
"Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration's attempt to force us into this fool's errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system," Perry said.
Texas Republicans have moved steadily to the right — to where the very concept of public health insurance of any kind is looked at through narrowed eyes. Still, it's not easy to walk away from $100 billion from the federal government to help your state's poor, elderly and disabled, especially when you have powerful stakeholders like hospitals, doctors and cities clamoring for the state to take the money for their sakes.
Texas hospitals stand to lose about $7 billion. Source
Not a surprise. It's going to be an interesting experiment on quality of healthcare and costs 5-10 years from now when these decisions are displayed in full force.
|
On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag  .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers.
Corruption in Russia and in many other countries is levels above anything US army is doing, yes they do not spend it on soldier pay or facilities, they just straight up put it in pockets of "friends". On all levels. You can actually consider what you describe in US as military spending as it increases comfort of military personnel, in more corrupt countries the money goes straight to pocket of oligarchs,.... more often than not soldiers see nothing of it.
And my comment was about the levels of wealth that separate Russian soldier and Australian soldier. Australian soldier might not be paid as much as US soldier but his standard of living is pretty close to that, unlike the Russian soldier.
|
On May 24 2013 10:55 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 10:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The state of Texas is turning down billions of federal dollars that would have paid for health care coverage for 1.5 million poor Texans.
By refusing to participate in Medicaid expansion, which is part of the Affordable Care Act, the state will leave on the table an estimated $100 billion over the next decade.
Texas' share of the cost would have been just 7 percent of the total, but for Gov. Rick Perry and the state's Republican-dominated Legislature, even $1 in the name of "Obamacare" was a dollar too much.
"Texas will not be held hostage by the Obama administration's attempt to force us into this fool's errand of adding more than a million Texans to a broken system," Perry said.
Texas Republicans have moved steadily to the right — to where the very concept of public health insurance of any kind is looked at through narrowed eyes. Still, it's not easy to walk away from $100 billion from the federal government to help your state's poor, elderly and disabled, especially when you have powerful stakeholders like hospitals, doctors and cities clamoring for the state to take the money for their sakes.
Texas hospitals stand to lose about $7 billion. Source Not a surprise. It's going to be an interesting experiment on quality of healthcare and costs 5-10 years from now when these decisions are displayed in full force.
In related news,
Health insurers in California will charge an average of $304 a month for the cheapest silver-level plan in state-based exchanges next year, according to rates released Thursday by Covered California, which is implementing the Affordable Care Act there. But many residents will pay a lot less than that for coverage.
Rates will vary by region, age and level of coverage, and many lower-income Californias will qualify for federal subsidies that will greatly lower the premiums. The plans will come in four tiers, ranging from bronze to platinum. The former will charge lower premiums, but carry higher out-of-pocket benefits, and the latter will have the highest premiums but have the lowest out-of-pocket costs.
Subsidies will be based on the cost of silver-level plans and will be available to those earning up to 400% of the poverty line -- roughly $45,000 for an individual or $92,000 for a family of four.
The state-based exchanges will open for enrollment in October. Coverage under Obamacare, as the act is known, will begin in January.
Just how much people will pay for coverage in the exchanges has been the subject of much speculation in recent months. Several estimates, including some focusing on the California market, have predicted that premium rates in the individual market would soar because more older, sicker folks would enter the exchange.
While Covered California said a direct comparison is impossible because the new plans will provide more benefits, the agency noted that the rates for individuals will be between 29% lower and 2% higher than the average premium for small employers in the state's most populous areas.
Obamacare premiums in California lower than predicted
|
On May 24 2013 10:09 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 09:43 farvacola wrote:On May 24 2013 09:41 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 09:08 mcc wrote:On May 24 2013 08:06 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 07:51 KwarK wrote:
We keep the real url of teamliquid dot com secret for opsec purposes. Teamliquid.com--opps let the cat outa the bag .com .net w/e Also liberal democracy's be damned. Most all republics and democracies--liberal or not publish budgets and say X is for military. If that's what your basing military spending off of then so be it. To me it's much more in-depth- you need to dig into the numbers. For example at my current base we have numerous facilities that have next to nothing to do with our military might. Schools, Childcare, Rec centers, hobby shops, car shops, grocery stores often called Commissaries or Class6. Retail stores like BX or PX all get subsidized funding from the military budget. Should that really count as military spending? I didn't know building another Aim9 (a missile for those who don't know) was the same as hiring a teenager to provide post school child care services. Just recently I took part in a Fraud, Waste, and Abuse meeting where we found and stopped massive loopholes in contract spending. You have any idea how much a military base spends for its lawn care? These crooks who charge non-government agencies 10/acre charged us nearly 3X that. It was bogus. Should that count as military spending? My squadron recently started handing our own grass area and encouraged other squads to do the same. We assigned some new guys the additional duty to reduce the cost of paying abusive contractors. Military spending is VERY vague. US soldiers get paid hands down more than any other country that I've ever met. The poor Australians and Russians would be on American welfare with the pay they get- and things are more expensive over there. Thankfully Americans support the military (minus the vocal minority who wouldn't die/live for anything but themselves). And what is your point ? Other countries have similar spending distribution, so the numbers will still hold pretty well even for your redefined military spending. And for non-first world armies the money lost to corruption and fraud will be much higher, so US will have even more "real" spending compared to them. Did you meet the country just north of US ? EDIT: It is also telling that you even put Australians and Russians in even somewhat similar group pay-wise. The larger the government the easier to hide the corruption. America is growing in terms of it's government size (spending, budget, etc). I also doubt any other country has the type of luxury spending that gets categorized as 'military funding'. When I was in Okinawa for an exercise I was talking to a Russian solider, he was amazed that American soldiers not only owned their own car, but often had 2 and a boat/Rv/lux vehicle. Russia doesn't spend money on rec docks. When Russia makes a dock- it's to put military vessels in the water- not some grunts sailboat. Also I don't understand your comment about Russia and Australia? I spoke to both during the same exercise and neither had the quality of life that was offered to us American soldiers. Both were very minimal, food, clothes, shelter- and small pay checks. I'm sure there may of been differences- but our Russian friend was limited in his ability to speak English and so extracting details was hard- though he was a very respectable individual--which is more than I can say about some other countries soldiers. "I talked to an Australian once, therefore I can speak on the general quality of Australian military wages." Are you serious? 1) Please don't use quotation marks that way. I never said those words. 2) I do feel that actually talking to soldiers is better than reading some report about it. 3) I speak in terms of opinion not fact. I know everyone on Team Liquid thinks they are justified by talking in absolutes--but I try to throw in a few IMHO to remind people that opinion is opinion and when I state things as fact I say it is fact. 1-3 are FACT.
As for 2, I believe you feel so, as most people do. And they are in most cases wrong, that is actually a fact. If you want to show that something specific once happened to someone, bringing up anecdote is fine. If you want to show something that is statistically valid about a group of people talking to few of them is completely terrible idea.
|
On May 24 2013 08:23 SayGen wrote:You see progress, I see another agency that was 'forced' into bending it's right to assembly. Sadly this is the kind of crap that bothers me most. I don't care if your gay or bi- or whatever wack terms for not normal you want to identify with. It's a free country, or at least it used to be. What I have a problem with is that, now groups that want to cater to a certain demographic are being discriminated against. Soon all-boy groups will be under attack by women who say they are being discriminated against. Here's a message to all the gay (or w/e term for not normal you want to use) Go be the X group and do the same thing as the original group that didn't want anything to do with you. IE 'Gay boy scouts of America' 'Multi-gender scouts of America' 'etc scouts of America' I really don't care. I'm just sick of people who support the norm being villianized. Sorry I don't care that your gay. Sorry I don't care if your not-gay. Well actually I'm not sorry. I don't care if your gay. I don't care if your not gay. If I want to be in an organization that is all people 6 feet tall and above, why should I let someone who isn't 6' in? You don't meet the requirements-- I'm not preventing you from doing whatever activity, I just don't want to do it with you. The whole discrimination argument is stupid. Everyone discriminates. We discriminate against people who aren't 21 in America by not allowing them to drink/gamble If you aren't 17 you can't see a rated-R movie. That's age discrimination. We do the something for sex. It's illegal for a male to walk into a bathroom marked fe-male. You may not be a fe-male priest in the Catholic faith. You must be married to be a preacher in the Church of Christ (Christian sect) That is sexist. Anything that you use to identify yourself can be used for/against you. So just stop it. If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer.
Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance.
The problem is that the Boy Scouts of America's requirements are to be a boy. Then, because of a particular culture, they are discriminating against certain types of boys, even though the group has nothing to do with that. The Boy Scouts was not made to explicitly celebrate straight, Christian, white, male heritage; that is not the group's purpose or mission. The problem is that they are discriminating based on certain factors that are not outlined in the mission of the group.
Oh, and yes, when you accept government money, you have to accept the fact that you are not allowed to discriminate. This policy is in place for a very good reason; the same principle applies to public universities not being able to have churches on campus. All of the white/straight/male/Christian privilege swirling in this thread is fucking sickening.
|
On May 24 2013 11:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 08:23 SayGen wrote:You see progress, I see another agency that was 'forced' into bending it's right to assembly. Sadly this is the kind of crap that bothers me most. I don't care if your gay or bi- or whatever wack terms for not normal you want to identify with. It's a free country, or at least it used to be. What I have a problem with is that, now groups that want to cater to a certain demographic are being discriminated against. Soon all-boy groups will be under attack by women who say they are being discriminated against. Here's a message to all the gay (or w/e term for not normal you want to use) Go be the X group and do the same thing as the original group that didn't want anything to do with you. IE 'Gay boy scouts of America' 'Multi-gender scouts of America' 'etc scouts of America' I really don't care. I'm just sick of people who support the norm being villianized. Sorry I don't care that your gay. Sorry I don't care if your not-gay. Well actually I'm not sorry. I don't care if your gay. I don't care if your not gay. If I want to be in an organization that is all people 6 feet tall and above, why should I let someone who isn't 6' in? You don't meet the requirements-- I'm not preventing you from doing whatever activity, I just don't want to do it with you. The whole discrimination argument is stupid. Everyone discriminates. We discriminate against people who aren't 21 in America by not allowing them to drink/gamble If you aren't 17 you can't see a rated-R movie. That's age discrimination. We do the something for sex. It's illegal for a male to walk into a bathroom marked fe-male. You may not be a fe-male priest in the Catholic faith. You must be married to be a preacher in the Church of Christ (Christian sect) That is sexist. Anything that you use to identify yourself can be used for/against you. So just stop it. If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer. Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance. The problem is that the Boy Scouts of America's requirements are to be a boy. Then, because of a particular culture, they are discriminating against certain types of boys, even though the group has nothing to do with that. The Boy Scouts was not made to explicitly celebrate straight, Christian, white, male heritage; that is not the group's purpose or mission. The problem is that they are discriminating based on certain factors that are not outlined in the mission of the group.
This would be comical, if it weren't so sad:
Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance.
I can literally copy and paste that exact phrase and it is just as applicable towards you.
Your social progress isn't my social progress. My integration isn't what you think integration should be... and tolerance, "tolerate all but those who disagree with us" seems to be a reoccurring phenomenon from your side of the table.
social progress imho is defending free markets via capitalism, lowering taxes on all (rich and poor alike)
Integration is promoting English as the official world language--why English? Cause it's my language? NO!
Because it's already #1 as a secondary language and #2 as a primary language. Integration is spreading capitalism to a world stricken with socialism and its glass ceilings.
tolerance is about equality; it's about respecting people's religion. tolerance is about defending the constitution, esp. the #2 amendment which is under siege in my country. tolerance isn't reduced to race and sex conflicts but focuses on the macro--the big picture.
|
On May 24 2013 10:43 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 10:11 Introvert wrote:Well, it's interesting to see how a principled institution was finally given the works and forced to buckle. As an Eagle Scout, it kind of makes me sad. 6 years ago almost no politician cared about "gay rights" (or were explicitly for one man one woman), but now a classic religious organization has been abused by political groups with a flat out deceptive or mistaken view of the first amendment. I didn't know that every group that received federal funding was supposed to then become an arm of the government, obeying its every rule and regulation. They got govt. money because they are a worthwhile and wholesome organization, all this crap is truly sickening. I don't believe for a second that this furor would go away if that funding is cut, it's just that some of these groups cannot stand the fact that a nationally recognized and admired organization was not bending to their will. (if I'm making them sound "evil" it's because I have very little respect for groups that call bigots those who are reluctant to change one of humanity's oldest and most core institutions in the blink of an eye. An institution that, as John Roberts pointed out, was not formed to be discriminatory at it's founding, it just developed to be the way it is). I bring up the marriage bit because (A), this is the end goal, it's what is being fought over in the nation at large, and (B), because this WILL eventually lead to them allowing gay leaders, that much is obvious. Well, they outlasted the president, who was like "oh, I need money for my campaign! What new group can I get?", and went all LB "give them enough to make them vote for us" J on them. I wonder if they were threatened with an audit  1) Whether politicians use homosexuals as tools for increasing their popularity is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the cause itself. 2) "wholsome" organizations do not discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, especially when sexual orientation has exactly nothing to do with the existence of the BSA to begin with. 3) Once you strip away the whole "oh but this isn't about gay people it's about some ulterior agenda" from your argument, you have nothing. You literally can't give one single good reason as to why excluding homosexuals is a practice that should be preserved.
1/3: I would argue that in this case it matters. It's not the same as LBJ using blacks for political purposes, because the civil rights acts were a long time coming, regardless of who it was (I believe Eisenhower and Republicans in general supported the CRAs more than the dems did, it's just that LBJ saw an opportunity to use an inevitability). But in this case, the outrage is largely manufactured. Like I said, up until the last decade, no one even cared. There was no slow march, no MLK, etc. Today's rapid "Advance" seems to me to indicate that most of this is made up, and people are scared of being called names. (again, Gay "Rights" ranks [or at least did rank] very low on the list of things Americans care about, so the fact that it dominates the discussion so often is suspicious.)
and this leads to (2)....
Especially since there is almost nothing I or a gay man couldn't do, and those that do exist are natural (I can't join the Girl Scouts) or religious (we do not support homosexuality for moral reasons). I am constantly amazed by how assured activists are that (A), none of this will have a negative societal impact, and (B) that these limited cases of "discrimination" are evil or bad. The idea of gay "marriage" is quite new, and it is ridiculous to say that any old organization that opposes it just hates gays.The BSA does MANY good things, I was in it for years. To look at this ONE case and declare them unwholesome is wrong and ignorant.
I can give reasons, I have done so before, and alluded to some above. We should not do things just because we say "hey, I can't think of any way this could turn out badly!" I think if one is going to change such an important part of the human existence (if I may not be said to be overstating this) then more than a decade should be put into finding out and considering its effects, yes?
Again, it astounds me how quick people are to jump to judgment about a cause none of them even cared about a decade ago, and then declare all that disagree as unwholesome bigots.
|
On May 24 2013 11:42 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 11:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 24 2013 08:23 SayGen wrote:You see progress, I see another agency that was 'forced' into bending it's right to assembly. Sadly this is the kind of crap that bothers me most. I don't care if your gay or bi- or whatever wack terms for not normal you want to identify with. It's a free country, or at least it used to be. What I have a problem with is that, now groups that want to cater to a certain demographic are being discriminated against. Soon all-boy groups will be under attack by women who say they are being discriminated against. Here's a message to all the gay (or w/e term for not normal you want to use) Go be the X group and do the same thing as the original group that didn't want anything to do with you. IE 'Gay boy scouts of America' 'Multi-gender scouts of America' 'etc scouts of America' I really don't care. I'm just sick of people who support the norm being villianized. Sorry I don't care that your gay. Sorry I don't care if your not-gay. Well actually I'm not sorry. I don't care if your gay. I don't care if your not gay. If I want to be in an organization that is all people 6 feet tall and above, why should I let someone who isn't 6' in? You don't meet the requirements-- I'm not preventing you from doing whatever activity, I just don't want to do it with you. The whole discrimination argument is stupid. Everyone discriminates. We discriminate against people who aren't 21 in America by not allowing them to drink/gamble If you aren't 17 you can't see a rated-R movie. That's age discrimination. We do the something for sex. It's illegal for a male to walk into a bathroom marked fe-male. You may not be a fe-male priest in the Catholic faith. You must be married to be a preacher in the Church of Christ (Christian sect) That is sexist. Anything that you use to identify yourself can be used for/against you. So just stop it. If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer. Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance. The problem is that the Boy Scouts of America's requirements are to be a boy. Then, because of a particular culture, they are discriminating against certain types of boys, even though the group has nothing to do with that. The Boy Scouts was not made to explicitly celebrate straight, Christian, white, male heritage; that is not the group's purpose or mission. The problem is that they are discriminating based on certain factors that are not outlined in the mission of the group. This would be comical, if it weren't so sad: Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance. I can literally copy and paste that exact phrase and it is just as applicable towards you. Your social progress isn't my social progress. My integration isn't what you think integration should be... and tolerance, "tolerate all but those who disagree with us" seems to be a reoccurring phenomenon from your side of the table. social progress imho is defending free markets via capitalism, lowering taxes on all (rich and poor alike) Integration is promoting English as the official world language--why English? Cause it's my language? NO! Because it's already #1 as a secondary language and #2 as a primary language. Integration is spreading capitalism to a world stricken with socialism and its glass ceilings. tolerance is about equality; it's about respecting people's religion. tolerance is about defending the constitution, esp. the #2 amendment which is under siege in my country. tolerance isn't reduced to race and sex conflicts but focuses on the macro--the big picture.
The bold part is why your party is so incredibly unpopular with everyone except straight white folks. You are so out of touch and ignorant with the real-world problems of minorities that you think that they aren't an issue. What's next, are you going to tell me that racism and sexism aren't problems in our country anymore?
Oh, and I was talking about social progress. Social policy and economic policy are largely separate spheres.
1/3: I would argue that in this case it matters. It's not the same as LBJ using blacks for political purposes, because the civil rights acts were a long time coming, regardless of who it was (I believe Eisenhower and Republicans in general supported the CRAs more than the dems did, it's just that LBJ saw an opportunity to use an inevitability). But in this case, the outrage is largely manufactured. Like I said, up until the last decade, no one even cared. There was no slow march, no MLK, etc. Today's rapid "Advance" seems to me to indicate that most of this is made up, and people are scared of being called names. (again, Gay "Rights" ranks [or at least did rank] very low on the list of things Americans care about, so the fact that it dominates the discussion so often is suspicious.)
and this leads to (2)....
You can't be serious. Just because you think that it wasn't an issue for gay people everywhere for a long time before this that it's all manufactured? Have you even met a gay person? Want to tell that to their faces? Could you be any more insulting? Hell, even the Civil Rights Movement didn't really pick up steam until a decade before the Civil Rights Act.
Especially since there is almost nothing I or a gay man couldn't do, and those that do exist are natural (I can't join the Girl Scouts) or religious (we do not support homosexuality for moral reasons). I am constantly amazed by how assured activists are that (A), none of this will have a negative societal impact, and (B) that these limited cases of "discrimination" are evil or bad. The idea of gay "marriage" is quite new, and it is ridiculous to say that any old organization that opposes it just hates gays.The BSA does MANY good things, I was in it for years. To look at this ONE case and declare them unwholesome is wrong and ignorant.
Gay people have been second-class citizens in this country for a very, very long time. It's perfectly legal to evict, fire, not hire, or refuse service to gays in many states simply for being gay. Up until recently, you could be booted from the military for being gay. Gay people still don't get marriage benefits in most states. Institutional and cultural discrimination against gays has been rampant. Just because you're completely out-of-touch doesn't mean that what you've experienced is the case for everyone.
I can give reasons, I have done so before, and alluded to some above. We should not do things just because we say "hey, I can't think of any way this could turn out badly!" I think if one is going to change such an important part of the human existence (if I may not be said to be overstating this) then more than a decade should be put into finding out and considering its effects, yes?
Again, it astounds me how quick people are to jump to judgment about a cause none of them even cared about a decade ago, and then declare all that disagree as unwholesome bigots.
For a society to be liberal, free, and tolerant, you do not get the right to bigotry. I'm sorry, but if you want the privilege of bigotry or some other form of discrimination, you have the burden of proof and must show us why you should have the privilege. It isn't a matter of, "Oh, we can't think of the harm that allowing gays into the Boy Scouts will do", although that is true (that there's no feasible harm in doing so). This is about, "We can't think of a reason why, especially as a publicly funded group, you deserve the privilege to be discriminatory".
|
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure?
|
On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure?
Looks terrible, and reportedly there are still folk stuck in their cars in the water 
![[image loading]](http://www.whec.com/whecimages/repository/2013-05/washingtonbridgecollapse.jpg)
|
The bold part is why your party is so incredibly unpopular with everyone except straight white folks. You are so out of touch and ignorant with the real-world problems of minorities that you think that they aren't an issue. What's next, are you going to tell me that racism and sexism aren't problems in our country anymore?
Oh, and I was talking about social progress. Social policy and economic policy are largely separate spheres.
1) I do not have a party, my political views are rooted most closely to a Libertarian/Neo-EcoImperialistic hybrid if you insist on using labels.
I did not vote for either Obama the liar, or Romney the flip-flopper.
2) Racism is a problem, but only because it is convient for it to be. Look up Self fulfilling prophecy also the dems got the minorities (esp the Blacks) on lock-down.
Think of entitlements/handouts as a drug. Once addicted you will do anything to keep the drug flow coming.
No one likes the guy who takes away the drug.
3) Sexism is a problem, nothing much to say here. There is no agenda linked to women getting screwed over, though with them representing 51.3% of the population I do find it odd that they are considered a minority in a democracy.
There is no reason for them to be. I have yet to form an opinion as to why this is.
4) Social policy and economic policy largely overlap. I completely disagree with them being as separate as you claim. I'd even argue one directly includes the other.
5) Again personal insults are not needed. Also they are reportable offenses. Luckily for you since you appear to be a liberal, no action will be taken against you since TL.net is run with like-minded mods. Until you are capable of conversation without adding insults, I'm done with you.
|
On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure?
You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went?
|
On May 24 2013 11:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 11:42 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 11:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 24 2013 08:23 SayGen wrote:You see progress, I see another agency that was 'forced' into bending it's right to assembly. Sadly this is the kind of crap that bothers me most. I don't care if your gay or bi- or whatever wack terms for not normal you want to identify with. It's a free country, or at least it used to be. What I have a problem with is that, now groups that want to cater to a certain demographic are being discriminated against. Soon all-boy groups will be under attack by women who say they are being discriminated against. Here's a message to all the gay (or w/e term for not normal you want to use) Go be the X group and do the same thing as the original group that didn't want anything to do with you. IE 'Gay boy scouts of America' 'Multi-gender scouts of America' 'etc scouts of America' I really don't care. I'm just sick of people who support the norm being villianized. Sorry I don't care that your gay. Sorry I don't care if your not-gay. Well actually I'm not sorry. I don't care if your gay. I don't care if your not gay. If I want to be in an organization that is all people 6 feet tall and above, why should I let someone who isn't 6' in? You don't meet the requirements-- I'm not preventing you from doing whatever activity, I just don't want to do it with you. The whole discrimination argument is stupid. Everyone discriminates. We discriminate against people who aren't 21 in America by not allowing them to drink/gamble If you aren't 17 you can't see a rated-R movie. That's age discrimination. We do the something for sex. It's illegal for a male to walk into a bathroom marked fe-male. You may not be a fe-male priest in the Catholic faith. You must be married to be a preacher in the Church of Christ (Christian sect) That is sexist. Anything that you use to identify yourself can be used for/against you. So just stop it. If a group doesn't want you- go make your own group. Stop forcing yourself onto others- you just make everyone suffer. Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance. The problem is that the Boy Scouts of America's requirements are to be a boy. Then, because of a particular culture, they are discriminating against certain types of boys, even though the group has nothing to do with that. The Boy Scouts was not made to explicitly celebrate straight, Christian, white, male heritage; that is not the group's purpose or mission. The problem is that they are discriminating based on certain factors that are not outlined in the mission of the group. This would be comical, if it weren't so sad: Ugh, people that think like this. This is the exact line of thinking that stops social progress, integration, and tolerance. I can literally copy and paste that exact phrase and it is just as applicable towards you. Your social progress isn't my social progress. My integration isn't what you think integration should be... and tolerance, "tolerate all but those who disagree with us" seems to be a reoccurring phenomenon from your side of the table. social progress imho is defending free markets via capitalism, lowering taxes on all (rich and poor alike) Integration is promoting English as the official world language--why English? Cause it's my language? NO! Because it's already #1 as a secondary language and #2 as a primary language. Integration is spreading capitalism to a world stricken with socialism and its glass ceilings. tolerance is about equality; it's about respecting people's religion. tolerance is about defending the constitution, esp. the #2 amendment which is under siege in my country. tolerance isn't reduced to race and sex conflicts but focuses on the macro--the big picture. The bold part is why your party is so incredibly unpopular with everyone except straight white folks. You are so out of touch and ignorant with the real-world problems of minorities that you think that they aren't an issue. What's next, are you going to tell me that racism and sexism aren't problems in our country anymore? Oh, and I was talking about social progress. Social policy and economic policy are largely separate spheres. Show nested quote +1/3: I would argue that in this case it matters. It's not the same as LBJ using blacks for political purposes, because the civil rights acts were a long time coming, regardless of who it was (I believe Eisenhower and Republicans in general supported the CRAs more than the dems did, it's just that LBJ saw an opportunity to use an inevitability). But in this case, the outrage is largely manufactured. Like I said, up until the last decade, no one even cared. There was no slow march, no MLK, etc. Today's rapid "Advance" seems to me to indicate that most of this is made up, and people are scared of being called names. (again, Gay "Rights" ranks [or at least did rank] very low on the list of things Americans care about, so the fact that it dominates the discussion so often is suspicious.)
and this leads to (2).... You can't be serious. Just because you think that it wasn't an issue for gay people everywhere for a long time before this that it's all manufactured? Have you even met a gay person? Want to tell that to their faces? Could you be any more insulting? Hell, even the Civil Rights Movement didn't really pick up steam until a decade before the Civil Rights Act. Show nested quote +Especially since there is almost nothing I or a gay man couldn't do, and those that do exist are natural (I can't join the Girl Scouts) or religious (we do not support homosexuality for moral reasons). I am constantly amazed by how assured activists are that (A), none of this will have a negative societal impact, and (B) that these limited cases of "discrimination" are evil or bad. The idea of gay "marriage" is quite new, and it is ridiculous to say that any old organization that opposes it just hates gays.The BSA does MANY good things, I was in it for years. To look at this ONE case and declare them unwholesome is wrong and ignorant. Gay people have been second-class citizens in this country for a very, very long time. It's perfectly legal to evict, fire, not hire, or refuse service to gays in many states simply for being gay. Up until recently, you could be booted from the military for being gay. Gay people still don't get marriage benefits in most states. Institutional and cultural discrimination against gays has been rampant. Just because you're completely out-of-touch doesn't mean that what you've experienced is the case for everyone. Show nested quote +I can give reasons, I have done so before, and alluded to some above. We should not do things just because we say "hey, I can't think of any way this could turn out badly!" I think if one is going to change such an important part of the human existence (if I may not be said to be overstating this) then more than a decade should be put into finding out and considering its effects, yes?
Again, it astounds me how quick people are to jump to judgment about a cause none of them even cared about a decade ago, and then declare all that disagree as unwholesome bigots. For a society to be liberal, free, and tolerant, you do not get the right to bigotry. I'm sorry, but if you want the privilege of bigotry or some other form of discrimination, you have the burden of proof and must show us why you should have the privilege. It isn't a matter of, "Oh, we can't think of the harm that allowing gays into the Boy Scouts will do", although that is true (that there's no feasible harm in doing so). This is about, "We can't think of a reason why, especially as a publicly funded group, you deserve the privilege to be discriminatory".
Hardly second class. But if a private business doesn't want to hire you for that, then so what? Besides, I'm not advocating that they SHOULD NOT be hired. I don't care if one of my coworkers is gay. But that's not up to me (but it should be up to you, yes?). All I am advocating is that private entities can do that they want. White supremacist groups still exist, they have a right to. So in that respect you are simply WRONG. Your definition of tolerance is "If I agree, it should be tolerated, if not, you must be a bigot." Absurd. The "privilege" of discrimination? What? You must consider yourself the arbiter of all that is right, moral, and legal now? You are trying to use force and name calling to push your relatively new agenda. Why could you not work first to remove the other restrictions before going after marriage or the BSA? Maybe talk it out and take it slowly? No, this new opinion must be pushed now, before anyone knows anything about what will happen. Again, this publicly funded crap is ridiculous, for one thing, if that was true, the rules of said private organization could change with each administration. You talk so confidently about something which has NO precedent, and no way to know what could happen if it is fully implemented.
Sorry for any errors, typing this on a netbook in-between tasks.
|
On May 24 2013 12:03 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure? You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went?
Would have been nice if that stimulus package was used predominantly for something useful like reinforcing our infrastructure.
|
On May 24 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:03 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure? You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went? Would have been nice if that stimulus package was used predominantly for something useful like reinforcing our infrastructure.
It would be nice if republicans stopped blocking infrastructure spending.
|
On May 24 2013 12:28 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2013 12:03 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure? You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went? Would have been nice if that stimulus package was used predominantly for something useful like reinforcing our infrastructure. It would be nice if congress republicans stopped blocking infrastructure spending.
Would be nice if congressional dems stopped defending Obamacare, which is responsible for a massive increase in health insurance costs dispite his promise to lower costs.
Would be nice if dems passed a REAL budget like they are congressionally mandated to do.
Blame republicans---- same old tricks from the libs.
Edit: his= Obama's
|
On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure?
Silly me for thinking that is what the gas tax, insurance tax fees, revenue collections from tickets ranging from parking to speeding to every other regulation on the books, etc. are for. These stimulus/cronyism have always been corrupt and politically motivated going all the way back to the late 18th Century. There's a reason why the Confederacy made it illegal for tax monies to go towards internal improvements. How much shall we funnel to bloated, ill-competitive, campaign-contributing *bribery* construction companies before we look at this and say enough is enough. We all ready spend far too much for what product we receive back.
|
On May 24 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:03 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure? You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went? Would have been nice if that stimulus package was used predominantly for something useful like reinforcing our infrastructure.
Utopia is but inches away! To think politics works any other way is well...I have no words /laugh.
|
On May 24 2013 12:28 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2013 12:23 xDaunt wrote:On May 24 2013 12:03 SayGen wrote:On May 24 2013 11:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A bridge has collapsed in Washington state, how many more bridge collapses, gas lines exploding before we get an actual functioning stimulus/bank related to infrastructure? You mean the billions Obama spent didn't go to where he said they went? Would have been nice if that stimulus package was used predominantly for something useful like reinforcing our infrastructure. It would be nice if republicans stopped blocking infrastructure spending.
Would be nice if the GOP and the Democrats would stop stealing our money and funneling it to their special interest groups. Both sides play the wedge so perfectly while pick-pocketing you and laughing all the way to the bank. I've never met or seen a poor politician - wonder why?
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
