US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8167

On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+

Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".




Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president.

On July 25 2017 01:14 IyMoon wrote:


Wow... what a great picture you paint there!

Where in this story was a corrupt bureaucrat? Who was making money off this? From what I have read the kid had no chance what so ever and the parents were waiting for a miracle that was never coming.

On July 25 2017 01:20 KwarK wrote:

It's nothing to do with healthcare or corrupt bureaucrats. The parents were misusing their position as guardians of the child to act against its interests. A judge prevented them from doing that. That's literally it.

On July 25 2017 01:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:

C'mon Danglars, you can be a lot more cynical than that.

One day you too can be diagnosed with a rare, incurable disease, and then have a exploitative private American hospital offer you a low likelihood non-cure for an exorbitant amount of money. And then your 11 month old life can be granted martyrdom for the American health care debate, get a 7 figure donation sum because your story is newsworthy enough.

And then millions of Americans can pat themselves on the back, and feel comforted knowing that only in their country can these miracle treatments be offered, and only because they fought back against the meddling government can they use the fake news media to fund the hospitals offering them fake hope. And then they will go back to their ordinary lives blessing their health care system until they get in a car accident or something.

On July 25 2017 01:41 zlefin wrote:

still not relevant to american politics; and you're still ignoring all the sound points that were made against the nonsense narrative you've been pushing. don't repeat your assertions over and over while ignoring the counterpoints.

On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket?

On July 25 2017 02:36 semantics wrote:

It would for me, when you get into the age of bernie by 2020 you question if he may die in office, same issue mcain had in 08.

On July 25 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:

"Exploitative private American hospital?" How about "disconnected, elitist death panels." Two can play the game of partisan ridicule. But sure, recommend death to babies because you like to privilege some doctors over other doctors. Of course, also recommend they languish in hospitals as the treatment option gets less and less likely to cure because it's demanded from your ideology.

On July 25 2017 02:38 WolfintheSheep wrote:


Lol, this guy keeps posting a sob story in American political thread then complains when someone answers with rhetoric.

"Exploitative private American hospital?" How about "disconnected, elitist death panels." Two can play the game of partisan ridicule. But sure, recommend death to babies because you like to privilege some doctors over other doctors. Of course, also recommend they languish in hospitals as the treatment option gets less and less likely to cure because it's demanded from your ideology.

On July 25 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:

Where's the accountability for privileging the group of doctors recommending his death to those recommending experimental treatment? Or not even letting the poor child go home to his parents home? Read the story again if you have problems seeing the two sides to the story. He languished as the system recommended his death and prevented his removal to another hospital, really hurting his chances at another team of doctors that had a chance to save. If it was your child or loved one, would you oppose delaying his/her removal for treatment on the grounds that a panel has decided what's in the best interest of the baby/relative?

On July 25 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


Would a strong VP runningmate change your mind about voting for a Sanders/ X ticket?

On July 25 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:

Where's the accountability for privileging the group of doctors recommending his death to those recommending experimental treatment? Or not even letting the poor child go home to his parents home? Read the story again if you have problems seeing the two sides to the story. He languished as the system recommended his death and prevented his removal to another hospital, really hurting his chances at another team of doctors that had a chance to save. If it was your child or loved one, would you oppose delaying his/her removal for treatment on the grounds that a panel has decided what's in the best interest of the baby/relative?

On July 25 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:
"Exploitative private American hospital?" How about "disconnected, elitist death panels." Two can play the game of partisan ridicule. But sure, recommend death to babies because you like to privilege some doctors over other doctors. Of course, also recommend they languish in hospitals as the treatment option gets less and less likely to cure because it's demanded from your ideology.
king?

On July 25 2017 03:23 Nyxisto wrote:


You're a lawyer right? Let's say you have a client who clearly has no expertise in legal matters, is unable to argue objectively because they're personally involved and want to defend their own child in court. What's your recommendation here?

On July 25 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:

And the state's really loving and interested. That's literally your position (if we're doing that debating strategy). No, it's better to leave it in the parent's hands. Prove you actually understood the last walkthrough the Krauthammer did about the perversity of compelling the surrender of parental rights, because I think you've stopped listening.

here

On July 25 2017 01:59 Simberto wrote:
I still wonder why everyone in the running needs to be 70+

Don't you have any younger competent people? Younger does not even need to mean "young", but i think it should mean "before the age of retirement".




Every fucking day. The reason is still that a) It is not their job, and b) She is not president.

On July 25 2017 02:47 nojok wrote:


I've been involved in those death panels, they're very dignifying for the patient and it's a very careful decision with the interest of the patient in mind. On the other hand, private hospitals (or any lucrative business around healthcare) will try to grab as much money as possible without giving a shit about the patients. Once again, you're trying to swap facts and opinions. The corruption of the medical industry and the end of life discussions are both very well documented.

Richard Dawkins has denied using “abusive speech against Islam” after a California radio station cancelled a book event with the scientist, citing his comments on Islam, which it said had “offended and hurt … so many people”.

Dawkins, whose bestselling study of evolution, The Selfish Gene, was named the most influential science book of all time by the Royal Society last week, was lined up to speak about his memoir A Brief Candle in the Dark at an event hosted by Berkeley’s KPFA Radio in August.

But KPFA subsequently informed ticketbuyers that the event had been cancelled. “We had booked this event based entirely on his excellent new book on science, when we didn’t know he had offended and hurt – in his tweets and other comments on Islam – so many people. KPFA does not endorse hurtful speech,” said KPFA in an email to ticket buyers, which Dawkins later published on his website. “While KPFA emphatically supports serious free speech, we do not support abusive speech. We apologise for not having had broader knowledge of Dawkins’s views much earlier. We also apologise to all those inconvenienced by this cancellation.”

Dawkins, the author of anti-religious polemic The God Delusion, called the decision “truly astonishing”, and a “matter of personal sorrow”. He had listened to KPFA “almost every day” when he lived in Berkeley for two years, he said, and had previously been grateful for its “objective reporting and humane commentary”.

“My memory of KPFA is that you were unusually scrupulous about fact-checking. I especially admired your habit of always quoting sources,” he wrote to KPFA in an open letter he shared on his website. “You conspicuously did not quote a source when accusing me of ‘abusive speech’. Why didn’t you check your facts – or at least have the common courtesy to alert me – before summarily cancelling my event?”
Dawkins said that he had “never used abusive speech against Islam”, adding that while he has called Islamism “vile”, Islamism is not the same as Islam.

“I have criticised the appalling misogyny and homophobia of Islam, I have criticised the murdering of apostates for no crime other than their disbelief. Far from attacking Muslims, I understand – as perhaps you do not – that Muslims themselves are the prime victims of the oppressive cruelties of Islamism, especially Muslim women,” wrote the author in his response. “I am known as a frequent critic of Christianity and have never been de-platformed for that. Why do you give Islam a free pass? Why is it fine to criticise Christianity but not Islam?”

He called on the radio station to find examples of abuse, and said that when it “fail[ed] to discover any”, he would expect a public apology.

Harvard professor and author Steven Pinker came out in support of Dawkins, writing to KPFA that their decision was “intolerant, ill-reasoned, and ignorant”. “Dawkins is one of the great thinkers of the 20th and 21st century. He has criticised doctrines of Islam, together with doctrines of other religions, but criticism is not ‘abuse’,” said Pinker. “People may get offended and hurt by honest criticism, but that cannot possibly be a justification for censoring the critic, or KPFA would be shut down because of all the people it has hurt and offended over the decades.”

Pinker said that the move “handed a precious gift to the political right, who can say that left-leaning media outlets enforce mindless conformity to narrow dogma, and are no longer capable of thinking through basic intellectual distinctions”.

The Center for Inquiry, which merged with the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science last year, and on whose board of directors Dawkins sits, called the cancellation “unconscionable [and] baseless”. KPFA responded to the Center on Twitter and said that it “exercises its free-speech right not to participate with anyone who uses hateful language against a community already under attack”.

In a report about the cancellation, KPFA said it had been contacted by activists who had described Dawkins as “a very well-known Islamophobe” who had vilified Muslims. The radio station cited tweets from Dawkins including one that read: “I think Islam is the greatest force for evil in the world today” and pointed to a recent Telegraph article in which Dawkins was quoted as saying that “if you look at the actual impact that different religions have on the world it’s quite apparent that at present the most evil religion in the world has to be Islam”.

The station did not include the Telegraph quote in its entirety, in which Dawkins continues: “It’s terribly important to modify that because of course that doesn’t mean all Muslims are evil, very far from it. Individual Muslims suffer more from Islam than anyone else.”

KPFA general manager Quincy McCoy said he decided to cancel Dawkins’s appearance when the academic’s statements were brought to his attention.