On January 06 2012 08:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:43 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:34 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:51 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:36 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote:
On January 05 2012 23:58 NtroP wrote: [quote]
Here is a quote from the first 2 sentences on wikipedia for CRITICAL THINKING
"Critical thinking is the process of thinking that questions assumptions. It is a way of deciding whether a claim is true, false; sometimes true, or partly true."
I'd call it critical thinking. The ability to question what is presented to you as fact. In fact, the people that you call conspiracy theorists, might just be people that think critically about what is presented to them on tv. Maybe they shouldn't do that. Maybe questioning what others assume is true is deviant and destructive. (by definition, it is, as the definition of society is basically a group of people that think the same stuff and act the same way so they can get along) Maybe major news outlets are just so bad at their job that it causes people that question their motives to create a lot of fluff that isn't there. That'd be funny, but nice.
The next thing is wisdom, the ability to discern fact from fiction and whether it matters in any given situation. I'm honestly not here to change anyone's mind. I'm here to make sure that more than one viewpoint is provided in this thread. There's others too, and I appreciate their effort.
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
Already posted that but apparently another round is necessary. Ron Paul would let the guy without a healthcare die. He said it himself. Enjoy a great moment of comedy:
The Ron Paul quote: "that's what freedom is all about". That made me laugh out loud.
As for a minority: there is no way on earth Americans elect him if he gets through (he won't anyway). I know many people who would vote Romney over Obama but would cut their hand rather than voting for someone they rightfully consider as a rigid, principled extremist.
That video cuts off before he can explain himself. I was actually wondering what he was going to say. When the interviewer asks him "So society should just let him die?" Ron Paul says "Well no, I was a doctor for several years -" and it cuts off. What the fuck did he say after that?
By all means, prove me wrong. That video, if anything, does the opposite.
On January 06 2012 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 08:31 DoubleReed wrote:
On January 06 2012 08:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:43 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:34 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:51 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:36 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote: [quote]
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
Already posted that but apparently another round is necessary. Ron Paul would let the guy without a healthcare die. He said it himself. Enjoy a great moment of comedy:
The Ron Paul quote: "that's what freedom is all about". That made me laugh out loud.
As for a minority: there is no way on earth Americans elect him if he gets through (he won't anyway). I know many people who would vote Romney over Obama but would cut their hand rather than voting for someone they rightfully consider as a rigid, principled extremist.
That video cuts off before he can explain himself. I was actually wondering what he was going to say. When the interviewer asks him "So society should just let him die?" Ron Paul says "Well no, I was a doctor for several years -" and it cuts off. What the fuck did he say after that?
god forbid Biff the Understudy posted this video, after all Ron Paul has actual experience of being a doctor BEFORE there was government guaranteed health care
Paul never said we should just "let them die," he said family, friends, church groups, and community organizations should be there to help them. Here's a guy who's actually given a lot of his time helping those in need. How many of you can say the same? People making a big fucking deal out of this are obviously just hearing what they want to hear. Maybe you should spend less time making inane comments on YouTube videos and get out and do some good in the world. - Top comment from YouTube , I can't watch the video .... And yes it is true what's written in this comment
Again Biff giving that awful video where Ron Paul preaches personal responsibility but he takes at "let him die" , in a form of cruel , if your poor just die cuz we don't care about you. I may be biased , but in I'm in no way biased as Biff is , he could be told 10 completely reasonable explanations and still keeps repeating the same thing .
Say Biff , explain me now how you are NOT against personal responsibility ?
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote:
On December 18 2011 19:10 Kiarip wrote: [quote]
if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage.
If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote:
On December 21 2011 02:38 allecto wrote: Getting back to the main point: in my opinion, none of these bailouts and stimulus packages worked, and I don't see any data backing up why they would've worked, especially in the long run.
Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "[I]ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
Never realized public healthcare was slavery. Imagine: I've had one all my life
"Stop trying to rationalize": is that a joke? Do you realize that you are talking about a system that exists in most euro countries and that people there would defend to their death? Every time French right wing tries to cut social security, there are 500 000 people in the street. Ok you are against it, but saying it's not rational is pure ignorance.
Now I can say the same thing:
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly this Kiarip guy. Because I haven't heard anything very convincing by any Republican / libertarian.
On January 06 2012 09:00 bOneSeven wrote: Paul never said we should just "let them die," he said family, friends, church groups, and community organizations should be there to help them.
Yes - the problem is most of the time they're not. How do you not understand this?
On January 06 2012 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 08:31 DoubleReed wrote:
On January 06 2012 08:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:43 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:34 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:51 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:36 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote: [quote]
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
Already posted that but apparently another round is necessary. Ron Paul would let the guy without a healthcare die. He said it himself. Enjoy a great moment of comedy:
The Ron Paul quote: "that's what freedom is all about". That made me laugh out loud.
As for a minority: there is no way on earth Americans elect him if he gets through (he won't anyway). I know many people who would vote Romney over Obama but would cut their hand rather than voting for someone they rightfully consider as a rigid, principled extremist.
You have a really utopian view of the world don't you?
On the opposite, I think I am the rational one here.
On January 06 2012 08:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:21 Kiarip wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:48 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:27 ParasitJonte wrote:
On January 05 2012 09:49 kwizach wrote: Ok, Kiarip has been repeating the same fallacy to attack the idea of a right to healthcare for a few pages now and I don't think anyone has pointed out how flawed his reasoning was, so here goes.
He writes:
On January 05 2012 04:02 Kiarip wrote: In the United States, at least the democratic decisions can never take away a person's personal rights granted by the United States Constitution, this is important, because the majority rule can often times be ruthless, and unfair towards the minority, it's important that everyone's basic rights are preserved. The idea of a "right" to healthcare whichever way you spin it violates the rights of whoever provides the healthcare.
This is exactly in line with the argument made by Rand Paul in the following video:
In fact, on page 173 of this thread, Kiarip already wrote to support Rand Paul on this issue:
On December 12 2011 14:21 Kiarip wrote: Saying someone has the right to something taht's made by another person is analogous to slavery, how can you have the right to something that's not yours? it basically means that you have the right to have another person work for you regardless of whether he agrees or not.
Now, why is this a fallacy and a complete misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare? Well, I actually already explained why on page 172, since Wegandi was guilty of the same fallacy. To quote myself: " the right to healthcare that Sanders evokes would not be opposable to other individuals but to the State - just like the right to counsel or the right to a civil trial by jury that appear in the US Bill of Rights (again, do you consider lawyers to be slaves?). The state wouldn't force any single individual to treat patients, it would provide financial retribution to those individuals willing to treat them (if you don't understand how this works, read this)".
So no, dear Kiarip, a right to healthcare would definitely not be "analogous to slavery" and "violat[ing] the rights of whoever provides the healthcare". IT WOULD NOT BE OPPOSABLE TO INDIVIDUALS. The STATE would be paying WILLING individuals to provide care. How is this violating the doctors' rights? If you consider this a waste of taxpayer's money feel free to argue so (even though I don't agree), but to argue that it violates the rights of the healthcare providers is a flat-out lie and a misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare. Period.
Ok, now that I've debunked your little claim on this matter, let's move to our unfinished business that dates back to December 21st.
On December 21 2011 10:38 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 10:18 kwizach wrote:
On December 20 2011 08:16 Kiarip wrote:
On December 19 2011 22:08 kwizach wrote: [quote] If you think his ideas are garbage I think it's as clear an indication as one could get that he's in the right.
Ideas? Really? Come on you're giving him too much credit.
LOL this is like the basis for all his "ideas" on economic policy and he doesn't even understand his own over-simplified example.
Paul Krugman's "ideas" are an insult to the ideas that children have.
No, they're not. Calling you an idiot would, however, be an insult to idiots.
On December 21 2011 09:30 Kiarip wrote:
On December 21 2011 09:01 kwizach wrote: [quote] Your opinion is wrong. Countless non-partisan studies have shown the stimulus had a very positive impact on the economy - it simply wasn't big enough to suffice.
right, and countless others have shown that it doesn't...
No, that claim is factually incorrect. But be my guest and provide me with several serious non-partisan studies showing the stimulus did not have a positive impact on the economy if you can.
User was temp banned for this post.
Here I brought you some link-flowers for your ban-grave.
1. First link: - The study does not examine the stimulus bill that was passed, it looks at the average effect of government spending - It does not address overall job growth but only PRIVATE job growth - In the footnote nr. 12, another paper is mentioned. I find this particular footnote interesting because it serves no real purpose except to mention ONE study that agrees with their findings. In the very sentences they quote from the said paper, however, it is also written that "ncreases in government spending do lower unemployment" (the emphasis is mine), when looking at BOTH private sector jobs and public sector jobs.
2. Second link: - If you read the conclusions, the authors argue that they were unable to look at spillover effects, and that doing so "might result in estimates of a large positive jobs effect", since "[if] this type of spillover from interstate trade is widespread nationally, then the economy-wide jobs effect of the ARRA may be actually larger than what we find" - Even without taking into effect these effects, the study does not outright dismiss the possibility of a positive effect of the stimulus: "the best-case scenario for an effectual ARRA has the Act creating/saving a (point estimate) net 659 thousand jobs, mainly in government."
3. Third link: - Like the first link, this does not examine the stimulus bill that we were discussing - It is a short article in the WSJ and the methodology/findings can hardly be critically evaluated - It is argued that spending multipliers usually do not exceed one, not that government spending has zero/negative effects - The stimulus bill also included tax cuts, something the article says "boosts growth". This article therefore supports the idea that the bill had a positive effect - way to shoot yourself in the foot.
No one has commented this?
You're just pushing the problem one more step. Someone still has to provide the resources necessary to pay the doctor, janitor and what not. The persons providing the labour become the slaves. That is why libertarians argue for a minimal state that does all the basic things necessary (defense, judicial system, police etc.) that would simply be inefficient or impossible for a free market to provide.
This is in essence a question of philosophy. Of what can reasonably be called a "right" and what not. And no, the "right" to medical aid or even food can't be magically spun away using your logic. The original problem still persists, no matter in what step you try to hide the costs paid by persons who may be unwilling to do so, the costs are still there and they in effect become slaves.
In case you didn't notice, my reply was addressing Kiarip's claim that the individual rights of the healthcare providers would be violated. I debunked that claim and explained why it was a completely misrepresentation of the idea of a right to healthcare.
Like I wrote, the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to provide healthcare is a different one (I believe it should, but that's still a different debate). Nowhere did I try to "magically spin away" anything - you're simply guilty of muddying the waters and accusing me of something I did not say/do. You're entitled to your conception of taxes amounting to slavery, but it has nothing to do with the precise argument I addressed, which was about the rights of the healthcare providers as healthcare providers and not as taxpayers.
Can you provide me with your definition of "slave" and "slavery", by the way?
Except for the truth is that private health care providers ARE having their rights violated, because the government starts to compete against the health providers, and the government has a monopoly on force, and legislation resulting in unfair competition, and as for those working for the government... The government doesn't produce anything itself, where does it get money? It's taking money from the people... so sure it socializes the loss in-cured by the healthcare system over to everyone who pays taxes, just because the losses are socialized doesn't mean that people aren't "working" for no pay anymore, it's just that everyone has to work a tiny bit for no pay (and doesn't have a choice not to,) which is basically slavery.
So please stop trying to rationalize how it's ok for government to interfere in people's negotiations for a service... It's not, it results in decreased efficiency, and the losses being socialized as always through increased taxation.
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly by you and Biff the Understudy guy.
Never realized public healthcare was slavery. Imagine: I've had one all my life
"Stop trying to rationalize": is that a joke? Do you realize that you are talking about a system that exists in most euro countries and that people there would defend to their death? Every time French right wing tries to cut social security, there are 500 000 people in the street. Ok you are against it, but saying it's not rational is pure ignorance.
Now I can say the same thing:
I hate coming back to this topic after 20 pages and seeing the same wrong things being posted, mostly this Kiarip guy. Because I haven't heard anything very convincing by any Republican / libertarian.
On January 06 2012 08:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 08:31 DoubleReed wrote:
On January 06 2012 08:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:43 Haemonculus wrote:
On January 06 2012 07:34 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 05:51 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 03:36 kwizach wrote:
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:
On January 06 2012 00:40 kwizach wrote: [quote]
Conspiracy theorists like to think they're engaging in critical thinking, when in reality they are most of the time only looking for any source that supports their pre-conceived anti-mainstream beliefs and claims, regardless of its quality. That's not engaging in critical thinking - it's the exact opposite.
You claiming that CNN deliberately cut off the soldier is a clear example of this and of a lack of critical thinking. Your statement was not supported by any factual evidence (in fact, as someone explained, the factual evidence available quite clearly pointed in the direction of a technical difficulty) but was instead the product of your personal beliefs regarding the "mainstream media" and its relation to Ron Paul. There was not an once of critical thinking in your post.
Call me a conspiracy theorist again instead of actually engaging me.
Actually, I started by explaining why conspiracy theorists often mistakenly think they're engaging in critical thinking, then I engaged you and explained why your post was an example of what I had just explained. Looks like you're the one who needs to pay attention.
On January 06 2012 01:30 NtroP wrote:What is the factual evidence available? Here are the facts: A Ron Paul supporter was cut off (intentionally or not) after mentioning 1. His stance against war with Iran, and 2. That Egypt doesn't need us to defend them. Notice that audio only interrupts on specific words.
What has been in the media A LOT recently? That we need to go to war with Iran. That Iran has nukes. That Iran has a drone of ours and we should invade to get it back. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all? Also, there has been a lot of news about Israel recently to the effect that they are our good buddies and need us badly or they will be crushed by hatred on all sides. Have you seen any dissenting views on the news at all?
Have you ever heard of the phrase that there are two sides to every story? If you don't consider both sides, you'll never be thinking critically. Why do we never hear two sides on certain issues on the news ever? Technically, good reporting would insist that both sides of the story are necessary to properly cover any story. Pay attention. Think critically.
Ultimately it comes down to either massive coincidence or a political agenda. Now, I could go back and research what exactly causes satellite signals to go out, find out if there was any evidence of that on that date and make conclusions from a position of being well informed. However, I haven't seen evidence that you could think critically about that information if I presented it, so I'm not going to bother. So I'm going to allow that it could be either. In my mind it's extremely likely that it was intentional, but it wouldn't rock my world if it wasn't. Can you do the same?
Now, let's look at your rebuttal of my post. You start by claiming you're going to state the facts, but in reality you can't help but push forward your personal interpretation even as you're supposedly presenting facts. Here are the actual facts: the soldier says "Well I think it would be even more dangerous to start nitpicking wars with other countries, someone likes Iran...", then there is a glitch/cut in the audio and video, then we see and hear him again say "...Israel is more than capable of...", then severe glitches appear on screen and the audio and video are cut off.
If you're trying to present facts, there is no need to add "(intentionally or not)" after saying he was cut off. Also, the last state he mentioned was Israel, not Egypt. Finally, the audio and video are interrupted at the exact same time - your last comment has nothing to do with the facts themselves since it only reflects your interpretation of those facts, an interpretation thats stems from your personal beliefs and not the facts discussed here, namely what is seen in the video.
Now that we've established that you're already having a hard time separating your interpretation of the facts from the facts themselves, let's look at the rest of your reply. I wrote that your statement regarding CNN intentionally cutting off the soldier was not supported by factual evidence. Did you, in your rebuttal, bring forward [i]any factual evidence that would support your claim and rebut my post? No, you didn't. You spent three paragraphs ranting about the media pushing for an invasion of Iran and telling me to pay attention and think critically, but you failed to provide a single piece of evidence that would lead someone engaged in critical thinking to conclude that CNN probably censored the soldier deliberately. It's therefore perfectly safe to conclude that your statement was indeed not supported by any factual evidence, and thus that this was a very clear display of a lack of critical thinking from your part.
Here's the thing: you can't claim to be thinking critically if all you're doing is looking for evidence to support what your pre-existing beliefs tell you. You're guilty of the exact same thing you're accusing others of. In this case, there is NOTHING factual that strongly indicates CNN actively censored the soldier. Nothing. And the reason you reached that conclusion is that you're looking at this through the lenses of your support from Ron Paul and your disgust with what you consider to be the "mainstream media". Don't get me wrong, you can very legitimately support Ron Paul and be critical of the job tv channels and newspapers do, but the moment you stop relying on evidence and start making unsubstantiated inferences based on your pre-existing beliefs, you're not engaging in critical thinking.
*first, I meant Israel of course. Typo on my part.
Secondly, I appreciate you challenging me.
I don't know, I feel we have a disconnect. Having seen it once or twice more since I wrote that post, the audio cuts out when he says Iran to the point that all you hear is eye, so perhaps he was saying eyeball or island. Also, people at the actual Ron Paul event mentioned that the interview was time delayed as they had a monitor of the actual program playing near the camera that was filming interviews. People mentioned a time delay of anywhere from 30-60 seconds from what they saw vs what was happening in front of them. (the interview)
The interview was not live. It was quite close to live, but not quite. The reason they started showing the interview was because he only mentioned censored subjects about 50 seconds in.
Also, I looked into causes for commercial satellites dropping a signal. Looks like a lot of room for 'oops' moments or third party interference. No mention of weather, just man made sources.
The Satellite Users Interference Reduction Group (SUIRG) categorizes satellite communication interference into five main groups, these are: 1. User Error a. Human Error b. Equipment Failure 2. Crosspol Leakage 3. Adjacent Satellites 4. Terrestrial Services 5. Deliberate Interference
Finally, what evidence do you have that they didn't interrupt their own interview?
[Note from kwizach: I'm using spoiler tags because this was a long post, and since my reply is short I don't want to use to much space with this post.]
I don't really know what else to add - you said it yourself, there are plenty of reasons why signals can be dropped and glitches can happen. There's really nothing that indicates there's in this case another, hidden, reason for the cutoff - and no reason to suspect so. Plus, like another poster said, if CNN had wanted to censor the opinions conveyed by Ron Paul, they wouldn't have interviewed Ron Paul supporters at the Ron Paul headquarters.
Yeah this pretty much strikes down the "cut him off" idea for me.
"Alright, let's give this Ron Paul supporter at a Ron Paul convention some air time." "Oh shit, he's supporting Ron Paul! Quick cut him off!"
If "they" were trying to shut Ron Paul down, they would be doing a pretty bad job. He's supported by a little minority of people and I hear more about him than I would if Jesus was in the Republican primaries (he probably wouldn't, I'm sure he doesn't support letting injured people without a healthcare die :p)
Yawn, Ron Paul is not in favor of letting people without healthcare die. That's just what some of his insane supporters say.
A little minority of people? Dude, he's like in third place in Iowa and second place is Santorum. He's a serious candidate at this point, and I don't know why he's being marginalized. He's actually had pretty consistent poll numbers throughout the race, unlike all his competition besides Romney, it's just that the press refused to focus on him at all.
Already posted that but apparently another round is necessary. Ron Paul would let the guy without a healthcare die. He said it himself. Enjoy a great moment of comedy:
The Ron Paul quote: "that's what freedom is all about". That made me laugh out loud.
As for a minority: there is no way on earth Americans elect him if he gets through (he won't anyway). I know many people who would vote Romney over Obama but would cut their hand rather than voting for someone they rightfully consider as a rigid, principled extremist.
That video cuts off before he can explain himself. I was actually wondering what he was going to say. When the interviewer asks him "So society should just let him die?" Ron Paul says "Well no, I was a doctor for several years -" and it cuts off. What the fuck did he say after that?
By all means, prove me wrong. That video, if anything, does the opposite.
Pity they cut him. I'm sure he had a great answer. Charity, for example. The rich are so eager to give their money when poor people with cancers.
You don't want to see the reality? If the State doesn't help the poorest nobody will. So, yeah, that's "let them die". As we did 200 years ago.
On January 06 2012 09:00 bOneSeven wrote: Paul never said we should just "let them die," he said family, friends, church groups, and community organizations should be there to help them.
Yes - the problem is most of the time they're not. How do you not understand this?
So this makes this a question about which way is more effective and efficient, rather than the morality of the issue (because we all agree that people should be helped who are in need). This should be a conversation that is pretty civil and doesn't involve people getting angry at each other.
Libertarianism just feels so jarring, I can't believe it's actually gaining traction. I guess the allure of having to pay less taxes will win almost anyone over. But the whole de-regulation thing just seems so dangerous. It's hard enough to deal with monopolies now in the modern world. How does a libertarian society deal with monopolies? I mean, companies just buying out all the competition aggressively, tying up all possible distribution outlets...all that sort of crap?
Also, I think the general criticism of the FDA seems a bit weird to me. Getting rid of that sort of regulation just seems so reckless as to the health of people in your society. You are happy to stand by and allow the possibility that people will be seriously harmed and damaged by drugs which aren't tested to any standard of care...until it's found that the damage has been done and everyone keeps away from it...I know that food and drugs regulation can't stop everything but it just seems crazy to actually reduce society's ability to protect itself from that...things like the thalidomide tragedy have taught us some serious lessons about regulation and to back off from that seems crazy.
Same goes for...how does a libertarian society effectively administer disease control? For example, a spread amongst livestock of a certain disease...how does it deal with culling animals? Seeing as it's not supposed to have coercive power to cull livestock...does that mean you are happy for BSE burgers to be floating around the country?
It's really too bad Huntsman hasn't gotten more attention... He seems like the most sane, down to earth candidate in the race and would probably put up a great fight vs Obama in a general. Too bad most republicans are too far to the right to listen to him..
Would be great to see him do well in NH though and become part of the conversation..
On January 06 2012 09:15 sc4k wrote: Libertarianism just feels so jarring, I can't believe it's actually gaining traction. I guess the allure of having to pay less taxes will win almost anyone over. But the whole de-regulation thing just seems so dangerous. It's hard enough to deal with monopolies now in the modern world. How does a libertarian society deal with monopolies? I mean, companies just buying out all the competition aggressively, tying up all possible distribution outlets...all that sort of crap?
Also, I think the general criticism of the FDA seems a bit weird to me. Getting rid of that sort of regulation just seems so reckless as to the health of people in your society. You are happy to stand by and allow the possibility that people will be seriously harmed and damaged by drugs which aren't tested to any standard of care...until it's found that the damage has been done and everyone keeps away from it...I know that food and drugs regulation can't stop everything but it just seems crazy to actually reduce society's ability to protect itself from that...things like the thalidomide tragedy have taught us some serious lessons about regulation and to back off from that seems crazy.
Same goes for...how does a libertarian society effectively administer disease control? For example, a spread amongst livestock of a certain disease...how does it deal with culling animals? Seeing as it's not supposed to have coercive power to cull livestock...does that mean you are happy for BSE burgers to be floating around the country?
oh come on with the FDA thing . FDA approved usage of aspartame . How is aspartame more safe than marijuana ? I think FDA had a good start , but by the time corporation grew bigger and bigger FDA starts dissaproving products that would compete and beat big corporation's products and approve some ridiculuose products that are seriously toxic to human beings.
Pity they cut him. I'm sure he had a great answer. Charity, for example. The rich are so eager to give their money when poor people with cancers.
Hundreds of billions of dollars a year worldwide are contributed directly to charities or through philanthropic organizations, trusts that sort of thing, you're aware of this yes? Forget imposed charity through taxation, that has to be over ten trillion a year globally.
Pity they cut him. I'm sure he had a great answer. Charity, for example. The rich are so eager to give their money when poor people with cancers.
Hundreds of billions of dollars a year worldwide are contributed directly to charities or through philanthropic organizations, trusts that sort of thing, you're aware of this yes? Forget imposed charity through taxation, that has to be over ten trillion a year globally.
Annual US charity given is about 230 billion dollars per year
Had a hard time finding a global stat, do you mind looking it up please?
If healthcare was stopped completely, Im pretty sure charity by itself would not be enough. this is assuming that all the charity money goes purely to healthcare.
Total health care related cost per year in the us is around 2.3 trillion, half of that comes from the public sector. so goverment shoulders around 1.15 trillion dollars.
This is what is starting to scare me about the direction this country is going.
There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.
Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
I dunno, I mean Santorum Is just trying to get the evanglical wing on his side. pretty standard fare. the quote above makes 20% of americans slow clapping for him while making the other percentage either mildly annoyed or maybe even scared. point is, its hard to get by on just evanglical votes. looking back, Bush Jr would actually be considered moderate in this field. realtive to the rest of the conservative field that is.
On January 06 2012 10:54 AUGcodon wrote: I dunno, I mean Santorum Is just trying to get the evanglical wing on his side. pretty standard fare. the quote above makes 20% of americans slow clapping for him while making the other percentage either mildly annoyed or maybe even scared. point is, its hard to get by on just evanglical votes. looking back, Bush Jr would actually be considered moderate in this field. realtive to the rest of the conservative field that is.
Eh, he thinks contraceptives are evil, and that states should have the right to ban them. That just blows my mind in 2012.
On January 06 2012 09:26 sweeep wrote: It's really too bad Huntsman hasn't gotten more attention... He seems like the most sane, down to earth candidate in the race and would probably put up a great fight vs Obama in a general. Too bad most republicans are too far to the right to listen to him..
Would be great to see him do well in NH though and become part of the conversation..
When are people going to realize that the REAL killer of this country's economy is not the financial deficit, but the TRUST deficit.
Joking aside, I have no major issues with Huntsman, but I HATE hearing that line every single time I see him on TV.
On January 06 2012 10:54 AUGcodon wrote: I dunno, I mean Santorum Is just trying to get the evanglical wing on his side. pretty standard fare. the quote above makes 20% of americans slow clapping for him while making the other percentage either mildly annoyed or maybe even scared. point is, its hard to get by on just evanglical votes. looking back, Bush Jr would actually be considered moderate in this field. realtive to the rest of the conservative field that is.
Eh, he thinks contraceptives are evil, and that states should have the right to ban them. That just blows my mind in 2012.
Just trying to get votes like you said, I doubt any politician really believes that considering how manipulative and cut-throat you have to be to get anywhere.
What people in this discussion fail to realize is the fundamental idea of Economics...namely Scarcity. There is simply not enough resources to provide everyone with optimal healthcare. Right now as much as 18% of our GDP is spent on healthcare and we arent even in the top 20 for longevity or satisfaction for their health care. You have a government run system (medicare/medicaid) which low balls payment for doctors and consistently tries to deny healthcare to its providers as a means of "cutting cost" while also restricting who and where they can receive healthcare (HMOs). Compounding this is the over-utilization of the system by the elderly who sap massive resources from the system to prolong their lives by a few years thus denying younger people the resources to access healthcare earlier in their life thus leading to the development of multiple comorbities before they even seek medical care (which again leads to increased spending for little prolongation of life) (this is known as diminished marginal return).
Ron Paul is emphasizing the need for people to take responsibility for their healthcare. If individuals are actually paying for their insurance and have a committed effort for their health they are more likely to make better choices because they know they can not afford to spend thousands of dollars in medical expenses that could be prevented simply by diet and exercise. The elderly would not be able to sap the resources and would be forced to spend their own money for medical care. Lastly as for emergencies like a man getting hit by a car and having to be in the ICU for weeks. Hospitals always take the hit on occasions like that. When a homeless person comes into the ER with an emergency the hospital takes care of that person free of cost! (medicaid does not pay for the person unless he is priorly signed up for the program) So this idea of people without insurance being allowed to die is just ridiculous and moronic like the idiot who asked the question in the first place. However, if a smoker who lives a sedintary lifestyle and develops a heart condition and needs a transplant who does not pay insurance....im sorry but you are SOL. People need to realize that you make decisions in life and those decisions have consequences. Im tired of having to pay for people who smoke or use drugs or eat themselves to death and being forced to take care of these people b/c they are unemployed and receive medicaid and having to deny people access to healthcare who are working 2 jobs to support their family but make enough money not to qualify for medicaid.
If we eliminate this system of government assistance we can lower the cost of medicine and allow people to have access to insurance and medicine if they deem it important to them. However if you would rather make the choices that lead to an early death that is your right just like it is my right to say I dont have to pay my money for your wrong choices
On January 06 2012 11:39 Sakenator wrote: What people in this discussion fail to realize is the fundamental idea of Economics...namely Scarcity. There is simply not enough resources to provide everyone with optimal healthcare. Right now as much as 18% of our GDP is spent on healthcare and we arent even in the top 20 for longevity or satisfaction for their health care. You have a government run system (medicare/medicaid) which low balls payment for doctors and consistently tries to deny healthcare to its providers as a means of "cutting cost" while also restricting who and where they can receive healthcare (HMOs). Compounding this is the over-utilization of the system by the elderly who sap massive resources from the system to prolong their lives by a few years thus denying younger people the resources to access healthcare earlier in their life thus leading to the development of multiple comorbities before they even seek medical care (which again leads to increased spending for little prolongation of life) (this is known as diminished marginal return).
Ron Paul is emphasizing the need for people to take responsibility for their healthcare. If individuals are actually paying for their insurance and have a committed effort for their health they are more likely to make better choices because they know they can not afford to spend thousands of dollars in medical expenses that could be prevented simply by diet and exercise. The elderly would not be able to sap the resources and would be forced to spend their own money for medical care. Lastly as for emergencies like a man getting hit by a car and having to be in the ICU for weeks. Hospitals always take the hit on occasions like that. When a homeless person comes into the ER with an emergency the hospital takes care of that person free of cost! (medicaid does not pay for the person unless he is priorly signed up for the program) So this idea of people without insurance being allowed to die is just ridiculous and moronic like the idiot who asked the question in the first place. However, if a smoker who lives a sedintary lifestyle and develops a heart condition and needs a transplant who does not pay insurance....im sorry but you are SOL. People need to realize that you make decisions in life and those decisions have consequences. Im tired of having to pay for people who smoke or use drugs or eat themselves to death and being forced to take care of these people b/c they are unemployed and receive medicaid and having to deny people access to healthcare who are working 2 jobs to support their family but make enough money not to qualify for medicaid.
If we eliminate this system of government assistance we can lower the cost of medicine and allow people to have access to insurance and medicine if they deem it important to them. However if you would rather make the choices that lead to an early death that is your right just like it is my right to say I dont have to pay my money for your wrong choices
Actually, the hospital does not take care of the person free of cost. It takes care of the person even if they can't pay the cost. ie you go into the hospital and Someone will be getting a bill... the hospital can't kick you out, but there will be a bill. (if you don't have insurance, chances are you go bankrupt)
So technically we have "universal health care" now. The hospitals have to pay for anything that you can't, and it only covers emergency room stuff. (the hospitals passing all the cost of those who can't pay on to those who 'can' pay... ie government and private insurance companies)
That is a pretty crappy level of health care, but it is universal.
There are two Rick Santorums: The first one I might not agree with, but the second one truly scares me.
"Santorum One" pushes for less government regulation for corporations and shrinking the federal government. You may or may not agree with these positions, but they are both mainstream conservative fare.
Then there's "Santorum Two." This Santorum wants to impose conservative Christian law upon America. Am I being hyperbolic or overly dramatic with this statement? I wish I were, but I'm not.
Plainly put, Rick Santorum wants to convert our current legal system into one that requires our laws to be in agreement with religious law, not unlike what the Taliban want to do in Afghanistan.
Santorum is not hiding this. The only reason you may not be aware of it is because up until his recent surge in the polls, the media were ignoring him. However, "Santorum Two" was out there telling anyone who would listen.
He told a crowd at a November campaign stop in Iowa in no uncertain terms, "our civil laws have to comport with a higher law: God's law."
On Thanksgiving Day at an Iowa candidates' forum, he reiterated: "We have civil laws, but our civil laws have to comport with the higher law."
I find it infuriating that so many seem to think that democracy means being allowed to voice your opinion with your vote ... but only if you agree with an atheist liberal worldview. Otherwise, if you believe in voting for preserving and promoting traditional values like one-man-one-woman marriage, you're not participating in a democracy, you're the Taliban! You're trying to bring your sharia law to America! You're waging a jihad against apple pie and the flag!
Hogwash.
Democracy means everyone gets a say when we collectively decide what sort of country we're going to be. If some of us (most of us) believe it is a good thing to support, promote, and legally reflect the judeo-christian values that made America what it is today, we have EVERY right to vote our consciences - no less than those who disagree with us have every right to vote theirs.
Please just stop with the lame Taliban / theocracy / militant Islam comparisons. If anyone is trying to shove their values down other people's throats, it's the atheist liberal base and their allies in the courts. At least religious conservatives have the common decency to fight things out at the polls.
EPT
