On March 03 2012 09:42 ticklishmusic wrote: At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, I would rather Rush Limbaugh have dropped dead rather than Andrew Brietbart. The latter was incendiary, but not simply a complete asshole like Rush is.
I'm most conservative (of that's the right phrase) when it comes to the issue of abortion. If a baby has been conceived, well, then the mother better bear that baby and let it out into the world. Take responsibility for your own damn actions, don't put it on your unborn child dammit.
I personally believe that if people can't afford to get birth control, they can't afford to have kids-- ergo, they should not be having sex. Unfortunately, that's simply not going to happen so I believe the best solution is to provide affordable birth control and reproductive education-- the only entity that seems capable of doing this seems to be the government. Then if a woman still somehow manages to gets knocked up, she better take responsibility for it.
Female contraception is more than birth control. If you think that it is only about birth control, then you do not fully understand the issue.
On March 03 2012 08:45 DamnCats wrote: xDaunt, I don't want to assume but you aren't religious then? I guess I'm probably arguing with the wrong person in this case. Because while libertarians are *chappelle show voice* cooooold bloooded sometimes, they aren't complete raging hypocrites like most republicans.
My problem is republicans have latched onto the libertarian stance of "fuck little timmy with a pre-existing condition" at the same time they want to outlaw abortion. I can't even fathom how one could be more paradoxical. And I feel like blatant hypocrisy like this is what's going to give us another 4 years of Obama. Which, while it could be worse, could be a lot better too if we weren't constantly talking about stupid shit religion wants.
My religious views are complicated. I was raised Roman Catholic, sympathize heavily with religious people in general, but have a very healthy dislike of organized religion.
I was raised the same, and I feel the same about organized religion (probably a bit moreso). I feel like the person who called healthcare companies cartels hit the nail on the head though. I don't think we can say that health insurance companies can do whatever they want until Americans actually have choices in what health insurance company they get. As it stands now a very small amount of companies run them and in many states there are very little choices at all for alternatives.
edit: also seriously fuck rush limbaugh if only because people like him keep the level of political discourse in this country to "wasted frat guys" instead of "team liquid politics forums". I realize if it wasn't so popular to be like this he wouldn't exist so maybe I should say "fuck people that support rush" instead of "fuck rush".
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
On March 03 2012 09:42 ticklishmusic wrote: At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, I would rather Rush Limbaugh have dropped dead rather than Andrew Brietbart. The latter was incendiary, but not simply a complete asshole like Rush is.
I'm most conservative (of that's the right phrase) when it comes to the issue of abortion. If a baby has been conceived, well, then the mother better bear that baby and let it out into the world. Take responsibility for your own damn actions, don't put it on your unborn child dammit.
I personally believe that if people can't afford to get birth control, they can't afford to have kids-- ergo, they should not be having sex. Unfortunately, that's simply not going to happen so I believe the best solution is to provide affordable birth control and reproductive education-- the only entity that seems capable of doing this seems to be the government. Then if a woman still somehow manages to gets knocked up, she better take responsibility for it.
Female contraception is more than birth control. If you think that it is only about birth control, then you do not fully understand the issue.
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of the other medical uses of what are colloquially referred to as birth control pills. I was the one who brought up the Limbaugh issue in the first place.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
What in the bloody hell kind of analogy is that???!!
Seriously, you just completely undermined your point.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
What in the bloody hell kind of analogy is that???!!
Seriously, you just completely undermined your point.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
What in the bloody hell kind of analogy is that???!!
Seriously, you just completely undermined your point.
Going to explain why or what?
I don't usually use this sort of language for this kind of thing but being fine with innocent individuals going to jail is Fucking Stupid. It undermines your points because yeah - I'd rather see 100 criminals go free.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
What in the bloody hell kind of analogy is that???!!
Seriously, you just completely undermined your point.
Going to explain why or what?
I don't usually use this sort of language for this kind of thing but being fine with innocent individuals going to jail is Fucking Stupid. It undermines your points because yeah - I'd rather see 100 criminals go free.
I was implying that Voros was the one saying that he would rather choose the one that locks up innocent people/lets them die from not having money to pay for healthcare. The person who says he would rather see criminals go free was the person who would want something like medicare to cover everyone even though its rife with fraud at the moment. So how does this undermine my point?
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
What in the bloody hell kind of analogy is that???!!
Seriously, you just completely undermined your point.
Going to explain why or what?
I don't usually use this sort of language for this kind of thing but being fine with innocent individuals going to jail is Fucking Stupid. It undermines your points because yeah - I'd rather see 100 criminals go free.
I was implying that Voros was the one saying that he would rather choose the one that locks up innocent people/lets them die from not having money to pay for healthcare. The person who says he would rather see criminals go free was the person who would want something like medicare to cover everyone even though its rife with fraud at the moment. So how does this undermine my point?
Well if it confused me for one, because I don't completely grasp that weird comparison you're making.
Such fantastic bullshit. It's just that some people, you included apparently, just believe that because you were blessed with a good mind and good heart everyone else should go fuck themselves. Just so that you can have a little bit more.
And let's ignore the positive economic effects of having a healthy workforce.
And instead federal agents should seize property and wealth by force, pour it into an inefficient, corrupt, rent-seeking system that is already responsible for $60 billion of fraud annually, and expect things to be better because of it?
No matter how much vitriol you spew at those who support voluntarism, charity, and belief in the basic goodness of humanity, you're the one who supports statism and all of the violence that is inherent in that system. If you want to help the less fortunate in your community, then stop insisting that bureaucrats steal other people's wealth to do so (if and when they get around to it when they're not getting in bed with lobbyists and selling their souls to corporatist interests) and instead help them.
Your main problem with the government paying for people's healthcare seems to be the fact that they end up getting defrauded quite a bit by mischievous individuals? I can't help but compare this to the saying about our judicial system about how they would rather 100 criminals go free than 1 innocent person get locked up. Isn't the criminals going free the same as the unfortunate circumstance of paying a fraudulent claim and the aversion to 1 innocent person being locked up the same as 1 person slipping through the cracks and dying or causing their entire family to go bankrupt because they can't pay for healthcare?
edit: Also seems incredibly naive to think that if someone catches a nasty illness or has an accident without health insurance to say "Eh, he'll be fine, he's got neighbors".
What in the bloody hell kind of analogy is that???!!
Seriously, you just completely undermined your point.
Going to explain why or what?
I don't usually use this sort of language for this kind of thing but being fine with innocent individuals going to jail is Fucking Stupid. It undermines your points because yeah - I'd rather see 100 criminals go free.
I was implying that Voros was the one saying that he would rather choose the one that locks up innocent people/lets them die from not having money to pay for healthcare. The person who says he would rather see criminals go free was the person who would want something like medicare to cover everyone even though its rife with fraud at the moment. So how does this undermine my point?
Well if it confused me for one, because I don't completely grasp that weird comparison you're making.
Yea sorry I tend to do that sometimes with analogies. It makes sense in my head ;D
Corporations have it so bad in America. This is just another case of the government overstepping its bounds. We need to help the poor insurance companies. How dare someone tell them they need to cover womens health in their health care plans for women!
Its quite hilarious that people rush to defend the corporations that take so much from them and give so little back. The evcen stranger part of this case, is that it is in the best interest of the corporations people are trying to defend, they WANT to offer birth control. It saves them money.
At the end of the day, this is entirely motivated by a bunch of old tired men and priests. This issue is 100% religously motivated, and any attempt to say it is in the interest of not violating the corporations freedoms is entirely disingenuous.
Reading it again, I kind of see where you're going with it, but I think it's just too out there. Remember that imprisoning an innocent person means that a criminal go free at the same time. It's like a double miscarriage of justice.
The main problem I have with that voluntarism is not the spirit or ideal of it, but the practicality of it. We developed the system we have because we didn't think we could do it on a large enough scale without the help of the federal government. It almost makes things dangerously fragmented, as it would be relying on local populace who would be completely different with the treatment of their communities. There's really no reason to think things would naturally fall into place.
I think I'll pluck my own random analogy out of thin air: the predator/prey system. People always think it's these static ecosystems, but the fact is that they are wildly unstable. Predator/prey systems fail all the time. You may ask why they fail. Well why wouldn't they? And when that system fails, creatures go extinct. Similarly, with this kind of free-for-all system where care is left to the whim of the masses, I see no reason why they wouldn't destabilize and fail.
I think I just may have made it too complicated for no reason.
A guilty person being acquitted because the burden of proof needed is so high (usually) keeps innocent people from going to jail.
A government that wants to make sure all of it's citizens have adequate healthcare has a very high burden as well, which keeps "innocent" people from suffering financially or dying in the event of an accident or illness.
The side effect of both of these is that sometimes, criminals can get positive results. In the case of courts and the law, we accept that as something that just happens for the sake of not putting innocent people in prison. Obviously we want to eliminate wasteful spending on healthcare as much as we want to eliminate criminals getting off for their crimes.
Make more sense I hope?
edit: This was simply in response to people who argue against something like a single payer system on the grounds that its too fraudulent, inefficient, etc.
Should be noted Romney has yet to fully comment like Santorum; has albeit more difficult probably since Bain Capital owns Clear Channels which hosts Limbaugh.
That was on the news? lol politics really is just another form of entertainment. What Rush Limbaugh says on his radio show has about as much importance as what Howard Stern says on his.
Again, blame viewers for being more interested in that than things that actually matter. Cable channels know what keeps people watching.
Should be noted Romney has yet to fully comment like Santorum; has albeit more difficult probably since Bain Capital owns Clear Channels which hosts Limbaugh.
Sounds like they should do some trimming of Clear Channels to increase profits.
Gingrich picking the side of Israel on Iran subject.
On Fox News, Greta Van Susteren asked GOP presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich how he’d handle the meeting with the Israeli prime minister. While Gingrich said he would brief Netanyahu on all the “non-military means” he would employ to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, he added that Israel “would receive support from the United States” if it decided to attack Iran. But the former House Speaker didn’t stop there:
GINGRICH: I would also point out that a Gingrich presidency would communicate publicly to the Iranians that if they continue to do what they’re doing, they should expect to get hit, and it will be their fault for having caused it.
The GOP presidential candidates have been steadily trying to outdo one another on who is more bellicose on Iran and Gingrich is no exception. Outside of offering support for an Israeli attack on Iran, Gingrich said in December that he would prefer a “joint operation” with the United States.
While the IAEA and top U.S. officials have expressed serious concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program — including indications that Iran is on a path to nuclear weapons capability — neither the IAEA nor U.S. intelligence reports have asserted that Iran has restarted its nuclear weapons program.
On March 03 2012 17:00 Signet wrote: That was on the news? lol politics really is just another form of entertainment. What Rush Limbaugh says on his radio show has about as much importance as what Howard Stern says on his.
Again, blame viewers for being more interested in that than things that actually matter. Cable channels know what keeps people watching.
Rush Limbaugh is a major figurehead in terms of Republican Politics so far that any politician who disagrees with him or even calls him out gets flamed to hell by Limbaugh and his audience. Even Speaker Boehner is hesitant to go against him.
EPT
