|
|
On October 23 2012 09:53 Swazi Spring wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:46 Doraemon wrote:On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. On October 23 2012 09:38 turdburgler wrote:
guns lead to an increased chance of being involved in gun violence? tax guns! getting too much cancer? tax cigars! I'm sorry, but I really must point out a couple of these fallacies. Guns don't lead to violence and if anything, owning a gun decreases your chances1 of being attacked by a mugger, rapist, burglar, etc. please show me any study that indicates guns lead to less violence? Pretty much every study ever conducted. All of the evidence shows that gun control INCREASES violent crime rates and gun rights lower it, both in America and in other countries. Here's a good collection of various studies conducted and compiled into a single list: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
so for a country like Japan that has guns outlawed, would the introduction of firearms decrease their crime rate?
|
Any good highquality links for the debate? Haven't found one yet (Haven't been looking very hard)
|
On October 23 2012 09:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:06 GTPGlitch wrote:I don't believe that abortion is a freedom that the public should have. and as I said earlier, a debate about abortion is not really what I'm getting at here. So people should be forced to accept your beliefs when it comes to decisions that very heavily affect their personal life and not yours? though I feel that this is an oversimplification of my position, I won't try to dance around it. Yes. I think people should be required to accept my personal belief on the issue, as I feel that my personal belief is the correct one. normally, my own belief in the correctness of my position would not lead me to such a conclusion, that people should be required to hold themselves to it, but in this case, I believe that the price is too high to accept "dissent" from the position, whatever someone may believe or not believe. basically: since I think it is an innocent person whose life is at stake, I am willing to suspend my normal acceptance of differing opinions and am more than willing to press the issue, using force if necessary. ideally, the populace would see the correctness of my own position and be convinced, but I am ready to accept that such a thing will not happen. in the choice between being seen as a dictator (and in engaging in some admittedly dictatorial behavior) and allowing the murder of innocents, I am inclined to choose the former.
And if I believe that the integration of whites and blacks could cost innocent life because black people are all murderers and theives, I should use force to make other people believe that since I'm clearly in the right?
|
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down?
|
On October 23 2012 09:54 BluePanther wrote:
As a follow up question, what do you guys think of making taxation monthly rather than annually?
that's interesting because a version of this is being implemented in Australia, large corporations will need to pay their company tax on a monthly basis....i think it will be ok? smaller firms will struggle with cash flow....hmmph. need to look more into it
|
On October 23 2012 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down?
If it was true, then yes. However, it isn't, so no, I don't.
|
On October 23 2012 09:55 GTPGlitch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:31 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 23 2012 09:06 GTPGlitch wrote:I don't believe that abortion is a freedom that the public should have. and as I said earlier, a debate about abortion is not really what I'm getting at here. So people should be forced to accept your beliefs when it comes to decisions that very heavily affect their personal life and not yours? though I feel that this is an oversimplification of my position, I won't try to dance around it. Yes. I think people should be required to accept my personal belief on the issue, as I feel that my personal belief is the correct one. normally, my own belief in the correctness of my position would not lead me to such a conclusion, that people should be required to hold themselves to it, but in this case, I believe that the price is too high to accept "dissent" from the position, whatever someone may believe or not believe. basically: since I think it is an innocent person whose life is at stake, I am willing to suspend my normal acceptance of differing opinions and am more than willing to press the issue, using force if necessary. ideally, the populace would see the correctness of my own position and be convinced, but I am ready to accept that such a thing will not happen. in the choice between being seen as a dictator (and in engaging in some admittedly dictatorial behavior) and allowing the murder of innocents, I am inclined to choose the former. And if I believe that the integration of whites and blacks could cost innocent life because black people are all murderers and theives, I should use force to make other people believe that since I'm clearly in the right?
I would say that you are clearly and provably in the wrong and therefore, that this belief has no validity or grounds with which it can claim validity. of course, you might disagree with me about that, but that is why we live in a democracy. those who agree with you can vote like you, and those who agree with me can vote like me.
|
On October 23 2012 09:53 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:50 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:45 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. For whom do you care? Is it wrong that I do not have an answer to this? No, it just shows me what kind of voter you are and how much your view is worth.
I just don't think it's the government role to "care" and nurture for able-bodied people. I do support welfare for those who really need it though, such as the disabled.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Gun laws are not a one-size fits all kinda thing, which is why I'm a strong supporter of states' rights in regards to gun laws. I do, however, also support a federal ban on all assault weapons. There's really no reason not to.
|
On October 23 2012 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down?
voter intimidation.
if you dont help X candidate win, you will lose your job.
On October 23 2012 09:58 Souma wrote:
Gun laws are not a one-size fits all kinda thing, which is why I'm a strong supporter of states' rights in regards to gun laws. I do, however, also support a federal ban on all assault weapons. There's really no reason not to.
i dont understand how you can be pro gun and anti assault weapon. assault weapons are just really well made guns, they do what they are supposed to do better than guns.
|
|
|
On October 23 2012 09:54 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. On October 23 2012 09:38 turdburgler wrote:
guns lead to an increased chance of being involved in gun violence? tax guns! getting too much cancer? tax cigars! I'm sorry, but I really must point out a couple of these fallacies. Guns don't lead to violence and if anything, owning a gun decreases your chances1 of being attacked by a mugger, rapist, burglar, etc. Also, cigars do not cause cancer. It is theoretically possible to get mouth cancer from a cigar, but it is extremely unlikely. Cigarettes would have been a much better example. "Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher." http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html2 seconds on google. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:53 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:46 Doraemon wrote:On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. On October 23 2012 09:38 turdburgler wrote:
guns lead to an increased chance of being involved in gun violence? tax guns! getting too much cancer? tax cigars! I'm sorry, but I really must point out a couple of these fallacies. Guns don't lead to violence and if anything, owning a gun decreases your chances1 of being attacked by a mugger, rapist, burglar, etc. please show me any study that indicates guns lead to less violence? Pretty much every study ever conducted. All of the evidence shows that gun control INCREASES violent crime rates and gun rights lower it, both in America and in other countries. Here's a good collection of various studies conducted and compiled into a single list: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp 2 minutes on that site shows you that they have no idea what they are talking about.
A very small case study of a couple hundred people is the best you have?
The article also makes the mistake of assuming that every situation is the same and that if you own a gun you are automatically required to use it in every situation. 95% of the time if you brandish your concealed gun, the rapist/mugger will run away and you don't even have to use it.
|
On October 23 2012 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down?
I think it might be morally unacceptable in some cases, but I hope it isn't illegal.
|
On October 23 2012 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down?
I would actually hope so. An individual should have that type of information in their hands if there is a realistic chance.
And yes, for those of you who aren't aware, a tax increase on those making over 250,000 does indeed end up being a tax increase on small businesses. For the borderline mom and pop places, a win for Democrats may be fatal for that business.
That said, it needs to be done tactfully.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 23 2012 09:58 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down? voter intimidation. if you dont help X candidate win, you will lose your job. Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:58 Souma wrote:
Gun laws are not a one-size fits all kinda thing, which is why I'm a strong supporter of states' rights in regards to gun laws. I do, however, also support a federal ban on all assault weapons. There's really no reason not to. i dont understand how you can be pro gun and anti assault weapon. assault weapons are just really well made guns, they do what they are supposed to do better than guns.
Because I do believe that people should have the right to have guns in their homes or shops, and people should be allowed to hunt and therefore have hunting rifles. Assault weapons, however, are purely made for killing multiple people.
|
On October 23 2012 09:55 Doraemon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:53 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:46 Doraemon wrote:On October 23 2012 09:43 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:33 sevencck wrote:On October 23 2012 09:29 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:20 turdburgler wrote:On October 23 2012 09:10 Swazi Spring wrote:On October 23 2012 09:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 23 2012 08:59 Souma wrote:
Pro-lifers don't really care about life. If they did we'd have single-payer healthcare already. Well since you are picking a fight... Why is that? Are you suggesting that a single-payer system is the only system demonstrated to work well? Because supporting personal responsibility makes you pro-death. because funding E.R. rooms to deal with uninsured costs you more money than just helping the people to begin with, so the idea that its cheaper makes no sense. because you privatise your health, leading to a conflict of interests, the company doesnt care about keeping you alive except so that you can pay more premiums, if your healthcare becomes too expensive they can and will cut you off. because privatisation of healthcare increases premiums because profits dont just come from thin air. you can try and run personal responsibility all you want, some kind of reward structure of people who dont fuck up their own lives (aka heavy taxation on alcohol or drugs) but to spite the people who have made mistakes, or hit a rough patch for no other reason than to be spiteful is idiotic. great, they havent taken responsibility, but by sticking to your principles you are just costing yourself more in taxation to fix the problem rather than the cause. this is why americans pay twice as much per person to fund just medicare and medicaid than the british pay to fund the entire NHS. while all progressive countries are living in the real world, accepting that people will be people and working on prevention and education (because its cheaper than fixing problems after they come up) the US is happy to spite itself just so that people like you get to say 'i told you so' to the poor guy with no insurance. Why should the poor receive ER care? Remove treating the uninsured and you have the cheapest healthcare system in the world and the best quality ever; win-win. It's amazing how little you care for people once they've been born. You misunderstand, I don't care about people before they've been born either. On October 23 2012 09:38 turdburgler wrote:
guns lead to an increased chance of being involved in gun violence? tax guns! getting too much cancer? tax cigars! I'm sorry, but I really must point out a couple of these fallacies. Guns don't lead to violence and if anything, owning a gun decreases your chances1 of being attacked by a mugger, rapist, burglar, etc. please show me any study that indicates guns lead to less violence? Pretty much every study ever conducted. All of the evidence shows that gun control INCREASES violent crime rates and gun rights lower it, both in America and in other countries. Here's a good collection of various studies conducted and compiled into a single list: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp so for a country like Japan that has guns outlawed, would the introduction of firearms decrease their crime rate?
That's not entirely accurate, if I'm not mistaken, guns are still legal in Japan, they are just heavily regulated. However yes, I believe that if Japanese gun ownership was more mainstream, it would lead to lower crime rate (or at the very least, no change at all).
|
Aww man!!! why are they not at podiums!?! I feel like Romney is way better at podium stuff. 
|
On October 23 2012 10:01 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 23 2012 09:55 TheTenthDoc wrote:
Wow, watching the pre-debate coverage:
Do you think it's acceptable for employers to send emails to their employees saying that if X candidate wins we'll have to shut down? I would actually hope so. An individual should have that type of information in their hands if there is a realistic chance. And yes, for those of you who aren't aware, a tax increase on those making over 250,000 does indeed end up being a tax increase on small businesses. For the borderline mom and pop places, a win for Democrats may be fatal for that business.
To be fair, the employer in question a) didn't know why it would cause a shutdown and b) said it was Obama's fault his time share real estate business has shrunk since 2008.
|
Noone have any good HQ stream links? I'm looking for the raw stream not chitchat and commentary.
Edit: Watching C-span right now but the quality is trash.
|
On October 23 2012 10:03 HellRoxYa wrote:
Noone have any good HQ stream links? I'm looking for the raw stream not chitchat and commentary.
Edit: Watching C-span right now but the quality is trash.
I'm watching it on tv or I'd help you. :/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
