Widgets Magazine

You people sickatate me

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • You people sickatate me

    Widgets Magazine
    This will be political, so if you don't want to read it, you've been warned.

    Spoiler ->Damn it you teahadist are annoying. You libertarian are starting to get on my nerves too. Never before have I see a group of people so completely entrenched in the mindset of "I've got mine, fuck you". You claim you love America, but it appears that you hate everyone who lives in America who isn't you. Always spouting non-sense about how easy the poor have it and how hard you have to work. What the fuck are you spouting off about? The reason you are working so hard is because you don't want to be poor. If poor was such the good and easy life, why don't you just stop working and see how it feels for a few days. Let's not even get into the ridiculous cost of healthcare. (please don't get me started, I work in the medical field and believe that a single-payer system is the only real way to get this done right. Not the half-assed measures that passed for Obamacare.)

    You don't want to pay taxes, but you complain about failing government projects. The next time I hear a teahadist or a libertarian complain about our failing space and science efforts in America, I think I'll throttle them. How dare you. You are the reason many of these programs are failing. Your unwilling-ness to PAY for advancements in science is the reason these programs are failing.

    I kid you not, one of these libertarian d-bags with the "Remember when we had a real president" Regan bumper stickers who constantly spouts off about why does he need to pay taxes complained about potholes on his street, probably not realizing that the cut back in local taxes also de-funded road construction and maintenance work on his road. Then later that day I found out that same person was complaining because he had to go to court (someone attempted to steal his car) and didn't want to deal with traffic. Look you lib-tard, courts are publicly funded by tax dollars. The judges are paid by tax dollars. The officer who came to take your report is funded by taxes. The roads that you drive on are funded by taxes. Pull your goddam head out of your ass. Taxes are just about punishing the "hard workers" of society. They are about making sure society doesn't fall apart.

    While you "people" might cheer about people dying in the streets in your Ron Paul fundraisers and trumpet about how much tax cuts make society a better place (yeah, look how well that worked out under Bush and in the current Obama administration), some of us are trying our best to keep the place from falling apart at the seams. So until I see you people living out in the mountains without relying on any of society's provided conveniences which are subsidized by taxes (power, transportation, groceries in a large supermarket, clean air, clean water, law enforcement, education, etc), I don't want to hear a damn thing about it from you. The only libertarian I'll believe isn't full of shit are the Amish ones since the practice what they preach.

    Oh and back to the taxed enough already party. Why is it that every time I turn around one of you guys are doing the most ignorant shit in history. If you want to be taken seriously, stop with the race and religion wars. You're just degrading your own cause. Stop putting clowns like Palin and Bachmann at the front of your party. If you can't get your own local history correct and you can't be bothered to hire someone to fact check for you, there's no reason for you to run as president. I understand that the position of president shouldn't be about the richest person or best fundraiser, but it shouldn't be a popularity/beauty contest either. Being willfully ignorant and spiteful to more than half of the citizens of this country by saying people who live in cities aren't "Real Americans", spouting out that people of different sexual preferences need to be "trained" in the correct way of life, claiming that anyone who isn't a Christian shouldn't live in America, making teleprompter jokes while reading off a damn teleprompter, all of that shit needs to stop. Stop dividing the country over small shit.

    Hell, in the case of Palin, the stuff she spouts and her past history are in direct conflict. She'll pretty much say whatever she thinks her supporters will like. It's just a big cash grab. I don't know who is worse since Bachmann probably believes her own bullshit unlike Palin.

    I could go on for days. Now I considered myself an independent before the republican party went off the deep end of the looney bin. I still don't like voting along party lines, but you guys are trying your hardest to make it impossible for me to vote republican at all. No I don't think Obama is always right. No I do not listen to Micheal Moore, the same way I don't listen to Rush or Glenn Beck. I will listen to Bill O' or Rachel Maddow from time to time, but with complete intention to fact check what they say when everything is said and done. I can't support people who say their number one goal is to make the president a one term president instead of "making America better" or "Working with the president to fix the economy".

    It's pathetic that all of this is happening and even worse that I don't see any real resolution with any of the candidates running right now.



    That's all.

  • #2
    Re: You people sickatate me

    Spoiler -> "Teahadists"?
    Well, I call 'em teabaggers, as that's what they came up with, before they realized some might find the metaphor of them shoving their hairy ballsacs into the mouth of America rather apt. I accord to them such respect as they have earned.

    Obamacare is a horrible mess of halfway measures and obsequiousness to the blood-sucking insurance companies, but I have hopes that it will break in the right way, and we'll say "Fuck it, Medicare for all!"



    Also, what's up with your show, H.R? That was some trippy shit.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: You people sickatate me

      Huh. I figure that this is a troll job anyway, but I'll just say that

      A: You completely misunderstand Libertarianism (that is, if you're actually serious).

      B: Many "Libertarians" also completely misunderstand their own supposed ideology. Teapartyers are prime examples. I doubt that that gang of baby-boomer misfits would support their benefits actually being taken away (hence why Rick Scarry crashed so hard), nor would they support deregulating marriage.

      Meh, anyway. People on both sides really make me sick.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: You people sickatate me

        Originally posted by Pasta View Post
        Huh. I figure that this is a troll job anyway, but I'll just say that

        A: You completely misunderstand Libertarianism (that is, if you're actually serious).
        The main tenant of Libertarianism is don't have government pay for what you can pay for yourself. For some reason Libertarians believe that healthcare is affordable and accessible to everyone. Or to be more specific, if you can't afford healthcare, feel free to die (and no, this isn't too the short clip of the debate where the audience was yelling for Ron Paul to let the guy die).

        I have had more than a few Libertarians tell me, with a straight face might you, that we shouldn't have to pay for roads or schools. That they should be paid for by the individual communities and that you shouldn't have to pay for anything you don't personally use.

        On the roads thing, are you fucking nuts? If no one pays for the roads outside of your community, then I guess you won't be able to go on vacation since the interstate system will immediately fall into ruins.

        On the school thing, are you fucking nuts? If you don't educate children, America will fall back into a state that caused the french revolution. Basically you would have your upperclass that can educate their children and your lower class that are poor and uneducated. What happens when poor uneducated people have nothing better to do? Crime. Thus you need more police.

        But wait, police forces should be privatized as well. Or even better that we should have a police voucher system. So that means, that only the rich have a police force and the poor can rob from each other. That sounds like a much better plan to me!

        B: Many "Libertarians" also completely misunderstand their own supposed ideology. Teapartyers are prime examples. I doubt that that gang of baby-boomer misfits would support their benefits actually being taken away (hence why Rick Scarry crashed so hard), nor would they support deregulating marriage.
        Every single Teaparty member that I know in real life is a hypocrite. I had a person yell at me because Hank Williams Jr. got kicked off of ESPN for expressing his freedom of speech. Are you kidding me, he expressed his freedom of speech and got fired. The same way that if you go and tell your boss to fuck off and die, you can be fired. You won't be arrested, but you certainly can be fired by your employeer.

        This very same person claimed that the Dixie Chicks should have been thrown in Jail for claiming that the war in Iraq was illegitimate. Uh, dipshit, that would definitely be infringement of free speech. Even Bush himself wouldn't want that.

        It's sad that these Teahadist (To-tea-latarians, Teabaggers, American Taliban, etc) don't understand how math or the government works. "I want the government to balance it's budget without touching the military, medicaid or social security, all while lowering taxes for me personally!" would sum up the majority of their platform. The other half would be "America be damned, I my number one priority is to make the enemy, Obama, a one term president. Since that's my number one goal, I will go against my own principles to make sure that every plan he has fails and America sinks into an abyss just so I can be re-elected."

        Honestly I can send you to links all day long showing the hypocritical nature of the Teaparty movement and their backers, but people like you just find excuses to state why they are misunderstood.

        Let's put this another way. The "grassroots" teaparty movement had demonstrations and protests funded for and covered exclusively by Fox "fair and balanced" News including hiring many of the Teaparty heads to be commentators on their shows. "Fair and balanced" and "grassroots" now means, media backed empire.

        Meanwhile the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement is unfunded by any news station (especially being decried as a bunch of disruptive hippies by Fox News who should be backing such a movement... I mean it's a grassroots movement like the Teaparty right?) and there are police lined up 20 and 30 men deep to stand around and get paid all day to give their nightsticks a workout and pepper spray cameramen. While protecting smug assholes.

        Well, the protecting smug assholes part is fine. You should protect everyone as the police and I don't blame them for setting up barriers and doing their jobs. But you can't sit there and say that a person with a gun strapped to his side carrying a sign that all but calls for Obama's assassination is okay and only needs a bit of police tape, while someone sitting down in a square and reading a book requires a fully armored escort vehicle.

        But whatever, you don't care because the tea party is right and occupy wallstreet is wrong and Libertarianism is misunderstood.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: You people sickatate me

          This looks like fun - mind if I jump in? I haven't had a good political argument in ages.

          Originally posted by H.R. PuffnStuff View Post
          Originally posted by Pasta View Post
          Huh. I figure that this is a troll job anyway, but I'll just say that

          A: You completely misunderstand Libertarianism (that is, if you're actually serious).
          The main tenant of Libertarianism is don't have government pay for what you can pay for yourself.
          That's an interesting way of phrasing the main tenent of libertarianism - is there any political philosophy that actually endorses accepting charity when you don't need it?

          Its also wrong, by the way - the core belief is that relying on government to meet needs beyond "the basics" (law enforcement, national defense, etc.) is unhealthy for both citizenry and the government, and an invitation to political corruption and crony capitalism. And its not like its that far-fetched an idea - just look at any statist economy: China, the old Soviet Union, Iran . . .

          There are also examples closer to home. Ever hear of Tamany Hall, out of New York?

          For some reason Libertarians believe that healthcare is affordable and accessible to everyone. Or to be more specific, if you can't afford healthcare, feel free to die (and no, this isn't too the short clip of the debate where the audience was yelling for Ron Paul to let the guy die).
          Umm . . . I don't know of any Libertarians (or libertarians) who believe that healthcare is affordable. They just disagree that nationalizing the system is the right way to bend the cost curve. Oh, and they definitely think such a project will end up denying access to health care, rather than enhancing it. Because achieving health care savings in a nationalized system tends to rely on rationing procedures.

          For evidence, libertarians tend to cite Great Britain's National Health Service, in part because liberals seem to be in love with the model. And as any good libertarian thinker could point out, the wait for advanced health care procedures (such as open heart surgery) is 2-3 times longer than here in the U.S., and the NHS denies treatment to more people than American private insurance.

          And before you argue that the U.S. attempt would be different, look at the mammogram controversy from last year. Do you remember it? Under "Obamacare", treatments are supposed to be approved by a goverment panel for "cost-effectiveness" - and a similar govt. panel issued a report on mammograms, arguing that it should be government policy that women under 50 shouldn't receive them, despite numerous cases of women who's lives were saved by early detection (in their forties).

          I have had more than a few Libertarians tell me, with a straight face might you, that we shouldn't have to pay for roads or schools. That they should be paid for by the individual communities . . .
          Well, if you remember your history, that was the model in the U.S. for centuries. And there are roads and schools built under that system which are still in use, despite being older than the country (ever hear of Harvard?) Really, the idea of a national highway system is a Twentieth Century concept, and a federal role in education a late-twentieth century idea.

          On the roads thing, are you fucking nuts? If no one pays for the roads outside of your community, then I guess you won't be able to go on vacation since the interstate system will immediately fall into ruins.
          Again, there were major roads (and transportation systems) in this country long before the national highway system. Ever been on a turnpike? They're all roads built by private investors, long before Eisenhower got the money for the interstate system.

          And there are also the railroads - which were (and largely still are) built and run by private entities. The few times the federal government did get involved, it tended to screw things up (such as Acela, a bullet train that only goes 30 miles an hour) and/or waste money (the govt. sponsored Transcontinental Railroad was built so shoddily, the whole thing had to be replaced after only a couple of years - and far sooner than equivalent lines).


          On the school thing, are you fucking nuts? If you don't educate children, America will fall back into a state that caused the french revolution.
          So . . . if the French had a better system of education in the 18th century, there wouldn't have been a French Revolution? That's a fascinating interpretation . . . but does it leave any room for the corrupt government, rampant abuse of tax laws, and incompetent monarchy? And are you arguing that if the French had been better educated, they would have fallen in love with Marie "Let Them Eat Cake" Antoinette, rather than try for real systemic reform?


          It's sad that these Teahadist (To-tea-latarians, Teabaggers, American Taliban, etc) don't understand how math or the government works. "I want the government to balance it's budget without touching the military, medicaid or social security, all while lowering taxes for me personally!" would sum up the majority of their platform.
          Conversely, it would be nice if liberals and big government advocates would make an attempt to understate finance and the impact of inflation. "Oh sure, we'll spend all the money we want, under the theory that we can tax some amorphous group known as the rich (without them passing the costs on to the rest of us) without consequence. Or better yet, we'll just print more money!"

          The other half would be "America be damned, I my number one priority is to make the enemy, Obama, a one term president. Since that's my number one goal, I will go against my own principles to make sure that every plan he has fails and America sinks into an abyss just so I can be re-elected."
          Actually, you're mis-attributing that quote. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a Republican, but he's not a Tea Partier. In fact, when the new Congress convened after the 2010 elections (where Democrats suffered the biggest losses in seventy years), he went out of his way to screw the new Tea Party members (and older members who proclaimed themselves Tea Partiers). He even went so far as to force establishment Republicans onto committees they didn't want, just to deny the Tea Partiers their desired assignments.

          Oh, and do you honestly think that (then) Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) didn't think the exact same way about President Bush?

          Honestly I can send you to links all day long showing the hypocritical nature of the Teaparty movement and their backers, but people like you just find excuses to state why they are misunderstood.
          If you want to get into hypocrisy, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, I have a great example for you. Both the Tea Party (which originally mobilized to oppose TARP - the Wall Street bailout program) and Occupy Wall Street hate how Wall Street's been run lately. The government bailouts, the cozy insider relationships with political figures, the "Screw Main Street" sentiment . . . both groups have a lot of common ground.

          However, nothing's going to come of it. Just look at the news coverage, where talking heads from both political parties describe the two groups. Democrats love Occupy Wall Street, even as they bash the Tea Party. And Republicans do the same thing in reverse. Rather than listen to their constituents, both parties are too concerned with scooping up Wall Street donations to, you know, actually represent the people who elected them. Oh, and using the protesters (in both groups) to get elected - real reform be damned.

          Let's put this another way. The "grassroots" teaparty movement had demonstrations and protests funded for and covered exclusively by Fox "fair and balanced" News including hiring many of the Teaparty heads to be commentators on their shows. "Fair and balanced" and "grassroots" now means, media backed empire.

          Meanwhile the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement is unfunded by any news station (especially being decried as a bunch of disruptive hippies by Fox News who should be backing such a movement... I mean it's a grassroots movement like the Teaparty. . .
          Hmm . . . so Van Jones (former Obama Admininstration "green czar") is just some guy of the street? And MSNBC (and Olberman's new network) are just the picture perfect example of journalistic moderation?

          . . .But you can't sit there and say that a person with a gun strapped to his side carrying a sign that all but calls for Obama's assassination is okay and only needs a bit of police tape, while someone sitting down in a square and reading a book requires a fully armored escort vehicle.
          Well, it may be ugly, but its perfectly legal to protest while armed (as long as the firearms are incidental, and not actually being brandished or otherwise used in a menacing fashion). And I'll defer to the Secret Service on whether the President's actually being threated - since its their job to throw themselves in front of the bullet, they tend to be picky about such things.

          But you are right - a person reading a book doesn't require an armored personnel carrier. Several thousand people, who are agitated, turn into a mob pretty quickly though - and mobs have a nasty tendency to rip cops apart if they can get at them. Think of the APC as insurance - you don't necessarily need it, but its nice to have in an emergency.

          But whatever, you don't care because the tea party is right and occupy wallstreet is wrong and Libertarianism is misunderstood.
          This has been fun - feel free to post again. Oh, and you might want to look up the term "plutocracry". I think you'll enjoy it.
          Last edited by One Vorlon; 10-09-2011, 02:23 AM. Reason: typo
          "The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."

          -William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: You people sickatate me

            Originally posted by One Vorlon View Post

            And before you argue that the U.S. attempt would be different, look at the mammogram controversy from last year. Do you remember it? Under "Obamacare", treatments are supposed to be approved by a goverment panel for "cost-effectiveness" - and a similar govt. panel issued a report on mammograms, arguing that it should be government policy that women under 50 shouldn't receive them, despite numerous cases of women who's lives were saved by early detection (in their forties).
            I'm not really wanting to jump into the political aspects of this, but you're severely misrepresenting the scientific consensus (or rather, the lack thereof) on the issue of mammograms for women under 50. You also made a claim about the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendations that is completely false. The USPSTF did NOT say that women under 50 shouldn't receive mammograms; they said that the evidence was insufficient, and that decisions should be made based on individual circumstances. This isn't a position unique to them, either. The American College of Physicians says, in essence, that the evidence of benefits for women in their 40's is unclear, at best, and there are potential harms that may (or may not) outweigh them, so regular screenings of all women in their 40's isn't recommended, and decisions should be made based on individual circumstances.

            It's heavily controversial, and not nearly as beneficial as you suggest. Studies have been done on this that indicate (statistically speaking) that 2000 women have to be screened in order to save one life, and that for every life saved, 10 will receive unnecessary treatment. Or look at this article from the American Medical Association (I can only link to the abstract, unfortunately), which says that the incidence of later stage cancers has not decreased over the last 20 years, even though screenings have increased significantly. Or, if you have access to medical papers, you can look up Nystrom's 1996 randomized trials in Sweden that showed no significant change in breast cancer mortality for women in their 40's whether they got mammograms or not.

            I could go on and on: like I said, it's very controversial. Some studies have shown a moderate decrease in mortality, but the methods of some of those studies have been challenged, and other studies have shown no improvement, or a statistically insignificant improvement (and some of those studies have been challenged as well). The USPSTF and the American College of Physicians took a reasonable, moderate, and appropriate approach in response to conflicting and unclear data.

            You're trying to paint this as some kind of money based decision centered around a political agenda, but that's simply false, and wildly inaccurate. And while I'm not really wanting to step into the political side of this, it really undercuts your claims and credibility on medical issues when your statements are so incorrect and seem to be attempting to misrepresent a scientific issue as a political one.
            Last edited by Glorian; 10-09-2011, 04:12 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: You people sickatate me

              Originally posted by Glorian View Post
              Originally posted by One Vorlon View Post

              And before you argue that the U.S. attempt would be different, look at the mammogram controversy from last year. Do you remember it? Under "Obamacare", treatments are supposed to be approved by a goverment panel for "cost-effectiveness" - and a similar govt. panel issued a report on mammograms, arguing that it should be government policy that women under 50 shouldn't receive them, despite numerous cases of women who's lives were saved by early detection (in their forties).
              I'm not really wanting to jump into the political aspects of this, but you're severely misrepresenting the scientific consensus (or rather, the lack thereof) on the issue of mammograms for women under 50. . . .

              You're trying to paint this as some kind of money based decision centered around a political agenda, but that's simply false, and wildly inaccurate. And while I'm not really wanting to step into the political side of this, it really undercuts your claims and credibility on medical issues when your statements are so incorrect and seem to be attempting to misrepresent a scientific issue as a political one.
              <shrugs> Well, it is/was a political issue, and people used the mammogram controversy as a tool to criticize health care reform (for example, by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) in an op-ed). Acting as an apologist for libertarianism, it would have been irresponsible for me to neglect it - particularly when it comes to libertarian concerns about medical rationing under a national health care system. I mean, (politically at least) its a textbook example of their concerns. However, I freely admit that I am not a medical expert, and my comments shouldn't be construed as medical advice - and I appreciate the links.

              Again though, I'm acting as an apologist for libertarianism - and replying to a post where libertarian (and small govt.) objections to recent health care reforms were criticized as heartless and money-grubbing. Thus I feel it was appropriate to raise the issue, since it did come up as an example of potential rationing:

              Originally posted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-TX
              . . . Concerned about the reach of this task force provision, I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze the health reform law. The research service reported back that the task force’s powers are indeed absolute. That means the panel’s decision is no longer a recommendation: It’s an edict that is likely to directly affect patients’ access to preventive care. . .

              Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1aH4PAcwn
              If this were a discussion on diagnostic medicine, or the scientific consensus, I would have approached the position differently. <shrugs> Or if I were acting as an apologist for big government policies, loose constructionist approach to the Constitution, or liberalism, my whole argument would be radically different (obviously)
              Last edited by One Vorlon; 10-09-2011, 04:25 AM.
              "The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."

              -William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: You people sickatate me

                Originally posted by One Vorlon View Post
                <shrugs> Well, it is/was a political issue, and people used the mammogram controversy as a tool to criticize health care reform (for example, by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) in an op-ed). Acting as an apologist for libertarianism, it would have been irresponsible for me to neglect it - particularly when it comes to libertarian concerns about medical rationing under a national health care system. I mean, (politically at least) its a textbook example of their concerns. However, I freely admit that I am not a medical expert, and my comments shouldn't be construed as medical advice - and I appreciate the links.

                Again though, I'm acting as an apologist for libertarianism - and replying to a post where libertarian (and small govt.) objections to recent health care reforms were criticized as heartless and money-grubbing. Thus I feel it was appropriate to raise the issue, since it did come up as an example of potential rationing:

                Originally posted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-TX
                . . . Concerned about the reach of this task force provision, I asked the Congressional Research Service to analyze the health reform law. The research service reported back that the task force’s powers are indeed absolute. That means the panel’s decision is no longer a recommendation: It’s an edict that is likely to directly affect patients’ access to preventive care. . .

                Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1aH4PAcwn
                If this were a discussion on diagnostic medicine, or the scientific consensus, I would have approached the position differently. <shrugs> Or if I were acting as an apologist for big government policies, loose constructionist approach to the Constitution, or liberalism, my whole argument would be radically different (obviously)
                Fair enough, and I see what you were trying to do; but from a debate perspective, it does weaken an argument when you have claims that can be validly challenged for factual accuracy. I don't follow the political side of things like that very closely...maybe there's a more solid example that could be used to make the same point?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: You people sickatate me

                  I'm certain you are playing devils advocate, but I'll humor you by answering seriously.

                  Originally posted by One Vorlon View Post
                  For some reason Libertarians believe that healthcare is affordable and accessible to everyone. Or to be more specific, if you can't afford healthcare, feel free to die (and no, this isn't too the short clip of the debate where the audience was yelling for Ron Paul to let the guy die).
                  Umm . . . I don't know of any Libertarians (or libertarians) who believe that healthcare is affordable. They just disagree that nationalizing the system is the right way to bend the cost curve. Oh, and they definitely think such a project will end up denying access to health care, rather than enhancing it. Because achieving health care savings in a nationalized system tends to rely on rationing procedures.

                  For evidence, libertarians tend to cite Great Britain's National Health Service, in part because liberals seem to be in love with the model. And as any good libertarian thinker could point out, the wait for advanced health care procedures (such as open heart surgery) is 2-3 times longer than here in the U.S., and the NHS denies treatment to more people than American private insurance.

                  And before you argue that the U.S. attempt would be different, look at the mammogram controversy from last year. Do you remember it? Under "Obamacare", treatments are supposed to be approved by a goverment panel for "cost-effectiveness" - and a similar govt. panel issued a report on mammograms, arguing that it should be government policy that women under 50 shouldn't receive them, despite numerous cases of women who's lives were saved by early detection (in their forties).
                  This is where the spin train is coming in. The mammogram controversy specifically stated that women should discuss with their doctor about whether they needed a screening at the age of 40. Not that they were denying access to breast cancer screenings to women under 50. Basically they want the women themselves to decide with their doctors and the panel recommended that they review their options. There wasn't going to be a govenment blocking of breast cancer screenings for anyone under 40 unless you only watch Fox News, in which case Obama was going to personally shot anyone woman under 40 who even thought about getting a breast cancer screening. Also, since you are too damn lazy to even link the "controversy" and back it up with documentation, how can I take you seriously?
                  The controversy (a recent article, although the original "oh my god we are denying women from breast cancer screenings" scare happened in 2009)
                  Article talking about the "ban"
                  Those leftist partisan hacks at Harvard are at it again saying that the guidelines suggest women get screenings every two years instead of every year. Obviously they are covering for their master Oba-mao!

                  I have had more than a few Libertarians tell me, with a straight face might you, that we shouldn't have to pay for roads or schools. That they should be paid for by the individual communities . . .
                  Well, if you remember your history, that was the model in the U.S. for centuries. And there are roads and schools built under that system which are still in use, despite being older than the country (ever hear of Harvard?) Really, the idea of a national highway system is a Twentieth Century concept, and a federal role in education a late-twentieth century idea.
                  Well if you know your history then you would know that before Eisenhowers Interstate highway system, there was no I-95, no I-70, no I-10, no I-40, no I-80, no I-90, etc. Get rid of all of those interstates. Then after you get rid of all of the interstates, don't forget to add tolls to all of the major roads. Put the tolls back on Rt.1 (replacement for I-95), Rt.40 (replacement for I-70), reopen Rt.66 (replaced by I-40, I-44, I-55, etc). Put the tolls back on all of those roads so that maintenance can be funded. Get rid of all of the interstates. I'm sure the transportation industry will love you guys for that. I don't know what area you live in, but the cluster-fuck that would result from destroying or even completely defunding Eisenhower's Interstate highway system would be incredible. Oh, lets not forget that every major airport relies on the interstate system. The shipping and trucking industry relies on the interstate system.

                  On the roads thing, are you fucking nuts? If no one pays for the roads outside of your community, then I guess you won't be able to go on vacation since the interstate system will immediately fall into ruins.
                  Again, there were major roads (and transportation systems) in this country long before the national highway system. Ever been on a turnpike? They're all roads built by private investors, long before Eisenhower got the money for the interstate system.
                  Turnpikes are another name for a toll road. Again, if every major road gets changed back into a toll road (and all interstates are made into Toll highways/turnpikes), where are the cost savings? I guess people without cars make out the best in that system.

                  I guess the best part of that system is that most work would become local again. People can't afford to travel on neverending toll roads, thus they will work closer to home saving gas and time. If that is your ultimate goal, then I would say I'm behind you 100%, however it doesn't appear that you thought this through very far beyond "Government bad! Taxes bad!" The next problem is that all of the current highway workers. The Department of Transportation has an estimated 30k full time empoyee average by state (Texas has about 150k, California has about 250k on the high end, Arkansas has about 5k same for Jersey on the low end. I couldn't find numbers for Rhode Island or Vermont). This is not including contractors which likely adds another 200k or so workers per state for seasonal repair crews and temp work like sound wall additions. All of these jobs will no longer be available. But who cares about a couple of million people out of work, they are no longer sucking off the government teat right?

                  Yeah, that's a bit of an exaggeration, some of these workers will obviously be picked up by the private toll industry to maintain their toll roads, but don't expect your local roads to have any work done on them without shelling out a good chunk of change. Or you can do what one Libretarian told me, "carry a pack of quick cement in the back of your truck and patch it yourself if you find a hole in your street. It's better than being taxed". :/

                  And there are also the railroads - which were (and largely still are) built and run by private entities. The few times the federal government did get involved, it tended to screw things up (such as Acela, a bullet train that only goes 30 miles an hour) and/or waste money (the govt. sponsored Transcontinental Railroad was built so shoddily, the whole thing had to be replaced after only a couple of years - and far sooner than equivalent lines).
                  Did you know that Eisenhower's Highway system, that you want to abolish, is the main reason for the decline of Amtrak (a government railway system). Did you also know that railway maintenance taxes are higher than road maintenance taxes? Also were you aware that the only major passenger railway that is transcontenental and intercontinental is Amtrak? So first we would need to abolish Amtrak, then we would need to rip out all of the government funded class 1 railway systems purchased by a private company (Union Pacific and Norfolk southern being the only ones large enough to handle that task at this time. CSX and BNSF handle cargo moreso than passenger)

                  On the school thing, are you fucking nuts? If you don't educate children, America will fall back into a state that caused the french revolution.
                  So . . . if the French had a better system of education in the 18th century, there wouldn't have been a French Revolution? That's a fascinating interpretation . . . but does it leave any room for the corrupt government, rampant abuse of tax laws, and incompetent monarchy? And are you arguing that if the French had been better educated, they would have fallen in love with Marie "Let Them Eat Cake" Antoinette, rather than try for real systemic reform?
                  Let's review the french revolution shall we. The poor and working class (in modern terms people making less than 200k) were taxed to extrodinary measures to support the "job creators" (in modern terms the Koch brothers et. al). The poor were overtaxed, undereducated and burdened with carrying the weight of an otherwise prosperus society. In pre-revolutionary France, the rich made out like bandits with low taxes. What are we doing in modern America? Lowering the taxes on the rich (as shouted out from the rooftops by the tea party and republicans in general). Increasing the taxes on the middle class and poor (again as shouted out by the tea party and republicans in general). Hmm...
                  Poor education system = inequality. I'd like for you to find any first world nation that does not educate as much of their population as possible. Heck, every developing nation is taking strides to educate the poor. It's one of the markers of a developing nation.

                  It's sad that these Teahadist (To-tea-latarians, Teabaggers, American Taliban, etc) don't understand how math or the government works. "I want the government to balance it's budget without touching the military, medicaid or social security, all while lowering taxes for me personally!" would sum up the majority of their platform.
                  Conversely, it would be nice if liberals and big government advocates would make an attempt to understate finance and the impact of inflation. "Oh sure, we'll spend all the money we want, under the theory that we can tax some amorphous group known as the rich (without them passing the costs on to the rest of us) without consequence. Or better yet, we'll just print more money!"
                  I'm not asking the government to print money. I'm asking the government to let the Bush Tax cuts expire. ALL of them. The Clinton system was fine. I'm not saying roll it back to Regan's tax system (I think a 90% upper bracket is unfair), but we cannot continue to cut taxes and wonder why we have no money to pay for anything.

                  The other half would be "America be damned, I my number one priority is to make the enemy, Obama, a one term president. Since that's my number one goal, I will go against my own principles to make sure that every plan he has fails and America sinks into an abyss just so I can be re-elected."
                  Actually, you're mis-attributing that quote. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a Republican, but he's not a Tea Partier. In fact, when the new Congress convened after the 2010 elections (where Democrats suffered the biggest losses in seventy years), he went out of his way to screw the new Tea Party members (and older members who proclaimed themselves Tea Partiers). He even went so far as to force establishment Republicans onto committees they didn't want, just to deny the Tea Partiers their desired assignments.
                  Are you kidding, they are one in the same. The tea party is conservative Republicans making over 50k.

                  Oh, and do you honestly think that (then) Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) didn't think the exact same way about President Bush?
                  So you want me to compare what you might think someone things to a publicly stated stance that has been verified and backed up on numerous occasions. I love it. Tea Party "Obama might be a socalist! We'll even call Warren Buffett a socialist to further our cause! But that's okay because I'm sure somewhere there was someone in Code Pink who thinks that George Bush is a facist." It's exactly the same, publicly stated policy vs. suspicion!

                  Honestly I can send you to links all day long showing the hypocritical nature of the Teaparty movement and their backers, but people like you just find excuses to state why they are misunderstood.
                  If you want to get into hypocrisy, and the Occupy Wall Street movement, I have a great example for you. Both the Tea Party (which originally mobilized to oppose TARP - the Wall Street bailout program) and Occupy Wall Street hate how Wall Street's been run lately. The government bailouts, the cozy insider relationships with political figures, the "Screw Main Street" sentiment . . . both groups have a lot of common ground.
                  Certainly. The Tea Party says "lower the taxes on the job creators" and "the poor should pay their fair share" while Octopi Wall Street (yes Otctopi) says "the 1% need to go" and "Jump you Fuckers". Exactly the same ideology.
                  Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Tea Party is targeting political leaders while OWS is targetting corperations. Of course you haven't been paying attention so you didn't know that. OWS hasn't say "Hey hey, ho ho, Boehner has got to go!" They are saying "Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Bank of America has got to go!"

                  However, nothing's going to come of it. Just look at the news coverage, where talking heads from both political parties describe the two groups. Democrats love Occupy Wall Street, even as they bash the Tea Party. And Republicans do the same thing in reverse. Rather than listen to their constituents, both parties are too concerned with scooping up Wall Street donations to, you know, actually represent the people who elected them. Oh, and using the protesters (in both groups) to get elected - real reform be damned.
                  I partially agree with this, however It's a bit of a mix up. The Tea Party controls and dominates both sides of the issue. Whoever the tea party backs, the majority of republicans will back and the majority of democrats will reject. If you are a republican that the Tea Party rejects, then you'll get support from both moderate republicans and from Democrats. Occupy Wall Street doesn't have that sort of sway yet. There are people who will state that they are behind the movement, but there are no "leaders" to back any specific canidate. So while the Tea Party leaders can say "this is our candidate", the OWS group cannot.

                  Let's put this another way. The "grassroots" teaparty movement had demonstrations and protests funded for and covered exclusively by Fox "fair and balanced" News including hiring many of the Teaparty heads to be commentators on their shows. "Fair and balanced" and "grassroots" now means, media backed empire.

                  Meanwhile the "Occupy Wallstreet" movement is unfunded by any news station (especially being decried as a bunch of disruptive hippies by Fox News who should be backing such a movement... I mean it's a grassroots movement like the Teaparty. . .
                  Hmm . . . so Van Jones (former Obama Admininstration "green czar") is just some guy of the street? And MSNBC (and Olberman's new network) are just the picture perfect example of journalistic moderation?
                  MSNBC had not held a OWS ralley at the base of the Washington monument while televising it on their station and bussing in speakers.
                  When MSNBC holds a Tax Day Occupy wallstreet party and advertises it on their channel.
                  When Keith Olberman holds a Rally to Restore Honor
                  When Rachael Maddow has a 9-13 project and flies over to Isreal to restore courage.

                  Then and only then will I say that OWS has the same amount of conservative backing as the Tea Party. Again, you may feel free to remain ignorant on the matter.

                  . . .But you can't sit there and say that a person with a gun strapped to his side carrying a sign that all but calls for Obama's assassination is okay and only needs a bit of police tape, while someone sitting down in a square and reading a book requires a fully armored escort vehicle.
                  Well, it may be ugly, but its perfectly legal to protest while armed (as long as the firearms are incidental, and not actually being brandished or otherwise used in a menacing fashion). And I'll defer to the Secret Service on whether the President's actually being threated - since its their job to throw themselves in front of the bullet, they tend to be picky about such things.

                  But you are right - a person reading a book doesn't require an armored personnel carrier. Several thousand people, who are agitated, turn into a mob pretty quickly though - and mobs have a nasty tendency to rip cops apart if they can get at them. Think of the APC as insurance - you don't necessarily need it, but its nice to have in an emergency.
                  Got it, large gathering of people in front of stock exchange. Armored Carrier and threats of police brutality.
                  Guy with a loaded assualt rifle at an anti-government ralley. Some police tape will do.

                  Yup, perfectly equal and rational reactions to both situations.

                  But whatever, you don't care because the tea party is right and occupy wallstreet is wrong and Libertarianism is misunderstood.
                  This has been fun - feel free to post again. Oh, and you might want to look up the term "plutocracry". I think you'll enjoy it.
                  I'm well aware of the term.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: You people sickatate me

                    Originally posted by H.R. PuffnStuff View Post
                    Got it, large gathering of people in front of stock exchange. Armored Carrier and threats of police brutality.
                    Guy with a loaded assualt rifle at an anti-government ralley. Some police tape will do.
                    Pop quiz: was the guy with the slung AR-15 and holstered Glock black or white?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: You people sickatate me

                      Originally posted by H.R. PuffnStuff View Post
                      [
                      It's sad that these Teahadist (To-tea-latarians, Teabaggers, American Taliban, etc)
                      Since you're calling the Tea Party names...

                      I was listing to a local talk show host, and he called the "Occupy <insert city>" folks "The Flea Party."

                      I LOL'ed.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: You people sickatate me

                        Originally posted by stfram View Post
                        Originally posted by H.R. PuffnStuff View Post
                        Got it, large gathering of people in front of stock exchange. Armored Carrier and threats of police brutality.
                        Guy with a loaded assualt rifle at an anti-government ralley. Some police tape will do.
                        Pop quiz: was the guy with the slung AR-15 and holstered Glock black or white?
                        The guy with the AR-15 was black, the guy with a Glock was white. Did I ever mention race or are you trying to troll me with stupid questions?

                        Pop quiz: What news network local affiliate did the WHITE camera man who was pepper sprayed during the OWS rally work for.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: You people sickatate me

                          Sorry I've been gone, but its been a crazy week. And I'm afraid I'm still a bit pressed for time. But don't worry H. R. PuffnStuff - I'll be back to argue some more later.

                          Originally posted by Glorian View Post
                          Originally posted by One Vorlon View Post
                          <shrugs> Well, it is/was a political issue, and people used the mammogram controversy as a tool to criticize health care reform (for example, by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) in an op-ed). Acting as an apologist for libertarianism, it would have been irresponsible for me to neglect it - particularly when it comes to libertarian concerns about medical rationing under a national health care system. I mean, (politically at least) its a textbook example of their concerns. However, I freely admit that I am not a medical expert, and my comments shouldn't be construed as medical advice - and I appreciate the links.

                          Again though, I'm acting as an apologist for libertarianism - and replying to a post where libertarian (and small govt.) objections to recent health care reforms were criticized as heartless and money-grubbing. Thus I feel it was appropriate to raise the issue, since it did come up as an example of potential rationing:

                          . . .
                          Fair enough, and I see what you were trying to do; but from a debate perspective, it does weaken an argument when you have claims that can be validly challenged for factual accuracy. I don't follow the political side of things like that very closely...maybe there's a more solid example that could be used to make the same point?
                          I suppose I could get some mileage (potentially) out of the abortion issue (& the Stupac amendment), or maybe with prostate exams (which just started coming up in the commentary), and probably a lot of others. However, I'm fairly happy with the mammogram example. The others would be putting words in the libertarian/anti-"Obamacare" advocates' mouths, and it is a real-world example of what the critics fear (even if there are . . . issues, with their interpretation of the panel's findings).

                          Further, I could still win a debate with the mammogram issue. Very few people have actually bothered to read the committee report, so its unlikely that my opponent would be able to challenge me on that. And even if they did, there's a good chance the judges haven't, so the judges would have to evaluate our arguments on the potential impact of each of us being right (assuming they believe us to be equally credible). Conversely, a lot of people did hear about the controversy, and interest groups on both sides of the political spectrum weighed in against rationing mammograms.

                          And on my side, I have a powerful advantage - the possibility that I'm right would horrify a lot of people. A lot of people know someone who's had breast cancer, some of the judges might even be survivors themselves. All I'd have to do is trot out some quotes from people who'd have died without early mammograms (and there were a bunch floating around then), and every judge (or better yet, a lay audience) would have to wonder if they - or someone important to them- would die under the new policy. A threat to one's own life, or the life of a loved one . . . regardless of the "truth" of the issue, that's a pretty devastating appeal to emotion

                          Still, winning a debate is one thing - the real world is something else. And the issue with rationing in general is a real concern (even if the mammogram thing is a flawed example) - its one of the ways that other countries with national health care keep costs down. But frankly, what surprised me is the deaf ear that national health care advocates turn to this concern, particularly those who dislike conservatives and Republicans, and are ready to believe the worst about them. I mean, if you believe conservative Republicans are monsters, then the whole thing should really freak you out - they're telling you exactly how they view the legislation & its powers: as a license to deny health care to people. So as soon as the "dark empire" of Republicans regain control of Washington, they'll use to Obamacare to kick the sick and dying out of hospitals, and screw poor people out of ever seeing so much as a nurse practitioner, let alone a real doctor.
                          "The roaring of lions, the howling of wolves, the raging of the stormy sea, and the destructive sword, are portions of eternity too great for the eye of man."

                          -William Blake, "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: You people sickatate me

                            Originally posted by H.R. PuffnStuff View Post
                            The guy with the AR-15 was black, the guy with a Glock was white. Did I ever mention race or are you trying to troll me with stupid questions?
                            Well, the guy with the AR also had a Glock. Frankly, the number of people in that rally with holstered (many lawfully carried concealed) Glocks is probably far higher than anyone in the media even imagined.

                            Pop quiz: What news network local affiliate did the WHITE camera man who was pepper sprayed during the OWS rally work for.
                            Don't know, don't care. You hang around with rowdy protest marchers long enough, and you can expect to get hit with irritants when their misbehavior gets out of hand.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: You people sickatate me

                              Originally posted by One Vorlon View Post
                              And the issue with rationing in general is a real concern (even if the mammogram thing is a flawed example) - its one of the ways that other countries with national health care keep costs down.
                              There's an Asian country (either Singapore or Malaysia) that sensibly requires foreigners working in their country to have health insurance. They pay in, and part of that goes into a Health Savings Account, to pay for whatever the insurance didn't cover.

                              Nice thing is, they can keep that money if it isn't spent, it just rolls over to the next year. When they leave the country, they can withdraw the money as well (I think it gains interest as well). The article said some were waling away with 30k after 8-10 year gigs.

                              Self-rationing meets self-interest.

                              Comment

                              Widgets Magazine
                              Widgets Magazine

                              Channels

                              Collapse

                              Widgets Magazine
                              Widgets Magazine
                              Working...
                              X