Bill Maher on Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

Oh, so why did Lincoln promise them to make slavery permanent if they just stayed with the union?

Could it be that it wasn�´t about slavery after all?

[/quote]

Lincoln wanted to both end slavery, which he viewed as a great evil, and to save the country he loved. Like many of the more moderate Republicans (how times have changed!), he was willing to contemplate allowing slavery to continue to exist where it was, provided that the growth of the poison was stopped. But this was too much for the madmen of the South who had convinced themselves that slavery was a “positive good,” and instead they started a war. The changing political realities of the war made it possible to Lincoln to end slavery once and for all, and so he did.

122

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we should go full blown socialized medicine

You really aren’t playing with a full deck are you? I really hope your joking and I just missed it.

Let’s leave aside whether it’s even a good idea or not (it’s not). Let’s just talk about money. There is no fucking way on God’s green earth that we can afford that right now or for the foreseeable future. That amount of spending is simply not feasible.

You are allowed to disagree, just my opinion. I believe the Ins. Companies are making too much profit on the whole thing as we know it. You do know where that profit comes from?

Profit drives free market business. It provides jobs. Are you promoting unemployment? Are you promoting spending on credit?

Is profit evil to you?

Profit is the excess of the money spent

The excess of what?

what the costs were

But at the same time they drive costs down in order to stay competitive?

Surely there must come a point in time where that competition more than sets off that initial disadvantage?

[/quote]

no they drive down cost by denying claims

123

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
Out of curiosity, what historical societies, if any, do you think were well governed?

The ones that lasted.

So… Imperial China (~1200BC or 220BC - 1912) and Ancient Egypt (~3200 BC - 50 BC) and maybe the Romans/Byzantines (753 BC - 1453 AD) were the greatest societies ever? I don’t think any of those placed much of an emphasis on individual liberty.

Uhhh…no governments have lasted.

Uh huh. Well, the current longest-lasting government would probably be Britain (1066, 1215, ~1350 or 1689 - Present), so I guess you’re okay with a moderate mixed economy.

I don’t care about “long lasting”; none can last because all government eventually becomes tyrannical and oppress people in excess of what they will tolerate – the US included. There will always be people ready to overthrow it. Government cannot work and never will.

See, if you had just made clear from the start that you’re an anarchist nutter, you could have saved me a lot of time. There are some opinions worth engaging in serious debate with, but this ain’t one of them.
[/quote]

So if an anarchist nutter tells you the sky is blue or water is wet you doubt him?

Well, had I known that, I would not have bothered either.

I have a suggestion:

We only discuss the revealed truth and burn all apostates.

124

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
a bunch of stuff that my government wants me to believe.
[/quote]

Well you must be right since the “official” story has already been published and “accepted”.

…and in other news, history has never been written to help shape the beliefs about “benevolent” government its citizens will have. NEVER!

125

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am curious of what everybody would say to do away with public education and create companies to find land, build schools, hire teachers and staff, maintain landscape and buildings and allow them to make a profit. How many people think we would have a better system than we do now? I would bet we pay twice as much and get half of what we get now. And the corporations we pay would be smoking wealthy, and they would be part of the right wing which would have it�?�¢??s puppets saying Oh we need to keep our education private, it does not matter that only half of the kids in America get an education, it does not matter that all these private corporations do is add on profit to every thing they pay for.

Really?

Look at the Washington school voucher programs and weep.

The beginninghttp:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32805-2004Jun10.html

The results:

The end:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133248.html

To sum it up for you:

Private schools are safer, have less dropouts and better academic achievements at far less costs then public schools, especially for minorities that do not do so well in the public school system.

Unfortunately teachers unions do not like the idea because people prefer private schools if they can choose so and they contribute lots of money to the Democrats so this program had to die.

The private school where Barack Obama will send his kids too will miss two students this year, because the school voucher program was ended.

Interestingly enough that means that the people you would entrust with building a public school system that works prefer to send theirs to private schools.

I do not even have to read all your links Private school is going to be much more expesive , try educating the masses, unless you think that 50% of children do not need education[/quote]

And yet, they were cheaper.

Catholic schools in the US f.E are as a rule.

Whether you chose to ignore it or not.

And what have we learned today:

You do not care if your theory works, because your beliefs are that set in stone.

126

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am curious of what everybody would say to do away with public education and create companies to find land, build schools, hire teachers and staff, maintain landscape and buildings and allow them to make a profit. How many people think we would have a better system than we do now? I would bet we pay twice as much and get half of what we get now. And the corporations we pay would be smoking wealthy, and they would be part of the right wing which would have it�¢??s puppets saying Oh we need to keep our education private, it does not matter that only half of the kids in America get an education, it does not matter that all these private corporations do is add on profit to every thing they pay for.

Really?

The way I see your voucher system working would be the public schools collapse because it needs all the money for all the students to work. After the public schools collapse the private schools would have to raise prices because there would be no support for any public money to go towards education, so we would have a majority of children receiving no education. In 2 generations America would rival the poorest countries in the world

I think the best thing we could do is educate the parents .But that is another thread

Look at the Washington school voucher programs and weep.

The beginninghttp:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32805-2004Jun10.html

The results:

The end:

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133248.html

To sum it up for you:

Private schools are safer, have less dropouts and better academic achievements at far less costs then public schools, especially for minorities that do not do so well in the public school system.

Unfortunately teachers unions do not like the idea because people prefer private schools if they can choose so and they contribute lots of money to the Democrats so this program had to die.

The private school where Barack Obama will send his kids too will miss two students this year, because the school voucher program was ended.

Interestingly enough that means that the people you would entrust with building a public school system that works prefer to send theirs to private schools.

[/quote]

127

[quote]jcoop82 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Full blown socialism means no one in the medical field will profit from their work. Do you understand the consequences of this?

The goal of Socialism IS destruction. That’s the goal of the Left.

Republican retoric

What’s the rhetoric you’ve been spewing?
[/quote]

you tell me

128

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
a bunch of stuff that my government wants me to believe.

Well you must be right since the “official” story has already been published and “accepted”.

…and in other news, history has never been written to help shape the beliefs about “benevolent” government its citizens will have. NEVER![/quote]

Are you seriously suggesting that hundreds of thousands of primary sources have been doctored? Because historians actually, you know, back their arguments up by researching stuff, so that’s about the only way you could be right.

I don’t understand the paranoid mindset. I really don’t.

129

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
orion wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
You think Lincoln was a tyrant? You think every government that has ever existed was a tyranny? You’re really hard to take seriously.

Lincoln was most certainly a very bad man. He was a democratically elected tyrant for sure – just like many of them are.

Okay, you’re a crackpot. Thanks for clearing that up.

What do you call a person who murders over half a million people because he does not want them to have their own freedom?

I am afraid I am not the crackpot but rather you are because you, like many others, willingly swallow all the “educational” propaganda you’ve been fed.

There are acceptable reasons to rebel against a lawfully elected government. Defending chattel slavery is not one of them.

Oh, so why did Lincoln promise them to make slavery permanent if they just stayed with the union?

Could it be that it wasn�?�´t about slavery after all?

Lincoln wanted to both end slavery, which he viewed as a great evil, and to save the country he loved. Like many of the more moderate Republicans (how times have changed!), he was willing to contemplate allowing slavery to continue to exist where it was, provided that the growth of the poison was stopped. But this was too much for the madmen of the South who had convinced themselves that slavery was a “positive good,” and instead they started a war. The changing political realities of the war made it possible to Lincoln to end slavery once and for all, and so he did.

[/quote]

So you take your interpretation of what he said over what he actually said?

Bravo!

Well I interpret your post as your concession that I am right and you are wrong.

If you could please explain to me why everywhere else slavery ended without a bloodbath. And without introducing tariffs that strangled the Souths industry?

130

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we should go full blown socialized medicine

You really aren’t playing with a full deck are you? I really hope your joking and I just missed it.

Let’s leave aside whether it’s even a good idea or not (it’s not). Let’s just talk about money. There is no fucking way on God’s green earth that we can afford that right now or for the foreseeable future. That amount of spending is simply not feasible.

You are allowed to disagree, just my opinion. I believe the Ins. Companies are making too much profit on the whole thing as we know it. You do know where that profit comes from?

Profit drives free market business. It provides jobs. Are you promoting unemployment? Are you promoting spending on credit?

Is profit evil to you?

Profit is the excess of the money spent

The excess of what?

what the costs were

But at the same time they drive costs down in order to stay competitive?

Surely there must come a point in time where that competition more than sets off that initial disadvantage?

no they drive down cost by denying claims[/quote]

But if they deny too much claims people choose a different insurance company.

Government programs also deny claims.

131

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
See, if you had just made clear from the start that you’re an anarchist nutter, you could have saved me a lot of time. There are some opinions worth engaging in serious debate with, but this ain’t one of them.
[/quote]

Yes I am a “nutter”, as you say, because I believe in the sovereignty of the individual over the state; because I believe government cannot make better what the market freely produces; because I believe taxation is theft; because I believe war is murder…and frankly from where I sit I don’t care what you think.

It is quite obvious you lack the capacity to have your mind changed by reason which is a bigger tragedy than me being a “nutter”.

Tell me, is calling someone a “nutter” how you make up for your intellectual inability to rationally argue? Well done, I say.

132

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
a bunch of stuff that my government wants me to believe.

Well you must be right since the “official” story has already been published and “accepted”.

…and in other news, history has never been written to help shape the beliefs about “benevolent” government its citizens will have. NEVER!

Are you seriously suggesting that hundreds of thousands of primary sources have been doctored? Because historians actually, you know, back their arguments up by researching stuff, so that’s about the only way you could be right.

I don’t understand the paranoid mindset. I really don’t.
[/quote]

No, not knowingly but since only a few people actually witnessed anything and kept records…history is unknowable.

133

[quote]orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
orion wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I think we should go full blown socialized medicine

You really aren’t playing with a full deck are you? I really hope your joking and I just missed it.

Let’s leave aside whether it’s even a good idea or not (it’s not). Let’s just talk about money. There is no fucking way on God’s green earth that we can afford that right now or for the foreseeable future. That amount of spending is simply not feasible.

You are allowed to disagree, just my opinion. I believe the Ins. Companies are making too much profit on the whole thing as we know it. You do know where that profit comes from?

Profit drives free market business. It provides jobs. Are you promoting unemployment? Are you promoting spending on credit?

Is profit evil to you?

Profit is the excess of the money spent

The excess of what?

what the costs were

But at the same time they drive costs down in order to stay competitive?

Surely there must come a point in time where that competition more than sets off that initial disadvantage?

no they drive down cost by denying claims

But if they deny too much claims people choose a different insurance company.

Government programs also deny claims.

[/quote]

now you have aan exsisting condition ,

134

[quote]orion wrote:

If you could please explain to me why everywhere else slavery ended without a bloodbath. And without introducing tariffs that strangled the Souths industry?

[/quote]
There were a few differences between the US and other slave-holding societies.

First, because we’re a federal system, slavery was abolished in most of the country but kept in the South. The result was that the North advanced technologically and morally while the South festered in darkness. More centralized countries had slavery legal everywhere or illegal everywhere, so regionalism didn’t play a role.

Second, Southern elites, trying to escape their own consciences, decided that slavery wasn’t a necessary evil (the viewpoint of most slave owners as of 1776, like Jefferson) but a positive good. This radicalization meant that they viewed, for example, proposals to ban slavery in the Southwest (which is unsuitable for plantation agriculture anyhow) as a personal affront to their moral code.

Third, American slavery was simply worse than in other societies. Especially after the radicalization I mentioned above, it became all but unheard of for a slave to gradually buy his own freedom, which was historically pretty common in slave societies. You also had laws banning, for example, the education of slaves or even free blacks, which I don’t think has a parallel in other countries’ histories.

The result was an extremist, uncompromising part of the country that was willing to commit violent treason rather than see a gradual rolling back of their “peculiar institution.” Other slave nations were less radical, and thus less violent.

135

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
See, if you had just made clear from the start that you’re an anarchist nutter, you could have saved me a lot of time. There are some opinions worth engaging in serious debate with, but this ain’t one of them.

Yes I am a “nutter”, as you say, because I believe in the sovereignty of the individual over the state; because I believe government cannot make better what the market freely produces; because I believe taxation is theft; because I believe war is murder…and frankly from where I sit I don’t care what you think.

It is quite obvious you lack the capacity to have your mind changed by reason which is a bigger tragedy than me being a “nutter”.

Tell me, is calling someone a “nutter” how you make up for your intellectual inability to rationally argue? Well done, I say.[/quote]

If you honestly don’t see why people have some moral obligation to help others, if you honestly think it’s evil to take a portion of your annual salary and use it to educate children or care for the sick, your moral philosophy and your conscience are so defective that it’s beyond my ability to convince you otherwise. Consult a philosopher, or perhaps a shrink.

136

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
If you honestly don’t see why people have some moral obligation to help others, if you honestly think it’s evil to take a portion of your annual salary and use it to educate children or care for the sick, then your moral philosophy and your conscience are so defective that it’s beyond my ability to convince you otherwise. Consult a philosopher, or perhaps a shrink.
[/quote]

Hey, don’t put words in my mouth. Of course I believe individuals have a moral responsibility to help others which is why I engage in charity. Government does not have the right to steal from me to fund what I think morally repugnant. And since I cannot control what government spends my money on then it should not spend any of it.

Welfare does not make people better off, in fact, welfare keeps people impoverished and dependent on government – which is how government keeps its “legitimacy”. It could be you are one of those poor souls dependent on government…

That sucks.

137

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
If you honestly don’t see why people have some moral obligation to help others, if you honestly think it’s evil to take a portion of your annual salary and use it to educate children or care for the sick, then your moral philosophy and your conscience are so defective that it’s beyond my ability to convince you otherwise. Consult a philosopher, or perhaps a shrink.

Hey, don’t put words in my mouth. Of course I believe individuals have a moral responsibility to help others which is why I engage in charity. Government does not have the right to steal from me to fund what I think morally repugnant. And since I cannot control what government spends my money on then it should not spend any of it.

Welfare does not make people better off, in fact, welfare keeps people impoverished and dependent on government – which is how government keeps its “legitimacy”. It could be you are one of those poor souls dependent on government…

That sucks.[/quote]

Okay, so you just have the belief that no one ever has the right to take your stuff, even a democratically elected government taxing everyone unformly? The moral intuition (FUCK YOURS GOT MINE) there is pretty childish, and constructing an entire radical ideology around it, especially when it leads to the conclusion that pretty much every step taken to make the world a better place in the last 300 years was bad thing, just seems kind of dumb. Why, exactly, should your right to play with your own toys trump a small child’s right to education or everyone’s right to breathable air?

And you seriously believe that all government spending hurts people? Even, say, free public education? (Even if you’re the type to favor private schools competing for voucher money, that’s still funded by the state).

And don’t try the cop-out of claiming that private charity will cover everything; the terrible state of the world’s poor for all of history through 1900 is rather strong empirical evidence against this claim.

138

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
And you seriously believe that all government spending hurts people?
[/quote]
No. How could this be? Government spending on welfare helps those who do not want to work and hurts those that do. Government spending warfare helps the military industrial complex and hurts those that get bombed by it? Government spending on education hurts everyone – especially since government does not know how to educate people.

Government spending, in general, only helps those in power maintain power.

As for charity covering every need that cannot be the case either; but charity does it much more efficiently than government since the government would only seek to give money to the politically connected groups who ask for it.

And unfortunately, democratically decided policy does not make that policy ethical no matter how many people think it does.

139

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
quidnunc wrote:
And you seriously believe that all government spending hurts people?

No. How could this be? Government spending on welfare helps those who do not want to work and hurts those that do. Government spending warfare helps the military industrial complex and hurts those that get bombed by it? Government spending on education hurts everyone – especially since government does not know how to educate people.

Government spending, in general, only helps those in power maintain power.

As for charity covering every need that cannot be the case either; but charity does it much more efficiently than government since the government would only seek to give money to the politically connected groups who ask for it.

And unfortunately, democratically decided policy does not make that policy ethical no matter how many people think it does.[/quote]

Do you think that all government spending (including, I repeat, free education for the young) is a NET harm to society? If you want, you can pretend we’re in libertopia and talking about government providing a voucher for private school tuition. Is this bad? Should poor children get no education at all?

And you still haven’t provided any justification for your right to not have your stuff taxed being the one right that trumps all other rights. That’s an extreme position most people reject, so you really need some sort of explanation.

140

[quote]quidnunc wrote:
Do you think that all government spending (including, I repeat, free education for the young) is a NET harm to society?[/quote]

How can something be good for society that is provided by people who are not good at it?

Tell me, if instead of getting paid in money I was paid in a portion of the goods that I helped produce – food, for example, would the government have a right to take that from me? Or is it only justifiable when an income is in terms of money?

If I built my own house with my bare hands does the government have a right to take a piece of that house? Why are the rules different when money is brought into existence and not other goods?

But in short, voluntary society is the only ethical society and since taxes cannot be voluntary they will always be unethical.