[quote]Rockscar wrote:
Obama said in his speech …“Those that can afford insurance will be required to purchase it.”
[/quote]
The bill has some actual numbers. They’re not pretty for those of us considered to be “middle class” by the Feds but live in a high cost-of-living area (either coast):
That was from the W$J.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Actually, I think it’s a good start. The republicans need to do more to speak out against losing our country. Jefferson would have been proud of this act. Congress is like a bunch of drones stuck in a MATRIX movie. We must always question our leaders…always, and when it stops, we have ripped the final strand that holds our founding values.
Like it or not, the time for being “courteous” or “politically correct” need to be put in the past. These values and now demonstrated by congress with all the ball slobbering and worshipping we see in there today.
While it was not the best time or place, I don’t think this will hurt him. I think this will elevate him actually as a fighter from the right.
here is a good example 
A great example of contribution and thought instead of name calling. Much more than your 4 words “sentences” that provide nothing.
[/quote]
I called no one names
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Well…I’d be a fool if I said that I have a full understanding of the illegal immigrant issue with the health care bill…but from the surface it does look FUBAR’d. And just let it be known…I haven’t been a big supporter of this bill…too much mangled shit for information to understand what it consists of. But I also don’t buy all the rhetoric and rumors surrounding it either. We need reform…but it needs to be done right. But we will never agree on what is “right” for it to happen anytime soon.
I’d still like to know why one person has to involuntarily pay for the health care of another. Wasn’t slavery abolished long ago?
When I pay my tax dollars over, to fund someone else’s needs, should I now say: “Yazzuh, Mister Boss-man…yazzuh!!!”
[/quote]
Aren’t the tax payers paying your insurance premiums ?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
Actually, I think it’s a good start. The republicans need to do more to speak out against losing our country. Jefferson would have been proud of this act. Congress is like a bunch of drones stuck in a MATRIX movie. We must always question our leaders…always, and when it stops, we have ripped the final strand that holds our founding values.
Like it or not, the time for being “courteous” or “politically correct” need to be put in the past. These values and now demonstrated by congress with all the ball slobbering and worshipping we see in there today.
While it was not the best time or place, I don’t think this will hurt him. I think this will elevate him actually as a fighter from the right.
here is a good example
A great example of contribution and thought instead of name calling. Much more than your 4 words “sentences” that provide nothing.
I called no one names
[/quote]
Retardlican is a term of endearment. It’s calling a group of people retards. Very racist of you:)
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Well…I’d be a fool if I said that I have a full understanding of the illegal immigrant issue with the health care bill…but from the surface it does look FUBAR’d. And just let it be known…I haven’t been a big supporter of this bill…too much mangled shit for information to understand what it consists of. But I also don’t buy all the rhetoric and rumors surrounding it either. We need reform…but it needs to be done right. But we will never agree on what is “right” for it to happen anytime soon.
I’d still like to know why one person has to involuntarily pay for the health care of another. Wasn’t slavery abolished long ago?
When I pay my tax dollars over, to fund someone else’s needs, should I now say: “Yazzuh, Mister Boss-man…yazzuh!!!”
Aren’t the tax payers paying your insurance premiums ?[/quote]
We are talking about the private market. He works for either a publicly funded or private school and works for his funded benefits. Others will not work for thier benefits under this plan. Also, look at the Private industry and this makes less sense since workers pay into their benefits, and their benefits alone.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
That’s one of the main freaking goals of the bill: to do to the rest of the nation what they (big business republicans and the libs) did to California. They want to replace the current population with a new peasant one from Mexico and central America through free OB/GYN care to illegal immigrant Mexicans/Central Americans who pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.
Gambit_Lost wrote:
These are FACTS! The current healthcare bills being proposed are, in reality, a secret plot by those in power to replace the current white, rich population with a brown, peasant one from Mexico and Central America. The easiest way to do this is OBVIOUSLY through the OBGYN, obviously. It is also, obviously, a FACT that illegals “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.”
I just have one quick question for you PRdude. Do you think all brown people “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them” or do you think it’s just the ones here illegally? Maximus, I want to personally thank you for supporting these statements. We wouldn’t want people to think it was only PR with these genius thoughts.
PRCalDude wrote:
In all honesty, G_L, I’m starting to get tired of addressing what is obviously your own Little Man complex manifesting itself in your PWI postings. It’s not the fault of conservatives on this board you didn’t grow taller. Deal. There are plenty of men with diminutive statures who don’t have the same issues you do.
[/quote]
That was truly a great insult. Good job. Now could you please answer my question?
Do you think all brown people “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them” or do you think it’s just the ones here illegally?
I think by elaborating on your point above you will really illuminate the rest of us. Please, go on.
Gambit, since you live in DC, and basically DON"T KNOW SHIT, I will be happy to inform you. Here in LA county, for each anchor baby born, the family gets $650 per month per child. Yes you read that correctly. If you have 4 kids, you get $2600 a month. Do they really need to worry about how to pay for them with money like this coming in? That also does not account for the free schooling and taxes they don’t pay for. In 1 month, it has been calculated by the LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich that $48 million was paid. That is OBSCENE.
http://antonovich.co.la.ca.us/Pages/Press%20Releases/09/August/Welfare%20costs%20081109.html
So again I ask you, while every parent and family will worry about how to pay for kids, not everyone gets the free cash handout others do. And as far as your “brown” comment, we border Mexico, not Asia, not Europe.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was unaware Canada was a socialist nation. The closer to socialism, the less hard work matters. Pure socialism you no longer can own property (or essentially your life).
Up to this point I haven’t you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off. Like I said before in a free capitalist society, there are no rules against money going to help out the less fortunate. Private charities always do more with less than the government. I often wonder how much good my tax dollars would do if given to some place like the red cross.
You can argue that handouts increase the standard of living for the poor, but it also undeniably increases their number. Wealfare and “social programs,” I believe, are one of the main reasons black culture has the poverty and crime rates it does.
Essentially socialism isn’t a leg up for the poor, it inevitably holds them down.
Just to clarify, Canada isn’t a Socialist nation per se, but we definitely have more Socialist elements than the US. I wanted to show a link that I thought was interesting, although it doesn’t directly address the “moral” question of socialism.
http://innovate.typepad.com/innovation/2007/05/most_entreprene.html
I just find it interesting that New Zealand is rated above the US and Canada, yet the country is more Socialist than either.
Also, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by “everyone better off”. By what standard do you gauge this? Life expectancy? Standard of Living? General health of the population? Education? A little research and you might be suprised to see that there a many countries that are better off than the US in some regard or another.
And there are a lot of things more socialist about the US that some countries (drug control, censorship,est.).
Fascism did wonderful things is Germany and Italy. Schools, roads, est. Like I said, I’d rather be poor and free (not that they are mutually exclusive).
By the way “better off” is a relative term. Prisoners in penitentiaries are “better off” than homeless guys living under the bridge. I guess we should start rounding them up and sending them to prison for their own good. They’d at least have food and shelter.[/quote]
I notice that your responses are typically formulated in some emotion-response generating format. Using buzz words like Fascism, Censorship, Freedom, Abortion. Is this intentional? Do you really think of all problems in terms of the most extreme contrasts? Everything is Black or White? Rather than using an advertising technique to garner support for your position, could you maybe address the point I made about your use of the phrase “better off”. In the previous post I was referring to your claim that “you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off”. Which capitalism? A Laissez faire system? One that is regulated? Wealth generation for whom? The wealthy? The poor? And how do you measure better off? Yes, it is relative, but you brought it up as a point in your argument. Why use it in one breath just to dismiss it in another?
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
I notice that your responses are typically formulated in some emotion-response generating format.[/quote]
Hate to start a fight here, but your own posts aren’t any different. You justify socialist systems through collective guilt trip. For instance, I’ve never whipped one slave’s back, or hunted natives, or birthed children and walked away from them. Yet, you seem to argue that I should accept these original sins as mine. That decisions, even policy decisions, can be made on what “feels” fair.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
That’s one of the main freaking goals of the bill: to do to the rest of the nation what they (big business republicans and the libs) did to California. They want to replace the current population with a new peasant one from Mexico and central America through free OB/GYN care to illegal immigrant Mexicans/Central Americans who pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.
Gambit_Lost wrote:
These are FACTS! The current healthcare bills being proposed are, in reality, a secret plot by those in power to replace the current white, rich population with a brown, peasant one from Mexico and Central America. The easiest way to do this is OBVIOUSLY through the OBGYN, obviously. It is also, obviously, a FACT that illegals “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.”
I just have one quick question for you PRdude. Do you think all brown people “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them” or do you think it’s just the ones here illegally? Maximus, I want to personally thank you for supporting these statements. We wouldn’t want people to think it was only PR with these genius thoughts.
PRCalDude wrote:
In all honesty, G_L, I’m starting to get tired of addressing what is obviously your own Little Man complex manifesting itself in your PWI postings. It’s not the fault of conservatives on this board you didn’t grow taller. Deal. There are plenty of men with diminutive statures who don’t have the same issues you do.
That was truly a great insult. Good job. [/quote]
It’s not an insult, it’s a fact. I think you ought to stop mentally being a chihuahua and nipping at everyone’s heels for attention, esp. on this forum. No one cares about your height but you.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Gambit, since you live in DC, and basically DON"T KNOW SHIT, I will be happy to inform you. [/quote]
G_L doesn’t want to be informed, he wants attention - the attention he thinks he doesn’t get in real life - which is why he likes sitting in DC where it’s raining whites and yelling “racist!” at everyone who disagrees:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
I notice that your responses are typically formulated in some emotion-response generating format.
Hate to start a fight here, but your own posts aren’t any different. You justify socialist systems through collective guilt trip. For instance, I’ve never whipped one slave’s back, or hunted natives, or birthed children and walked away from them. Yet, you seem to argue that I should accept these original sins as mine. That decisions, even policy decisions, can be made on what “feels” fair.
[/quote]
It wasn’t meant as a collective guilt trip as much as a statement on the inconsistent application of inalienable rights throughout history and how it’s shaped the world we live in. We shouldn’t accept the sins as our own, but we also can’t sweep them under the rug and pretend like they never happens. I am at peace with what has transpired in the past, yet still disgusted by it, and I think some effort should be made to right past wrongs. It’s not my intention to imply YOU are responsible for slavery, geonocide, or neglect. If this has stirred up some emotions in yourself, perhaps you should persue that further and find out why that is. Do you feel guilty about these events?
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Do you feel guilty about these events?[/quote]
Wasn’t I that brought them up in a discussion about economic/political systems.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Gambit, since you live in DC, and basically DON"T KNOW SHIT, I will be happy to inform you.
G_L doesn’t want to be informed, he wants attention - the attention he thinks he doesn’t get in real life - which is why he likes sitting in DC where it’s raining whites and yelling “racist!” at everyone who disagrees:
[/quote]
No offense to DC, but border states have it much worse.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
Gambit, since you live in DC, and basically DON"T KNOW SHIT, I will be happy to inform you.
G_L doesn’t want to be informed, he wants attention - the attention he thinks he doesn’t get in real life - which is why he likes sitting in DC where it’s raining whites and yelling “racist!” at everyone who disagrees:
No offense to DC, but border states have it much worse.[/quote]
Of course. The good thing about G_L is that he provides an interesting insight into the plans our Betters in DC have for knuckle-draggers like you and I.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Wasn’t I that brought them up in a discussion about economic/political systems.[/quote]
The success of any economic/political system is determine by a number of factors. Not least of which are the historical success and failures. To ignore the mistakes of the past will be a sure way to repeat them. I think it is valid to address these issues in the framework of today’s political climate. They may not matter much to you, but be aware that they matter very much to many of your countrymen.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
They may not matter much to you, but be aware that they matter very much to many of your countrymen.[/quote]
Obviously, they do. It’s quite clear that there are those who’d argue for a redistributive system to remedy their inheritated guilt, or to punish the offspring of the guilty. Fair play, and all.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Obviously, they do. It’s quite clear that there are those who’d argue for a redistributive system to remedy their inheritated guilt, or to punish the offspring of the guilty. Fair play, and all. [/quote]
Because some would argue for a social program as a remedy for their guilt, or punishment for the past, does not mean that it is without value. Their interests are suspect, but the results may be benifical. We should try to separate the intent from the cause and effect.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Obviously, they do. It’s quite clear that there are those who’d argue for a redistributive system to remedy their inheritated guilt, or to punish the offspring of the guilty. Fair play, and all.
Because some would argue for a social program as a remedy for their guilt, or punishment for the past, does not mean that it is without value. Their interests are suspect, but the results may be benifical. We should try to separate the intent from the cause and effect.[/quote]
You can’t seperate the intent. It’s not for nothing the guilt trip is used to justify taking from another by force. No, let them overpay their taxes. A voluntary guilt tax, if you will. Or, sign up on a federal list, volunteering to take in victim-offspring.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was unaware Canada was a socialist nation. The closer to socialism, the less hard work matters. Pure socialism you no longer can own property (or essentially your life).
Up to this point I haven’t you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off. Like I said before in a free capitalist society, there are no rules against money going to help out the less fortunate. Private charities always do more with less than the government. I often wonder how much good my tax dollars would do if given to some place like the red cross.
You can argue that handouts increase the standard of living for the poor, but it also undeniably increases their number. Wealfare and “social programs,” I believe, are one of the main reasons black culture has the poverty and crime rates it does.
Essentially socialism isn’t a leg up for the poor, it inevitably holds them down.
Just to clarify, Canada isn’t a Socialist nation per se, but we definitely have more Socialist elements than the US. I wanted to show a link that I thought was interesting, although it doesn’t directly address the “moral” question of socialism.
I just find it interesting that New Zealand is rated above the US and Canada, yet the country is more Socialist than either.
Also, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by “everyone better off”. By what standard do you gauge this? Life expectancy? Standard of Living? General health of the population? Education? A little research and you might be suprised to see that there a many countries that are better off than the US in some regard or another.
And there are a lot of things more socialist about the US that some countries (drug control, censorship,est.).
Fascism did wonderful things is Germany and Italy. Schools, roads, est. Like I said, I’d rather be poor and free (not that they are mutually exclusive).
By the way “better off” is a relative term. Prisoners in penitentiaries are “better off” than homeless guys living under the bridge. I guess we should start rounding them up and sending them to prison for their own good. They’d at least have food and shelter.
I notice that your responses are typically formulated in some emotion-response generating format. Using buzz words like Fascism, Censorship, Freedom, Abortion. Is this intentional? Do you really think of all problems in terms of the most extreme contrasts? Everything is Black or White? Rather than using an advertising technique to garner support for your position, could you maybe address the point I made about your use of the phrase “better off”. In the previous post I was referring to your claim that “you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off”. Which capitalism? A Laissez faire system? One that is regulated? Wealth generation for whom? The wealthy? The poor? And how do you measure better off? Yes, it is relative, but you brought it up as a point in your argument. Why use it in one breath just to dismiss it in another?[/quote]
Yes, things are pretty black and white to me.
I use specific extremes to illustrate moral points. If an action is immoral in a large amount itâ??s immoral in smaller doses, itâ??s still the same action.
Sometimes it takes a look at the extreme ends of an ideology to better illustrate itsâ?? nature. The road to these extremes are often gentle slopes paved with good intentions.
All of my examples illustrating specific errors (as I see it) with your philosophy. Facsism retorted material wealth correlated to better, censorship I donâ??t see as emotional but socialism moves all property to the state including information (it is just part of it sorry if it upsets you), Freedom is essentially the topic of discussion and Iâ??ve tried to be as even handed with laying out the lefts image of freedom without calling it wrong (other than to say I believe it wrong), abortion was only brought up as an aside to you calling conservatives hypocrites for the war (a very far fetched unrelated emotional ploy).
I tend to think government philosophy to be naturally emotional anyways though. Iâ??m passionate about my beliefs and that comes across with the way I think. I donâ??t think anything Iâ??ve said has been off topic or out of line though. Youâ??ve also failed to retort my illustrations except to now refer to them as emotional ploys. Emotional or not, they illustrate points.
Taxation is a form of slavery. Iâ??m sorry that slavery is an emotional word; taxation is an emotional, offensive word to me.
As for â??better offâ?? I was not dismissing the term altogether only your interpretation that better meant more materially comfortable. When I used the term I meant it to include wealth and liberty. I was attempting to note you were using a different definition that I donâ??t agree with. I personally believe liberty to be the ultimate and only true â??betterâ?? I just think itâ??s a bonus wealth tends to come with it.
I can ask the same about what socialism you are advocating. Communism, national socialism, military dictatorship variety, Marxism, progressivism? (I through in that last one to set people off)