One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: straightUp
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 284 next>>
Apr 1, 2017 12:06:19   #
Ranger7374 wrote:

People in different groups, govern these groups by rules that they set for themselves. Some of these rules are popular, others are not. If I choose to live a certain way by a certain set of rules, that in my mind have been proven to make me a better person, then I should be able to follow that rule. Unless that rule cause harm to another, that rule should stand.

I agree. The key being that you are making that choice for yourself. That is what qualifies as "free practice" and as long as everyone in that group is participating on their own free will there is no problem and they are indeed protected by the 1st Amendment.

Ranger7374 wrote:

In a Supreme Court ruling, certain substances, or drugs, that are used in religious ceremonies were accepted. However, human sacrifice is not. If the belief, or rule causes harm to another person, then it should be restricted. But for example, the observance of Lent for Roman Catholics should not be attacked, because of the fasting for the faith. It cannot be manipulated to prove malnutrition to the faster by the prohibition of meat and meat products for one day, Friday. The governing body is not the government but the religion in which the tradition is held.
br In a Supreme Court ruling, certain substances... (show quote)

Unless fasting is forced by the religious group on people who do not wish to follow the rules of the religion at which point the supremacy of government has the right to interfere. This is a secular nation where the government is ALWAYS the governing body under which religious rules are allowed to preside only within the confines of the law.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Sodomy and Adultery at one time were illegal in the United States. Society changed these laws.

That always depended on the state. There has never been a federal law against sodomy, all such rules were established by the various states within their own jurisdictions. You're correct in saying that society changed those rules. Over time, from 1962 to 2003 all but 13 states struck sodomy laws from their books. In 1986 the Supreme Court did actually rule to protect the sodomy laws in Georgia in Bowers v. Hardwick on the basis that the Constitution does not specifically confer "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy." (even though the state laws in question prohibited all forms of sodomy, including heterosexual blow jobs.) This ruling was overturned in 2003, Lawrence v. Texas which struck down the sodomy laws in Texas and by extension all of the remaining 13 states.

Adultery is still illegal in 21 states but for some reason it doesn't invoke the same level of hysteria that sodomy does and is usually punished as a misdemeanor.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Now, I am speaking on the level, that one "sin" is equal to another "sin". Under this context, Sodomy, Adultery, Murder, and Theft, is all equal, and being just as equal the punishment should be equal too.

That "level" may be your opinion and/or the opinion of "puritans" but it's not the opinion of the law in ANY state as far as I know.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Now the thing about the Ten Commandments of the Jewish faith, and the Christian faith,

...and the Muslim faith. Try not to loose sight of reality here... (As much as Muslims are hated by some Christians, Islam itself *IS* an Abrahamic religion and they *DO* uphold the Ten Commandments.)

Ranger7374 wrote:

is that care and patience must be administered when judging cases as vital as these. In time human beings become complacent. Through this complacency, the spirit of why the commandment was created is lost. This problem that both the Christians and Jews...

(And Muslims)

Ranger7374 wrote:

have, is the same problem that the Muslims have, and we Americans have. We support a bill that becomes law to stop a behavior of the human being that causes harm to self/or others.

Sorry for interjecting like that but I wanted to make sure you understood my point about Islam and it's relevance to the Ten Commandments.

As for your point about the purpose of such laws, I take issue. I understand that the "argument" is to protect people (at least morally) but I suspect the ulterior motive is to control people (morally AND physically). There is no clear proof that the act of sodomy harms the self or others. I've probably had more than hundred heterosexual blow jobs in my life without any negative repercussions (you don't know what you're missing). Of course, like everything else there can be risks, depending on who you are sharing the experience with and where. But is it the job of the government to dictate your sex life?

I can't speak from experience but from what I can tell, homosexual sodomy isn't any different. Adultery is a little different because in most cases, someone is getting hurt emotionally, but there are also some happily married couples that "swing". This is something my wife and I aren't interested in but neither of us hold it against those couples that do.

This is a free country Ranger... I feel that fully grown adults should be allowed to make their own decisions about their own sex lives as long as it doesn't involve children or unwilling participants/witnesses.

Now, if you're posing your argument on the context of religious morality, then I respectfully withdraw my defiance. If you feel such acts will result in moral judgement by God then by all means contain yourself, but this a personal choice and should not be forced on others that don't share your belief. I realize this "need" to force others to comply with religious laws is deeply rooted in some strains of American culture that go all the way back to the first Puritans that arrived from England in the 17th century, but those Puritans were oppressive assholes that used to burn people for being "witches" and insisted that everyone should lead joyless lives. To use a modern phrase... "fuck that".

And honestly, what gives the Puritans and their uptight pious descendants the right to act like God's deputies? Isn't God capable of His own judgement? Won't He cast the sinners into Hell? Is that not sufficient punishment? Same goes for the counterparts in Islam that take it upon themselves to act on God's behalf by stoning adulterers and homosexuals to death.

Again, I'm going to pause here before responding to your points about healthcare.
 
Apr 1, 2017 04:10:09   #
Ranger7374 wrote:
I can say I do agree with you on many points, but I view other things very, very, differently than you do.

I think we both agree that a man(or woman) must work to provide for themselves. And that the profits in which one makes should be spent in the way the person wants to spend it. The joy of prosperity. However, when a friend, or a government begins to dictate how these profits shall be spent, then that friend, that government cheats the man who labored for that profit.

As a former businessman myself I agree with you. The manner in which profit is spent should not be dictated. But I think a lot of people misunderstand what profit is. Profit is not the entire sum of sales, but rather the surplus AFTER the balance of sales and obligation. Many things must be paid for out of revenue generated, such as payroll, materials and equipment, utility bills, licensing, leasing, sub-contracts and third-party services, lawyer fees, membership dues, advertising... and taxes. It's a classic but ill-informed assumption that taxes somehow stand alone and separate from all the other expenses as the ONLY infraction on profit. Taxes are just as much an obligation as an electric bill or a lease agreement. Any legal business is heavily dependent on laws for protection and stability, but like any other service it's not free. You have to pay for it.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Many supreme court cases were heard because a mandate that forced people to get health insurance regardless of basically anything is wrong.
See the case of Hobby Lobby.

The case of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby had nothing to do with that mandate. The law that Hobby Lobby was complaining about was the contraception mandate which applies to any profit driven business with 50 or more employees. The contraceptive mandate itself doesn't actually force anyone to get insurance as you seem to be suggesting but it does require that that insurance options that ARE provided by any such business, cover contraceptives (which is arguably the most effective method of avoiding abortions).

Ranger7374 wrote:

I believe in the first amendment, which states:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (I am moving on to another case but will return to hobby lobby). If the Supreme Court supports Homosexual Marriage, they prohibit the free exercise of those religions who call Homosexuals sinners.
But if the Supreme Court does not support Homosexual Marriage, then Congress established principles of religion. This part of the first amendment is a double edged sword.
br I believe in the first amendment, which state... (show quote)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't see the ACA establishing a religion, do you?
...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I take the perspective that once a business dictates it's religion on others it is no longer "free exercise". While the 1st Amendment protects the right for religious business owners to worship it does not give them the right to enforce their religious principals on others, which is what Hobby Lobby was doing.

You seem to be so upset about the government dictating terms on business and yet you defend the business when it dictates terms to employees. I find that very hypocritical.

Ranger7374 wrote:

As justice Sicilia, and Roberts both dissented on this issue, they also brought up an interesting point. Which and you know I can go on, but in the end, the Supreme Court of the United States, and Congress of the United States, and the President of the United States should not dictate to the people on how to live. The Government should not judge any case concerning the morality of the people.

So then you disagree with laws against gay marriage?

Ranger7374 wrote:

This is a very big mistake which the high court failed in once before. Roberts brought up the Dred Scott case. If the Supreme Court's ruling is final, then the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1858, which stated, "...the negro is not a citizen of the United States and cannot sue a citizen."

I'm not sure what you are stating here. If the Supreme Court's ruling is final, then the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1858 is what?

Ranger7374 wrote:

Now over the years since 1858, it has been realized that this decision was improper because of various reasons of civil rights. I bring this up to prove my thesis, that the government does not have the power to decide the morality of the people. The Law in the ACA does just that. The mandate attached to the AHCA goes even further. And this is my objection to the AHCA. It is wrong to ask a Mormon to drink a caffeinated drink, just as it is wrong to make a devout Catholic to pay for abortions. To force one group to be pinned up against another is not helpful for the people.
br Now over the years since 1858, it has been re... (show quote)

First of all, being a negro is not a moral choice, so I'm not sure how you're drawing any kind of parallel between the 1858 ruling and your point about moral judgement. Secondly, the ACA is only mandating that employers provide an insurance option that covers contraception. It's not actually forcing anyone to USE contraception. That moral choice is entirely up to the employee. If anything, the ACA is protecting the freedom of choice from the dictates of oppressive employers like Hobby Lobby.

I challenge you to show me where in the Bible it says Christians have a right to force their morals on others.

It's been my experience that people who share your perspective on these matters find my responses exceedingly frustrating and perhaps offensive, but I invite you to think it over calmly and rationally before you counter. In the meantime, I'm going to pause here. I need to get some sleep and your post isn't exactly brief ;)

I will try to respond to the rest of it over the weekend. Please accept my apologies for the slow responses, but I consider your points worthy of thoughtful response which can be time-consuming.
Mar 31, 2017 01:52:42   #
Voice of Reason wrote:
Congratulations! You've reached a new level of dumb. What's next? Socrates invented 'safe spaces'?


First of all, "dumb" means you can't talk, you ignoramus. Second of all, here's what I said... "The whole point of university, since Socrates, is to encourage critical thinking". I guess should have realized that some people reading this won't be familiar with the tradition of critical thinking or how Socrates is often seen as one of its earliest teachers, or how the tradition itself is central to the establishment of universities, which in ancient Greece were called academies.

So... just take your foot out of your mouth and put me on your ignore list before you give me any more opportunities to make you look stupid.
Mar 31, 2017 01:11:16   #
Voice of Reason wrote:
Smug is an attitude stupid people develop to ignore facts presented by smarter people.

Since when does anyone need to be smug to ignore the facts? See, this is just the kind of stupidity I'm talking about... so stupid it's funny... and I bet you would call my attitude "smug" if you weren't thinking that would prove my point.
Mar 31, 2017 00:59:13   #
eagleye13 wrote:
The Beatles-Blackbird w/Lyrics!
https://youtu.be/qokMu7BMv_8
To see the hypocrite and phony, "the Progressive One" is; these quotes and questions have been presented;
"You can tell that this is the wakeup call to action many needed.....you can see the new level of mobilization, awareness and consciousness. the freeways have been blocked with thousands out here in LA.....Trump has his work cut out for him and his racist supporters in the sticks got him there.....will not be of any help to him…" - "Progressive?" One
So it is anarchy that Progressive One is behind!
At least he is out in the open.
The "professor" is a Marxist.
The Beatles-Blackbird w/Lyrics! br https://youtu.b... (show quote)

Why? Because he pointed out the fact that people are rising up to resist Trump? You equate that to anarchy? You sound like those Puritans that accuse anyone that disagrees with them of being a witch. What about the judges that are overruling him? Are they anarchists too? What about all those Republican governors that are turning their backs on him for the sake of the states they are responsible for? What about the Republicans in Congress that are refusing to rally behind him? Trump has only been in office for two months and is already breaking the record for being the most unpopular president.

Progressive One isn't talking about some backward group of anarchists eagle... He's referring an ever increasing distaste among Americans for a president that is proving to be everything his opponents feared and far less than what his supporters were hoping for.
Mar 30, 2017 09:36:19   #
rebob14 wrote:
Universities have always been the holding tank for societal cancer cells, going back to FDR's first term. Whenever the conditions are favorable, they're infused into the federal government to continue the attaxk on individual liberty. This has been the state's plan published by the Fabian Socialists early in the 20th century and has worked perfectly!


The whole point of university, since Socrates, is to encourage critical thinking and the established orders that push for unquestioning conformity, from churches to fascist regimes, have always hated the result of a population that develops the ability to think for themselves. Conservatives represent that perspective. They hate free-thinking liberals because free-thinking liberals have always been able to figure things out and many times that leads to a departure from conformity. The reason why this large-scale pattern seems to be recent, going back only as far as FDR is that before FDR very few people actually went to university and their free-thinking was easy to drown out with the hymns and marches of non-thinking conformity. Republicans today are infuriated that they can't stifle the blasphemy of truth.
 
Mar 30, 2017 09:20:31   #
Smug is a word stupid people use to describe smarter people that find the stupid people SO stupid that it's funny.
Mar 30, 2017 02:02:29   #
Ranger7374 wrote:
Now that we have established certain ground rules let me summarize.

I will now explain a point I have made and perhaps you didn't understand it and you asked me to rephrase, so here you go:

Every person born of woman, who call themselves human beings, are born with the inalienable ability of free will. This free will is seduced by many aspects of fear to be controlled. But as was seen with Jews, Christians, and Muslims, if a man refuses to accept a forceful train of thought, in other words is forced to think a certain way, the person can stand against it and in some cases, depending upon how extreme it is, will take it to the death. This is what brings me to the statement, "No man can force another man to do anything."

Now if we were to examine the use of force in general, many people died because of another trying to force a person against their own will. Samson, Jesus Christ, and many of the Muslim extremists have proved this principle to be true. So all we as human beings can do, since we all have free will, is attempt to convince each other through decent means to see the subjects as each individual engaged in the debate do.
Now that we have established certain ground rules ... (show quote)

Well... I see your point but I still don't agree with your statement because although some people will choose death before compilance other's will comply to survive. In some cases, a man would rather die than comply but complies anyway for the sake of his child's survival. Don't forget how monsterous humans can be. So, I guess what I'm saying is that the statement is too general. Maybe if you said "Not all men can be forced." To that, I would agree.

Ranger7374 wrote:

You brought up a very excellent, lucid, intelligent principle, "The greater good"

Some would dissect the subject of the "Greater Good" by saying "the Greater Good is different from one person to another"

Fundamentally, and in practice, this statement is not true. Because the Greater Good, is common for all persons. And since the greater good not only applies to all people, it is accepted by all people.

This is the problem I have with everyone. How can one support the principles of the selling points of the Obama administration, and refuse to accept the criticism of their opponents with such hatred that they turn a deaf ear to any idea that is different from them. Then by their actions, they enforce this with the same principle that we all fight against, intolerance.
br You brought up a very excellent, lucid, intell... (show quote)

The best way to answer this might be to use the example of how people on the other side do the same thing. They support the principals of the Trump Administration and refuse to accept the criticism of their opponents with such hatred that they turn a deaf ear to any idea that is different to theirs. You can't tell me that there's no such thing as an intollerant Trump supporter.

Now if you want, we can ditch the partisan flim-flam and get right down to the heart of the matter, common to both sides. Humans have a compelling need to identify with a group. This inate need is deeply set in what Freud would have called "the id" and Darwin, I'm sure would have considered this base human nature a mode of survival that allowed the species to propagate because if there is one thing that has allowed human to survive the jungles of the past it's the way we gather in groups. I think we all underestimate the power this need has over our ability to reason and to answer your question, I think for a person who exhibits this hipocritical "ok for me but not for you" it's the simply the emotional need for him to insist that his group is right and to accept anything else is an emotional defeat that quite frankly, few people, especially in the American "#1" culture, are capable of dealing with.

Ranger7374 wrote:

I have seen this before, I seen it with the older conservatives of this very same nation. I seen the same actions that the Obama administration used, by the Roman Catholic Church! In this country and in the Middle Ages it didn't work for the Catholics just like it didn't work for the Obama Administration as this form of intolerance is not working for the Muslim extremists either.

It's interesting that you mention "older conservatives" (no doubt the John McCain variety some of you call RINO's), the Obama Administration (of course) and the Catholic Church, leaving the group(s) I imagine YOU identify with unscathed. This in itself is an example of that emotional need for a person to insist that his group is right and the classic approach to doing this is to contrast with the the other groups that are wrong. Anyone who can't admit to the faults and fallacies of his own group, even his own person, is not being completely honest.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Know this, I am a two fold man, if you want to call it that. I am intolerant to ignorance, and intolerant to stupidity. For example, I believe if you stick your finger in a light socket, you deserve to be shocked, for you know better. As far as the ignorant, there is enough information out there, that if a person is ignorant about a subject they can look it up. In directly, it puts them in the same category as the stupid person shocking themselves purposely.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume ignorance is always avoidable. My father died of Parkinson's because there is no such thing as a doctor who isn't ignorant of the cure.

Ranger7374 wrote:

For this reason, when I review the facts, I use patience, and restraint.

I can't tell you how many hotheads have told me the same thing. But yes, quite often patience and restraint is the antithesis of stupidity.

Ranger7374 wrote:

In this generation of society, there is intolerance, and there is instant gratification. These two things are what I have against the Obama administration, everything else is a smoke screen.

Wow... That's a pretty big statement there Ranger... Is this a fancy way of saying the Obama Administration was stupid?

Since we're on a higher plain here (or at least that's what you seem to suggest) I'm going to point out that there hasn't been an administration in U.S. history that hasn't catered to some elements of instant gratification and intolerance, whether intentional or not and that includes the Obama Administration. Certainly, you can't tell me that me that Trump's heavy use of executive orders isn't a form of instant gratifiication and there's no better word to describe his approach to immigration policy than intollerance.

One thing I would like to point out here is the reason why I said... "whether intentional or not". You have to understand that in politics an action may be intended for one purpose while at the same time benefiting the objectives of another. For instance, a president might make a move that he feels will improve conditions in the long term for everyone. But that move might also provide instant gratification for businesses that can take immediate advantaghe of the change. Opposition groups will no doubt put the two in juxtaposition, saying the only reason the president made the move was for the instant gratification of the applauding businesses.

I'm sure you can already imagine the examples.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Now like I said, I am fair, that is why you heard my frustration when I asked for concrete evidence. I don't care if a person is a bully or not, but if that person harms in anyway another, then that person must be punished. If it is justified for one person to commit an act, in a particular situation, then it is equally justified for another person to commit the same act given the same situation. This is fair.

An eye for an eye. It's hard for us not to gravitate to this mode of thinking, especially when the initial offense is committed by "an opponent". Much, MUCH more a challenge for us to follow the advice of Ghandi or Christ and "turn the other cheek". The id in us wants to be bold and defiant and strikes because that's what the id does without knowing that it's ever so much bolder and defiant to turn the other cheek. This is not understood with the awe of seeing it happen or the courage to carry it out.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Mind you I brought up issues from 1988 to present, so I cannot be counted with, "Well you are just a trump, or conservative, or Republican supporter", the reason for this is because everyone is judge-able based upon the same rules that we set down for ourselves. If it is right for one person to do an action, it is right for all to do the same action, given all things are equal.

Well, conservatives and Republicans WERE around in 1988 so I don't know what immunity you think issues from that period give you. Still, I think I understand your point about the rules being applied equallly. In a purely legal sense I agree with you, but in a different context things change, for instance it would be right for a player at a black jack table with two kings and an ace to hold... that doesn't apply to the guy with three deuces. He needs a hit.

I choose this analogy to introduce an idea that's surprisingly ellussive... The idea is that a good hand can be an unfair advantage WITHIN a set of rules that are applied equally. Most of the world is ruled by a wealthy class and we are no exception. Our "fair laws" create a system where the wealth advantage is not countered. It wouldn't be so bad if it were really just a game but life we only get one deal... If we get a bad hand, the "fair laws" can be an inescapable form of oppression. A lot of our laws were established to protect us from this oppression and they will always be debated as "unfair" to those holding blackjacks in their hands.

Ranger7374 wrote:

The problem with everything today is intolerance intended to divide. This is the greatest enemy of the United States. If we are to remain a nation with an identity of freedom, then freedom as a whole, for the purpose of the greater good, should be the principle that governs our actions, and not the intolerance of being duped into the lies that have already been presented to us.

mmm.... I think you mean the intollerance of lies, not the intolerance of being duped by them, right? I mean, you ARE quite literally saying we should not be guided by our intollerance of being duped.

Ranger7374 wrote:

We all have been duped to believe that Obamacare is the best thing, since the New Deal.

Eh... speak for yourself on that one. I personally don't think it's THAT great and most liberals I know as well Obama himself seem to agree. I don't know if you listen when Democrats talk but if I could have a nickle for everytime I've heard them say "it's not perfect, but it's a start" I'd be rich. I mean obviously, I support it, you've seen me defend it but that's onlt because it's better than what we had before. What we find so impressive about the ACA is just that Obama actually rolled it out... Actual reform... Something presidents and legislators have been trying to do for decades.

Ranger7374 wrote:

There is a danger in this frame of thought. Most of Congress, and most of the American Public suffered damages due to this legislation.

Can you back that up? I personally see no evidence to support that claim.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Now, I believe in what Trump said, "We can do better." A lot of things I dismiss what he says, but he does have a valid point here, we can do better. We can write a healthcare legislation that appeals to all Americans, and not just the Democrats. This is one of many injuries from the intolerance of that party. If you disagree with the Democrat party of the United States, then you are an outcast. This is wrong, and it borders illegal activity from both sides. This way of thinking causes division and will eventually kill people. And the people who will lose their lives are the innocent people.
br Now, I believe in what Trump said, "We ca... (show quote)

OK... calm down... take a deep breath.

First of all, Trump isn't the first one to say "we can do better"... That's actually what Obama said... verbatim... AS he was INVITING the Republicans to HELP us improve the ACA. What really makes this hard for us is that we keep saying it's a work in progress and we keep asking the Republicans to help us build it... Heck the ACA is mostly based on ideas the Republicans came up with! If the liberals just did what they wanted they would have rolled out a single-payer system.

As it is, the small token of that concept that was written into the ACA (the public option) was removed in response to Republican demand. So, it's proven, it's in the records that Obama DID in fact compromise a LOT with Republicans and yet, the Republicans STILL wanted to kill it... They used every dirty in the book and STILL couldn't do it. Even after gaining control of the entire government they [b]STILL[.b] couldn't do it. You know why? Because the bottom line is the people need healthcare and no one has yet figured out a better way to do it and if the Republicans killed the ACA there wouldn't be anyway for them to hide or lie about the ugly consequences.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Did you ever ask the question, if Obama was the head of the executive branch, that has the power of the sword, then why did his people, which includes all of law enforcement from the beat cop all the way to the FBI, and NSA, why did his people kill Ferguson in St. Luis?

What? First of all it's "St. Louis", not "St. Luis", secondly, no one killed Ferguson... Ferguson is a city in the the county of St. Louis and finally Obama's "people" weren't involved in any of the killing. It was a local police officer that murdered a black kid in cold-blood.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Regardless if it was or wasn't racially motivated, why did the commander-in-chief refuse to obey the order of the president

Ranger... the Commander-In-Cheif *IS* the President.

I dunno man... it's getting late, I'm getting tired and despite your cordiallity, I feel like you post is turning into a long meandering rant. So I'm just going to fast forward to your final point.

Ranger7374 wrote:

Now lets start here, who could be a good person, who when put into the fire, stand up for the greater good? Let's start here. And let's discuss based upon the principles I wrote here, how we, on the local level could produce people of the character I am suggesting. We, as the majority of Americans know what we don't want, and most of us are divided on who we want, but we will get what we need. The first step is to work on the local level.

Yes... the first step is to work on the local level. I'm glad we can agree on that.
Mar 29, 2017 09:19:37   #
PeterS wrote:
I never did understand why, if the ACA was falling apart, you conservative continually hyperventilated over it. Let it collapse and you don't have to worry about it. And I mean it's not like you had to have insurance or to patronize it at one of the exchanges--just pay the fuking fine--it's a small one and not that big of a deal. And medical care is a right. Reagan made it so when he mandated to hospitals that no one could be denied medical care. He wouldn't have done that if it was a privilege but would have allowed the free market to have it's way.

And you are mistaken, it's not some who consider healthcare a right but the vast majority which is why conservative ran on a platform of repeal and replace. If it was just some, the dicks you elected to represent you would have just run on a platform of repeal and left replace up to those with the cash to do so. So whether it's Obamacare or some form of Republicancare government is now in the healthcare business and if they smarten up we will go single payer and tell insurance companies to go fuk themselves.
I never did understand why, if the ACA was falling... (show quote)


I recently read an interesting article that briefly describes the way the "right to healthcare" is often shaped by warfare. In Britain, the National Health system was introduced when a large number of men who reported for duty on the onset of the Boer War were actually deemed unfit to fight. So they created a system where a standard of health could be assured for the entire population. I didn't know that. There were several other very similar examples in the article that seems to indicate a common theme that I have often mentioned myself. A healthier population is a more resilient population.

We are entering a new age of biotech where infection will be one of the most effective weapons of mass destruction. In this age, health care is more than a right... even more than ever, it's a matter of national security. If a virus was dropped in our population of which half the people don't have access to healthcare (which is an accepted parameter among conservatives) there would be no way to prevent it's spread. Conservative Libertarians might be sworn "individualists" but diseases are communicable. So it's time for a new paradigm. Our military doesn't pick and choose which Americans to defend based on commercial values, a healthcare system shouldn't either.

And I get a little weary of the retrospect so prevalent among conservatives who want to define the world according to 18th century understanding. They keep saying the Constitution doesn't guarantee health care... well, in 1789, health care didn't exist yet. They were still treating common ailments with leeches and prayers. By the same token, the Constitution doesn't say the government can't provide healthcare either. The idea that it does is a classic misconception.

Conservatives need to pull their heads out of their asses.
Mar 29, 2017 00:40:19   #
mongo wrote:
Circumcision was not a practice to remove or limit ones sexual impulses. It was considered necessary for hygienic health.
However, castration would fall into the same category!

SEMPER FI

Circumcision is a religious practice and is rarely needed for "hygienic" reasons. Jews were mutilating male genitals before they even knew what hygiene was. The biggest reason why it's so accepted in our culture is that it's been normalized... most of the time we are just told that it's more hygienic, which is pretty much a wive's tale... (What's more hygienic is washing). I mentioned this so we may better understand what we are up against. In many African cultures FGM is normalized.

One thing I *will* say... We've made MGM a safe medical procedure and as some people say it's not *quite* as intrusive as FGM.
Mar 28, 2017 21:11:01   #
georgejc wrote:
I can't believe this is taking place in my country, a God fearing, law abiding, western Republic and civilized culture. We are returning to the seventh century.
Get rid of observing Muslims, legalized or not. Peacefull or not. Get rid of them.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/27/genital-mutilation-also-occurs-in-u-s-activists-call-on-states-to-make-it-illegal.html


If you actually cared about the victims of FGM instead of just using it as an excuse for your bigotry you would know that it's a tribal custom and that it's practiced by Muslims and Christians alike. Human rights advocates have been outraged by the practice for decades so it's not like you haven't had a chance to learn about it. Then again, right-wing extremists tend to disregard anything human rights advocates have to say because they are more often than not, liberal. So, although it's good to bring the practice up, the way you leverage the issue to incite hatred toward Muslims is pretty fucked up.

For those of you who ARE genuinely concerned about the practice and the victims of FGM, I encourage you to be constructive and check out any one of many organizations working to put an end to the practice instead of just reading articles on Fox News and then calling for ethnic cleansing.

http://www.stop-fgm-now.com/ (Germany)
http://www.fgmnationalgroup.org/about_us.htm (UK)
http://www.dofeve.org/ (UK)
http://www.npwj.org/GHR/BAN-FGM-CAMPAIGN.html (UN)

These are just some of the English-speaking sites. I can't find any U.S. efforts to fight FGM but if anyone finds any please post. When I was in Europe a few years back I heard a lot of outrage over FGM, when I came back here I found it strangely silent... I assume this is because the practice is almost entirely supported by Africans and as we all know, Europe is far more involved in Africa than we are. But it would be great to see the fight against FGM accelerate in the U.S. seeing how influential we are world-wide.
 
Mar 28, 2017 10:51:37   #
PeterS wrote:
God are you really trying to convince conservatives that global warming is a real event? Good luck with that. Land ice around the globe is shrinking at an ever increasing rate. Glaciers in N America are all in retreat but for some odd reason conservative fail to understand that less ice each years means that the temperature is warming up. I think it's simply because they don't want to have to sacrifice their quality of life to correct the damage that leading that quality of life does to the environment. It's just that it's easier to stick their heads in the sand and let their children and grandchildren pay for the damage they've done to the environment...
God are you really trying to convince conservative... (show quote)

I don't even think it's that. I think they just can't bear the thought of admitting that liberals sometimes get it right. I've been noticing that the less fanatical Republicans start giving in once they are confronted with the reality of the issue. I mentioned that even Trump has admitted that it "probably" is real and that it's "possible" that it might have something to do with emissions, although he will take route where he will say the impact is so minimal and jobs so much more important... But as a businessman he was never confronted with the issue directly and he was able to swim in his fantasies about Chinese plots.
Mar 28, 2017 05:06:39   #
Docadhoc wrote:
Is that a fact? Are.you another troll or just full of yourself?

zzzz.

Docadhoc wrote:

How would you know?

I explained that pretty well in my post. Did they not teach you to read in pretend doctor school? Here it is again... "You make it sound like the ACA came out of some secret laboratory. It didn't. It evolved... in public. It took ideas from other plans, mostly Republican, that have been publicly debated for years. In fact the ACA is largely based on Mitt Romney's plan which was actually implemented in MA when he was still governor of that state."

I'm not saying you weren't part of some "panel", even high schools had "panels" to discuss what they thought of the ACA. The part that I find so ridiculous is where you arrogantly told PeterS to shut up because YOU were reviewing it before HE even knew about it... Maybe you don't see how that comes across but it sounds like something an 8 year old would say. To be blatantly honest "doc" you don't come across as a smart person. You never have. So to start telling people you're some special doctor that the government came to for an opinion on a signature bill is a little far fetched.

Docadhoc wrote:

Do you think flyers were sent out asking for volunteers? We were selected. You can ponder why.

LOL - I think I'd rather hear you explain it. When did this happen "doc"? When did the government come to the great Docadhoc to ask him for an opinion on the top secret ACA that no one else knew anything about?

Docadhoc wrote:

Sorry but you're on the outside looking in and if you looked a little more diligently you'd see I have been predicting exactly what is now happening for 2+ years. I know. Lucky guess right?...lol

No "doc" you were predicting the ACA would fail and it's not. You and a lot of conservatives are hoping it will fail. Lord knows the Republicans did everything could to make it fail and even now they continue to insist that it is failing... but so far it's actually succeeding... a little more in some states than others, but it's actually working.

Docadhoc wrote:

And your 6% raise was more of an across the board raise whereas the raises regarding the aca are not across the board. They are more confined to those without assistance causing them to pay their own costs and those of one or more others. AZ for instance saw a 116% increase in premiums for those people. That is but one example. Look into out of pockets and deductibles. But you already know all this right? You're the expert here.

Do you know the difference between a "rise" and a "raise"... doctor? And BTW, these are references to the rising cost of healthcare not the cost of a premium, so it doesn't matter whether someone is getting subsidized or not the cost of PROVIDING care remains the same... how the cost is paid is a different thing.

Docadhoc wrote:

There are many thing you will never be privy to. This is one of them.

Oh because so much of the ACA is top secret, right?

Docadhoc wrote:

And overhead is the driving force, but again...you're the expert so we'll all just listen to you. Thank you so much for your attention to this matter.

Doctor... LOL My ass.
Mar 28, 2017 04:04:09   #
buffalo wrote:
Simple..."Exactly" how is a mandate a market based economic plan?

The big enormous word, M*A*N*D*A*T*E... is not an "economic plan" anymore than a steering wheel is a car. The ACA is an economic plan because it doesn't actually provide medical services, medical supplies, hospital facilities, laboratories, hospice, out-patient care, or food services... These things are all provided by the private sector and they are all paid for through insurance companies, again, in the private sector. The ACA is a framework to help distribute the cost, so yes... it's an economic plan. And yes, an economic plan can have mandates just like cars can have steering wheels. For instance, the Marshal Plan was an economic plan that included a mandated where the Japanese could only buy oil from the U.S.

buffalo wrote:

I was in the used car business and would have loved for Congress and obammy to have passed a mandate that everyone must buy a used car from me in my area.

I don't see the ACA forcing anyone to buy anything. Certainly not from a specific insurance company as you seem to be implying. I know several people who chose not to buy insurance at all. They just paid the fine, which really isn't that much. It's not like they put you in prison. So stop being so dramatic.

buffalo wrote:

What hurt my business more than all the stupid regulations was the "Cash for Clunkers" government bullshit. It took many GOOD used cares off the market and drove the price of them up to the point that poor and credit challenged people could not afford them. Not every one can buy one of the sorry overpriced new pieces of shit, the same with over priced piece of shit policies from private, for profit health INSURANCE corporations.

Well, the only answer to that is a single-payer system, right? Do you think America is ready for that?

buffalo wrote:

My MEDICAL DOCTOR brother said from the onset that the ACA was going to fail. But moonbatty bitch pelosi said we had to pass it before we could find out what is in it. So, your being disingenous to say the least, straightup!

No I'm not. Just because your MEDICAL DOCTOR brother said it was going to fail doesn't mean he was right. And you're the one being disingenuous by making a huge deal out of a quote that was totally taken out of context. She was responding to suggestions that the ACA would fail and her response was to say that you don't know that until you try it. It was one of those moments people have where you stumble on the words and and of course the right took that to the bank. Anyone who actually thinks she meant that you have to pass the law to see what's in it is a fucking idiot. So I hope, you're being rhetorical.

buffalo wrote:

Both the ACA and the AHCA were/are pieces of shit.

The AHCA was a piece of shit.
As for the ACA, it depends on what state you live in. It's not doing so well in states where corporations are allowed to monopolize the market. But in states like CA that have the balls to lay down anti-trust laws, the market is competitive and the ACA is a total success.
Mar 28, 2017 02:43:46   #
son of witless wrote:
I do not work in the coal industry. I just have sympathy for those who get dirty making a living. I am sure you never got your manicured ladyfingers dirty while earning a paycheck.

I see... so dirt is the measure of a person's worthiness. I guess that means the doctors that bust their asses fixing people but insist on washing their manicured ladyfingers aren't worth shit, right? But all hail to the ditch digger.

son of witless wrote:

But I digress, lets us speak of this glorious Solar Industry of which you say so very many people make their living. It would be strange if more people did not work in the Solar industry than Coal when you consider that the Federal Sugar Momma doles out $Billions in Corporate Welfare to these Green Deadbeats, while the Coal Industry gets the back of the Liberal Hag's hand.

Sounds good to me. Bottom line is... coal sucks... it's a bad deal for all of us. Solar promises a much better deal but it's new and still needs some development. Problem is, development isn't profitable so in the free market there's no incentive. So what do the people do if they want solar? They appeal to the government, that's what they do. Nine times out of ten, anything that requires innovation requires government funding because no one else is going to spend billions on a project that can't guarantee a quick return. Thinking about all those private companies that have rolled out innovative products? I can almost guarantee you their patents are based on groundwork funded by the government. That goes for the computer industry, the defense industry, biotech and just about any sector that deals with recent technology.

I would even support government funding for programs that help coal miners retool for other jobs. I mentioned earlier how several tech companies from California are setting up programs to teach the children of coal miners how to engineer. I am 100% in support of that. So, if anyone is screwing the dirty workers you have such compassion for it's you. Because while I'm suggesting and supporting approaches to help them adjust to the 21st century, all you and our fat-ass president is doing is spewing bullshit about jobs that are fading into the past. You might as well be screaming at us all to start taking stagecoaches to work. At least fat-ass has an excuse... He's trying to be popular. WTF is your excuse?

son of witless wrote:

Now here is a f-a-c-t for you to consider. The whole time while this deadbeat industry is getting $Billions in Corporate Welfare it can't make a buck.

What did I tell you about research and development? Can you put two and two together or is that asking for too much?

son of witless wrote:

The EU which is even more brain dead stupid than Obama also gives Corporate Welfare to it's Green Deadbeats.

Statements like that have a special place in the laughing stock when they're written by someone who can't even write a sentence.

son of witless wrote:

You know what, WHAT, , if you give me $ 39 B per year in welfare I can hire a few hundred thousand workers and then lay them off when I go bankrupt. By the way here is where I got the $ 39 B figure.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/report-solar-energy-subsidies-cost-39-billion-per-year/

freebeacon... LOL. I noticed the entire article was little more than a paraphrasing of a report released by the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA). What's interesting is the author provides a link to the actual report and then proceeds to "quote" the report with sentences that aren't even in the report. This is what I love about fake news sites... they're so caught up in the bullshit they're dishing out that they forget things like integrity. Here's an example... taken right from the article you link to...

the report said. "American taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year over the past 5 years financing grants, subsidizing tax credits, guaranteeing loans, bailing out failed solar energy boondoggles and otherwise underwriting every idea under the sun to make solar energy cheaper and more popular. But none of it has worked."

The report is only 11 pages and it doesn't say that at all. I'm curious, do you ever check this kind of thing or are you too caught in the bullshit too? You know what else doesn't show up in the report? $39 billion. That figure is nowhere in the report at all. Here's what the report says...

Over the past five years, the federal government spent an estimated $150 billion subsidizing solar power and other renewable energy projects.

(So about $30 billion per year)

The next bullet item in the report...

Preferable tax treatment given to solar and other alternative electricity initiatives cost Americans nearly $9 billion annually, according to the IRS.

Ah... so that's how the the dumb-blonde came up with $39 billion... Now, if only she had an IQ a little bigger than her bust measurement she might have understood the first statement as the total in subsidies and the second statement as the cost to the tax payers. To explain the difference, I will use another article published in the Washington Times (a real newspaper) in which the conservative author is debunking the "liberal myth" that taxpayers subsidize the oil industry.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/7/debunking-the-big-oil-subsidy-myth/

Here he talks about the Center for American Progress (CAP), which regularly insists that taxpayers are “subsidizing big oil companies"...

CAP shrewdly - but inaccurately - conflates two completely different terms in public finance: subsidy and deduction. A subsidy is a payment made by the government, usually to promote the prospects of a specific technology or action - be it solar energy, ethanol or something else. Subsidies are often equated with handouts - a derisory term for sure. A business deduction, on the other hand, is designed to ensure that a firm is taxed only on its net income. Deductions allow businesses to write off legitimate expenses from gross revenue to calculate net income. Deductions are widely regarded as proper in a system that taxes income, not revenue.

So what he is saying is that tax payers don't actually PAY for someone else's deductions. Now, these terms are often tossed around loosely but if we go back to the TPA report, we can see how it makes sense, the $30 billion a year is provided in tax credits and deductions while the money that the government actually takes from the tax payer and spends on renewable energy projects is only $9 billion a year... which is exactly what the report says. Not forgetting that it says "solar power AND other renewable energy projects". The dumb-blonde misconstrued the whole report and actually "quoted" it falsely saying specifically that "taxpayers spent an average of $39 billion a year"... "to make solar energy cheaper and more popular."

And that's your source. LOL

Maybe you ought to try some of the more professional media outlets... Don't assume just because they're educated they're going to say liberal things you don't want to hear. One of my favorite conservative papers is the WSJ. You can get conservative perspectives AND integrity! (imagine that)

son of witless wrote:

I bet you di-int know that between Europe and the US 112 Solar Companies went belly up since 2009. I wonder how many people no longer have jobs in those 112 companies? That was fun.

Actually, I didn't know that but the only thing that surprises me is that it's only 112. That's a pretty low number for 8 years in a combined market of roughly 800 million people. I've worked for a fair number of start ups and even co-founded two of them myself. Start-ups are like baby alligators... most of them die in their infancy. That's just how business is.

son of witless wrote:

" An estimated 200,000 deaths are caused by air pollution per year according to MIT. " A totally meaningless number for a couple of reasons. First it is a totally made up number, a projection..

That's it? No counter argument? No errors to point to? Just... denial? Man, I feel ripped off... I go through all this trouble to PROVE your number is erroneous and the most you do with mine is just deny it? *sigh*

Well, it's not just a made up number. I've been following this trend for years now. The MIT study is just an update to many reports that came before. When people die, their cause of death is recorded. Respiratory disease is pretty easy to identify and so are it's causes. The CDC records all this and they publish the numbers every year.

I was going to explain further but... I dunno, it's not as fun arguing with someone once I know they aren't going to challenge me intellectually.

son of witless wrote:

Second you are blaming Coal for all pollution deaths.

Well, at least you were able to come back with that. I agree. We can't blame coal for ALL of the air pollution deaths, but patterns have been identified that indicate coal is a major factor. It's not a perfect science but in general, coal is used almost entirely in the eastern states. Out west it's mostly natural gas. Now have a look at where most of the pollution is...



son of witless wrote:

Now lets us move onto the poor Polar Bears. Believe it or not they have not been around as long as other bears. Maybe 150,000 years they split from Brown Bears. In that time they have been through previous warming periods such as the Medieval Warming Period circa 1,000 AD. They survived.

Yeah the Japanese people survived atomic bombs too... So does that mean they shouldn't be worried about North Korea? Just because a species survived something in the past doesn't make them indestructible and besides the Medieval Warming Period was nothing compared to what we're dealing with now. Most of the focus on the Medieval Warming Period is fixed on the North Atlantic where it was warmer than it is today, which makes a great argument against the concern for global warming in general, but the inconvenient truth of that matter is that in other regions like the tropical Pacific it was actually cooler. Given the global mean, the Medieval Warming Period at it's height was about the same as the global mean temperature about 50 years ago. We're way beyond that now.



I'm not sure how long you're going to continue to deny that global warming is a problem... Even Trump is starting to admit that it's not just a Chinese plot and that it might actually be a problem. It's like watching people in a crowd, who one by one come forward reluctantly saying... "OK, the world is round."
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 284 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.