Nah, they weren't trying to shut down Obamacare, they aren't that dumb. It was a 24B publicity stunt for their supporters. You can't shutdown law upheld by the supreme court and voted for by popular election twice, simply by defaulting on government debt. Law of the land and budget are two entirely separate issues. There is no connection.

Obamacare is already paid for, it is part of the budget. Repealing it now, ignoring that this is impossible, would save 0 dollars.

http://www.cms.gov/apps/docs/aca-update-implementing-medicare-costs-savings.pdf

Obamacare will save this country billions upon billions over the next decade. Privatized healthcare was 16% of our entire GDP. The regulations this act puts in place and the revenue it raises through more people paying into a more affordable and more efficient system will significantly reduce the percent of GDP we spend on healthcare while at the same time improving care.

We know this because all economic studies not put out by right wing groups show this to be the case again and again, and even in the short time some parts of it have been implemented, for the first time in the history of this country the overall cost of healthcare has been dropping. This has never happened, it's always gone up even immediately after the biggest recession since the Great Depression, healthcare monopolies and pharmaceuticals still continued to raise prices.

It's hard to argue that this is a coincidence.

But even if you want to ignore all non-partisan studies and the first actual decrease in healthcare costs in history,

Just look at the cost of healthcare for the U.S. compared to every country in the world, and then compare the level of care.

We have been paying almost double for the 24th ranked healthcare in the world for decades.

While countries with similar plans to Obamacare pay a fraction of the cost and get better healthcare.

If you take my entire quote in context then you see that even for the sociopath it is still a negative thing, I see how you could make that mistake. Let me know if you need further explanation however and I'll explain it.

However I am a bit worried as to why you would bring up this subject if it were not to disprove absolutes.

My assumption was that truth is in the eye of the beholder was your argument against absolutes.

If that assumption is incorrect what precisely is your point within the context of the debate?

"I think therefore I am." -- This quote by Descartes is an absolute truth. But first your question is flawed.

The burden of proof for non-existence is on the one making this claim. For example borrowing from a common theological fallacy, "Oh yeah, prove god doesn't exist." The answer is no, you must prove he/she does exist, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

Okay, that aside, the quote is not just a bumper sticker, it's an absolute truth with a long logical argument which shows it as one.

Put as simply as possible, that you are perceiving things around you, whether you are right or wrong about those things you perceive,

that you perceive proves to yourself that you exist. You cannot prove I exist and I cannot prove that you exist, but we each (presumably unless you are a robot) can prove to ourselves we exist.

Existence is an absolute truth therefore. Even if the whole universe around you is an illusion, even if that should be so, you know beyond any doubt there is some sort of existence.

Again, you're not getting the core concept. You're missing something. Think on it for a while instead of replying with the first cliche that pops in your head.

In lost wages, lost tax dollars, lost tourist dollars, and not yet counting any increases in interests rates due to any downgrade in our financial rating,

Shutting down the government has cost collectively about 24 Billion dollars. I just find it fascinating that this is cause for celebration for that 10% Tea Party, while those exact same people will cry bloody murder over 3 billion dollars in farming subsidies. Not that I think all farm subsidies are good, some are almost as dumb as oil subsidies, but it's just a mind-boggling stance to take.

Another comparison may be that Food Stamps in an entire year cost 80 Billion. That's 364 days. 14 days of government shutdown costs 24 Billion, but 24 Billion is great for that cause, feeding children who through no fault of their own were born into poverty for 364 days is bad though.

It's weird.

Only for a sociopath, and only for them if they get away with it, and only when viewed within the context of the act and not within the context of their brain condition.

There are very few actual sociopaths even among rapists, damaged people yes, but not true sociopaths as in that part of their brain does not work.

So no, even for the person committing the rape, even in that moment, it is not good for the one committing the rape.

But all of that is a singular example and even if your example could be proven true, it would not prove the overall ideal that absolutes do not exist.

Absolutes exist. Whether we have the tools to understand what those absolutes are is debatable, but their existence cannot be debated.

You're missing the point.

It doesn't matter whether you are right or wrong about something which you think may or may not be an absolute, for there to be existence at all, somethings must be absolutes.

The only way for absolutes to not exist is if there is not existence.

There is existence so absolutes must exist.

To clarify I'm agreeing with you, but I have to do this:

I don't really think it contributes to violence.

So far so good.

It all depends on the game that you play and who the person is playing it.

So if it depends on factors, regardless of what those factors are, then you are contradicting your opening statement. Your opening statement would be. "Yes, for some people it does and these are the factors."

I know I have play violent video games but I am not a violent person.

And this would be a descent example (despite that singular experiences are generally not a great supporting argument for any type of broad point). If you were to continue with "But for some with violent tendencies violent video games may contribute to acting out on those impulses."

This actually would have been and excellently stated argument on <--------- That side.

Had that been the case I'd have argued that simply:

1. I don't believe that media is a trigger for violence, but that violent people will become violent eventually based on one thing or another. Violent Amish would become so without video games, they may then in retrospect (or those around them may in retrospect) come up with some reasoning behind it, but I believe it would not change the end result.

2. Should it be the case that violence in any media truly did contribute to increased violence (I completely accept that as a possibility and should proof be provided I'd be forced to change my stance there) I still do not feel that a character flaw in some is reason enough to deprive a vast majority in this case.

When has this happened ?

"nothing is absolute"

Is an absolute.

Absolutes not existing is self-contradictory. Self-contradictory things cannot exist (even with a time machine).

This is one of the few examples of an argument which can be proven beyond any doubt to be incorrect. It is hard to come up with an argument like that, so congrats on that.

No, two is not a concept created by man, it is a descriptive term to define a thing which exists. The number 2 exists, we name it 2, we did not create 2. If the universe were void of any type of intelligent life at all 2 would still exist.

Your argument is that you can call numbers different things, which is fine. There is no reason we could not call "2" "hippopotamus"

Okay Johnny, show us how you count to 5

1, hippopotamus, 3, 4, 5

Yay, you did it! claps all around

but it still represents a real thing that exists.

Now, could humans be wrong about things like 2?

Sure. As long as some thing is not self-defined and does not create any self-contradictions, there is a chance.

But to what extent we allow those things to cloud debate matters.

If you are arguing something as basic as whether or not 2 exists (not you personally I understand you are just making a point), there really is not reason to debate anything at all. All things are dependent on point of view and therefore nothing ever anywhere can ever be defined no matter the argument.

It's an interesting brain exercise to consider concepts like this,

A bit useless in debate though,

And when applied to social interactions, public policies, humans in general, it's a recipe for disaster.

I'm a Progressive Liberal for the most part so it's pretty clear to me that 24>3. But maybe some Conservative Tea Party type can explain how in fact no 3>24.

(er, sorry... > means greater than. < means less than. They teach you that in one of those liberal schools what with the book lernin's and calclaters)

The expectations is of increased employment via bureaucracy and steady inflation. Historically that has never actually happened (Bubble after bubble.)

It has nothing to do with increased employment at all. It is about better care for a better price, which would decrease inflation not increase it. I'm not sure what you are comparing the ACA to, but if you are comparing it to similar social programs across the globe, or social programs in the U.S. currently, none have ever caused a single bubble of any sort ever. You are confusing a generalized (and quite faulty I'd argue) theory that ALL and ANY government automatically no matter what is more expensive and less efficient than private services doing the exact same thing. That's not true at all anyway, but even if that is your assumption here, it is not a fair comparison because private insurance is still available. If you have private insurance the ONLY difference is that your premiums will go down because more people will be paying in and fewer people will be showing up to the emergency room with no insurance whatsoever.

Obamacare isn't a new water-heater that has been verified by reputable consumer advocates. It is not voluntary (referencing towards your mortgage idea, which comes with a non-coerced contract and agreed upon ramifications. If the contract gives full rights of the water-heater to the bank that owns the house, the owner is liable if they give up mortgage payments for that reason. paying for Obamacare is not the same thing in anyway possible. you basically made a terrible analogy...)

Obamacare has been verified by reputable consumers in Massachusetts and in every other first world country on the globe. All similar programs have provided better care for less money, every single one. There has never in the history of the world been any instance of a privatized system being less expensive or offering better care.

Again, you are operating under the wrong assumption that all government programs are less efficient than any private program. It's a theory, and one which has been shown to be untrue time and time again. You treat it like proven fact, but it is simply incorrect. The underlying very core of this entire view of public vs private is fundamentally flawed. Your theory is wrong when put into practice in the real world.

That said the water heater analogy is perfect. Congress based on something already bought, paid for, voted for twice, and upheld in the Supreme Court, decided they wanted to shutdown the entire government.

fighting back against government takeover.

Not a government takeover. There has been and will be no government takeover.

The shutdown is bullshit because it will eventually end and not that much money will have been saved.

It is bullshit, but 0 money is saved. I'm not sure where you heard any money would be saved. It cost 24 Billion. Shutting down the government, refusing a range of services, putting people out of work cost more money than had they kept all of that stuff open and all of those people employed.