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/
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.
"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.
It cost 24 Billion dollars and 300,000 to 800,000 thousand people weren't able to work for 2 weeks, which is a big deal for like 95% of families. Our credit rating was hurt despite just barely enough republicans not committing suicide at the last second, and that may well still have lingering affects on borrowing rates for new businesses, buying a home, etc.
Unless you are squatting on a piece of property out in the woods with no schools, roads, or commerce of any type within a hundred miles of you, it was something of a deal. If you actually cared about deficit and were not just a far right misguided mouthpiece, this would have been a huge deal.
By leaders, let's be clear, the tea party.
Basically they said "Since you bought this new more efficient water heater that is going to save us thousands over the lifetime of this home, but it cost 20% more than the junk water heater we have now that is leaking money worse than it's leaking water... WE'RE NOT PAYING OUR MORTGAGE ANYMORE!"
That's what happened.
Our debt is less than our GDP. Of all of the civilized countries on earth, as a percent the U.S. has among the lowest debts. Bad credit is more harmful both long term and short term. It's just a big scary number some politicians use to push through stupid cuts and stir fear among their followers.
If a specific church doesn't meet the standard of a charitable non-profit yes, so I imagine yes, the vast majority of religions should be paying taxes. They for the most part are not harmless organization there for the well-being of humanity, most are into the business of manipulating people to stir up emotion to make money.
You are seriously saying that 9/11 is Bush's fault? Wow, I was under the impression that it was Osama's fault. But hey he's not a republican so lets not blame him. Every time people like you say things like that Osama wins.
I know, reading comprehension is bitch. Ignoring the memo that said Osama was determined to attack was Bush's fault.
"We could very well have Universal Healthcare by now."
And that would be a good thing? No.
I'm not sure how entrenched in right wing media you are, but if you pull your head out of that smelly ass for a moment you can look at every country with similar systems to the one adopted, and every country without. Those with a for-profit health system pay more for worse care. Those with a form of Universal Healthcare pay less money for better care. Those are just the facts. It works better.
"The entire world would not think we're a bunch of arrogant assholes."
False, I hate when people say that. It is so untrue. And I'm not talking about the world wide Obama mania, That is love for him not America. Which I find very strange. Maybe it's because he's not white.
Iraq was an arrogant asshole move. We had inspectors from around the world telling us there were no WMDs but we ignored it because they aren't american. The war wasn't even 1/3 of the way over and Bush flew onto a battleship in a fucking halloween costume talking about victory. There was no exit plan, there was no strategy for helping the country after we ripped it apart, we went in there, took a shit, and didn't clean it up... and there was not even a reason to be there to start with.
But that's only part of it. The other part is the flag waving, freedom fries, all of that bullshit from people on the right almost entirely who equate patriotism with hatred for stuff not like them. All muslims are terrorists--well so what 1/3 of the earth's population is a terrorist? If you don't call it Christmas you hate america. WTF does christmas have to do with any free country on earth? If you think science is a good idea your the stupid one. If you think a cleaner more pleasant environment would be a good thing you're a pussy. If you think gay people should have the exact same constitutional rights as everyone else you must be a fag sinner god-hater and of course being a fag sinner means you are unamerican.
So yeah, Bush and the right wing did, have in the past even before then, and the tiny tea party faction is doing so again, leading america down paths which appear to all sane outsiders as arrogant assholes, and usually stupid arrogant assholes.
There are about 10^24 stars in the Universe.... or 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
(By comparison there are only 10^23 grains of sand on planet earth).
Even if the chances of all of the conditions to support life being present is like a one in a million trillion,
that would mean billions upon billions of extraterrestrials are out there.
I'll bet the chances are a whole lot better that a planet can support some kind of life, just seems logical. It's not that hard to support life, life's resilient.
Has one of them found this drop of water in the ocean?
No, probably not. Might never. Which is why we should quit fucking around, invest in some Star Trek shit, and find them.
If still in high school, two year difference. Once graduated from high school, only others who have graduated from high school.
I have spoken. So it shall be.
Really, it's hard to draw a hard line because situations vary so much and mindset at that age can range from damn-near-adult to quite childish.
What I do know is a high school kid being labeled, for life, a sexual predator because he/she had consensual sex with a Junior they took to prom is utterly bogus, but at the same time, a Senior having sex with a Freshman say, may indicate predatory behavior.
So a line should be drawn somewhere, and judges should use some critical thinking in sentencing. I think my suggestion is a good start.
These goods and services are not created, they are simply transferred to from private funds to so called public funds. This is what taxation is, the expropriation of property to the state.
That is not true at all. A road, a school, a military are all real things. Your theory demands that you pretend these real things are fake. Which is one of the many basic and huge problems with this theory.
How does one earn it if it was never their money to begin with? It is not their money because how they obtained it was through violence and coercion rather than voluntary exchange.
I've not been held up by a postal worker or anyone paving a road, or by a teacher. This is just demonization of a group of people providing a service.
No money is "their" money until it is earned, but upon being earned it is then their money. You can argue that fact until you are blue in the face, but you will not win that argument.
In reality, government simply has NO FUNDS without private businesses, WHO PRODUCE goods and services without expropriation and voluntary exchange. Private business is the reason for the increase in the standard of living, not government. Government only decreases the standard of living.
And private business cannot prosper without a government to allow them to. It is a symbiotic relationship in between the two.
Wow, you are the dumbest MOFO on this site.
At this point its pretty evident I'm one of the smartest. And extremely evident that you are one of the least equipped to have any sort of debate outside of your very narrow and incorrect Libertarian economic theories. I will admit you have the weird and horribly flawed extreme Libertarian economic talking points memorized well, but really, you are horrible whenever you need to go outside of that narrow area.
So are we done? Because I have a lot of mama jokes too.
Suggesting McDonald's or Google build roads. Seriously, not sure if you know this, but PRIVATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES ALREADY BUILD ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES, it is merely funded by government.
You were the one suggesting they build roads. I suggest government should continue to, well to fund the building of roads by private companies as you point out (thought that went without saying, but okay).
The improvement would be competition in the financial and engineering of roads using their own funds. This would be investment because competing companies would striving for the best road surface and traffic. Government is not investment, it is spending.
Great, they should compete for who can build the best, safest, most efficient roads. Who's going to pay them though?
I am sure that the Romans said the same exact thing with regards to their military. Central planners always make claims that are unprovable especially when there is no tangible way to measure. This great central planning can start by counting the bodies of unconstitutional wars and drone strikes.
Meh, I see nothing inherently less constitutional about drone strikes than say, sending in a bunch of marines on foot. Same results, except maybe less dead marines. Whether the attack is constitutional you may have a point, but that's something which has been going on for decades now (wars without declaration of war, etc, though I think we did declare war in this case, but not in Pakistan if that is the point, but against Al-Quada... you see how it can get fuzzy).
Broad assertions of constitutionality aside, and vague innuendos about Romans aside, what point precisely are you trying to make? I mean, pretty speech but what's your point? Like do you feel the Romans didn't really have the best plumbing around for the time, that that centrally planned marvel was a lie? Be precise.
What? Are you serious? Health care costs are not going down since parts of the plan have been implemented. Costs
The Blaze is a joke. Like all of your sources.
Here are the real numbers. Actual numbers. http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/29/news/
The problem with claiming that 100 free market health care system is horrible at providing healthcare and cost way more is an false assertion because the system has never been free market, it is been intervened by the government since day ONE.
The only government intervention in healthcare has been failed attempts at breaking up monopolies in the industry and trying to get drug companies to stop selling drugs that kill as many people as they help. Government has done very little in the way of overseeing the health industry, and that has been part of the problem. The fact is, the fact now you can look it up, the more free market the healthcare system, the more it costs and the less effective it is, the closer it is to a single-payer government run system, the less it costs and the more effective it is.
That's just a fact. You can make all of the excuses for why that is, but that's the fact.
Well yeah, it's not a "ra-ra" for Christians, its a manipulation of Christians, which is what I'm pointing out.
He gives no directions there as to how a Christian should or should not act, nothing at all pertaining to any differences there may or may not be between being "religious" vs. "Christ-like" as you put it, just a perpetuation of current beliefs and a reminder that if they do not continue to believe hell or whatever awaits.
If you were "christ-like" or "zen" or something I suppose you might interpret that passage as meaning that Christians should quit caring what non-christians believe because, really in the end how you act is more important. But that would be ignoring contradictions in the passage itself and would be quite a stretch. Plus it would not be Christianity, so had it ever said that it would have been changed upon translation.
but I'd rather talk about the bullshit remark really, because that's by far the most important part, and what follows in your reply.
Do you deny that if a hell and a heaven existed, and that if there were an all powerful being, that should that all powerful being judge us mere pathetic mortals based on whether we believe this or that story which we have no proof of, over say, how you treat your neighbor, that it would not be bullshit?
What if you had a co-worker who was lazy, stole from the company, didn't flush the toilet after use, and treated other customers and co-workers like crap. And you have been working for the company for as decade, perfect attendance, never late, almost always give 100%, nice to everyone, and are frankly better at the job. But it's time for a promotion and the lazy, rude, mean bastard gets promoted and the boss says it's because he believes in Big Foot and you don't and the boss happens to be one of those Big Foot enthusiasts?
That is the exact god described by Christians.
You'd not worship that boss. You'd say "this is bullshit."
The assumption here is one of the various Judeo-Christian religions is magically somehow correct right?
Which means there would be a vengeful god who judges based on belief instead of action and who allows all sorts of evils to befall innocent small mortals of all sorts.
In which case I'd not want to be close to this god.
Naturally depending on the severity of not being in heaven, it may be difficult to withstand the evil tortures this tyrant god has devised,
but if within reason, I'd choose not to go.
Don't get me wrong, driving drunk is not a good idea,
But barely over the limit for most is not enough to impair driving to any serious degree, the laws are made more serious than necessary to discourage any drinking at all. Which to an extent I agree is probably a good idea.
Texting on the other hand is incredibly distracting. Even if you are good enough to do it with one hand and without looking, it is taking up at least half your attention.
1 Corinthians 15:14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile;
So this is basically a literary device. I'm not sure what a better translation would be from the original, I suspect more straight forward. But it is as said above, if Jesus was raised from the dead Christianity is legit, if not it's not legit. The purpose of the phrasing is to lull the reader so that they are only partially aware during the next section and thus more susceptible to believing without question.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
The premise here is that if Jesus was not raised from the dead, you, me, everyone is evil. You can live your life for charity, never commit a sin ever, yet by virtue of you being alive you are a "sinner"--which is bullshit. None of us have a choice in being born, and none have control over whether Jesus was raised or not raised or was crucified or ever even existed. It's nothing to do with us alive now. Yet the writer wants you to believe that you are bad if this person was not raised from the dead. We don't want to be damned, so "you better believe this fantastic story!"
The hope is that you will accept being judged by something out of your control, that is the entire point. Its a setup to get you to that point mentally. Whether Christ was raised or not is now the determining factor, instead of being judged by your actions, and the phrasing prior to this part lets that odd and counter-intuitive thought slip into a part of your conscious.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
This is just telling you, it's okay, since this thing you now want to believe is definitely true, because I say it's true, you can get that warm fuzzy feeling in your tummy the religious crave like crack.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
There is nothing inherent about any single statement here, but it is strung together as if 1+1=2 therefore 2-1=1. If resurrection were possible, it would not necessarily have to "come through man," Adam dying is a Red Herring, and in turn "so in Christ all will be made alive" is a deductive fallacy or false conclusion.
23 But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him.
This could be interpreted as just the conclusion, but as you see there is more to the preceding sections than just this. I believe the real point of the reiteration and putting an order to the madness -- Jesus first, then the first fruits, then the believers -- it distracts readers from any critical thinking about the preceding sentence, which is essential because as we see the preceding sentence is seriously flawed in terms of logic, even for one who truly believes the story of Jesus.
Basically if Christ just died and didn't rise again, Christians are screwed. However if he did rise again, all others have something to think about.
This is the conclusion ideally the masses would come to, since most do not want to wade through the complexity of the actual wording. The prior wording, and indoctrination, is what makes such a far-fetched myth palatable to so many however. There is quite a bit more to it than that simple conclusion.
More nefarious in my opinion.
Federal employees don't pay taxes, that is impossible. In order to be a taxpayer, good and services need to be created, they are tax consumers.
Goods and services are created. They fill out W2s like every other worker. They earn money, earn it, by working, and a percent is then contributed to the society which benefits and allows for our particular economic system. Your premise assumes that the money they are paid is not theirs by virtue of whom they work for. That is incorrect. Once the work is done they are owed that money. Any money they pay back is theirs, hence, they pay taxes.
Actually, if they didn't exist, there would be suddenly more money. Rather than consume resources with government, this money would be used in savings and investment to produce. Private business could thrive, remember private business pays the bills of government, not the other way around as you suggest.
That's incorrect of course, as we see any time power is shifted away from the people (government in a representative republic) and back to the few with the most resources. Every time this happens in the history of the world, it leads to greater gaps in wealth and less freedoms financially initially and eventually less social freedoms for the many. Never has the economic theory you base all arguments on as if it were scripture, ever worked. It's a cute theory, but it doesn't work in real life.
In reality private businesses need government to provide services which they on their own cannot, roads, military, police, schools to educate a workforce for them, and today since we do not enforce a fair minimum wage and other common-sense laws, a social net to help their lower paid workers eat and have shelter. That's only part of it. Without government everyone's standard of living decreases, all businesses make less money, all workers make less.
Really, 40,000 people die every year using government highways and roads.
What's the alternative? Is McDonalds going to start building better and safer roads? Is Google? The ironic thing here is that it is exactly those who hold your odd paranoia about our shared government who are dead-against measures to make those highways safer like lowered speed limits, repaved roads, added lanes, etc. On the one hand if this debate were "should we invest in better roads" you'd be complaining about wasting money blah blah let a private company build the roads, or whatever. But when that is not the complaint you shift to "See, these roads are unsafe, that proves government is bad!" On the one hand you won't let us, the people, make things safer, then you use it being unsafe to support your misguided theory.
The United States military is an imperialist war machine fueled by the military industrial complex.
Agreed. But it is still the best in the history of the world, and therefore supports my point.
Delaying the individual mandate until 2015 is self evident how great central planning will be.
You are misusing the word self-evident.
I think though that the fact that in the U.S. we pay the most per capita for health insurance by almost double, yet have the worst healthcare of any industrialized nation and many 2nd-world countries, highlights what a miserable failure allowing insurance to base a necessity, health, on a greed-based economic model is.
You see it already. Health costs have already gone down since parts of the plan have been implemented. And just like every other country with a similar plan, as more of it is implemented costs will go down further and actual care will improve.
The problem is the only examples of a 100% free-market system concerning healthcare are all horrible at providing health care and cost way more money. Every single one.
In real life, once again, your theory does not hold true.
Federal employees pay taxes, provide essential services, and take up less of the social safety net than private workers due to better pay and better benefits.
If they did not exist private workers would not suddenly and magically have more money. They'd in fact have less because the social constructs only societies and not private businesses can create, would crumble.
And central planning can and does work often. For example our highway system and our military. Both the greatest the world has ever seen in their categories, both centrally planned.
No money-based independent system of competition has ever created something so beneficial to so many citizens and businesses, private or public.
Our nature is inclusion and as a pack animal. We've defined this as good, for all the good our definitions are I suppose.
As stated by others, those things we humans do outside of that nature is learned and not inherent.
We are more than not, our definition of good.
Right. But like I found this really old spaghetti sauce and so obviously the only explanation is the Flying Spaghetti monster pooped it.
I mean, what other possible explanation for old spaghetti sauce could there be?
Certainly no more explanations than where a piece of fucking wood might have come from.
No, as he says in the video, as a federal employee he has excellent healthcare and the plan is designed for those who either do not have healthcare or cannot get affordable healthcare.
An exact quote, the actual point of what he says outside of Fox spin, "If I'm an individual who does not have affordable coverage or am unhappy with my coverage, then it's my understanding the exchanges would offer a competitive alternative to look at..."
It's a pro-obamacare statement, not negative at all. That is precisely how the plan is meant to work.
The premise is incorrect. As anyone who wants to bother researching the bill outside of Fox fantasy land will quickly find, no one anywhere is forced to switch healthcare providers, insurances, or doctors if they do not want to.
When the specifics of the bill are surveyed, even republicans in fair majorities support the bill, it is not until you call it Obamacare do the sadly misinformed right wing drones suddenly become fearful and paranoid--specifically due to the continued misinformation campaign represented in this debate.
Truthfully, I don't think Hillary would win because of the stain of these recent scandals, but its up in the air. The Republicans can field a good group the next round, with Rand Paul and the Latino guy (I forget his name)
Every poll left right and center puts Hilary 20-30 points higher than any republican accept Christie, who falls only 10-15 points behind Hilary. People are tired of Republicans. Their fantasy-based hatred for Obama and obstructionism is backfiring among all but the most deeply steeped in right-wing paranoia radio and Fox News.
However, we also might see a surge of Libertarian candidates winning elections, so that might split the Republicans and Democrats and make a tri-party system.
Libertarians are only popular when they are complaining. They are great at talking about how everyone else is lazy, or hates America, or is unconstitutional, or whatever the flavor of the week happens to be. Again and again in national elections they garner a whopping 5-12% of the national vote. They can win sometimes locally in rural gerrymandered districts, or even States when they come in as a third party and split up the vote, but not nationally. You can't win nationally unless you stand for something, not just against everything. Waiving the flag and screaming "constitution" isn't enough.
A second civil war, I think, is inevitable and is needed.
No war is inevitable, and rarely is war needed. A civil war in the richest and most privileged country in the world least of all. The notion is silly at best.
South Carolina (they started it the first time and never forgot it), Texas (for obvious reasons), and Wyoming/Montana.
Those are four purple states that will be Democratic, not Republican nor Libertarian, within a decade or two.
Most of the South and Midwest will follow suit.
Not a majority of a single state would support the idea, the percents in the Midwest would be so small as to be laughable.
It would be a two front war. The thing the breakaway states would have is more supplies in food, manufacturing, and trade.
No they wouldn't. CA is the tenth largest economy in the world by itself and poised to pass Brazil and Italy soon. The people who own the manufacturing and food in the states you mistakenly believe share your odd paranoia about the United States as a country, sell that stuff primarily to the very States you seem to think would suddenly be starving and defenseless. They would not support their self-destruction financially, much less risk the inevitable death or imprisonment such a silly an pointless uprising would lead to.
They would have a smaller population, but that population is more heavily armed...
Not compared to the United States military, whom would be the ones to squash your band of merry wood-dwellers, if it were not handled by local law enforcement first, which is far more likely. Pretending neither police nor military existed however, we've been through this before and today the population is even more skewed on the side of the north. You mistake most choosing not to have guns for an unwillingness to get and use one should the need arise.
I don't think it would be just a war of civil liberties, but also state rights. Just without the slaves as an excuse to invade.
The south started that war, slaves were not "used and an excuse to invade." Though that would be a good enough excuse. The core problem with this imaginative and fanciful argument is that, in fact, today states and individuals have no less rights than a decade, or two decades, or five decades ago. In fact, people have more rights.
I've put this theory forth in a number of religious debates when it inevitably degenerates into, "You don't know, we had to come from somewhere so there has to be a god."
I have believed eternity is the natural "state of being" for a long time now, and believe I can put forth sort of a Socratic cerebral proof:
Characters:
Antagonist
Protagonist
moderator
Have you ever seen anything truly "begin"?
Yes, a child is born, that is the beginning.
But you accept the child came from somewhere?
Yes, it came from the joining of a sperm and an egg.
So the birth was not the beginning. But there was a beginning and that is to say, it began with a sperm and an egg. But from where did the sperm and the egg begin.
Well they began from a male and female who made them.
And how were they made? What was their beginning?
... and so on.
Okay so the beginning was when life began. Where did this life come from?
Well, it was made from things that were here, splitting and combining various non-living cells until something life-like was formed, and becoming more complex until you have what we consider life
Very well, so it started then with non-living "stuff" and that was the beginning, but from where did that "stuff" come from?
From there you can go to the formation of the earth, solar system, universe, and each is made from something which existed. You may even insert god if you wish and the equation is the same, simply with another factor (I argue an unnecessary and false factor).
This will lead to "We don't know but I believe..." which is fine, it should lead here.
So we agree that we do not know, but of everything we have knowledge of, we see that everything observed in fact did not begin. Putting aside whether there was a beginning we can agree at least that if there were a beginning it is unknown. Do you believe that if something is created it can be destroyed?
Logically yes. If something is created it by definition also must have the capacity to go back to its original state, that being non-existence.
So if it has a beginning it must have an end. Have you ever observed anything end?
Yes, things die all the time, that is an end
I see, so their bones, skin, etc no longer exists?
Well no, but it is no longer what it was, it is cremated or it biodegrades
So it's still there just something else. Does that ash, soil, etc. end? Does it cease to exist?
No, the "stuff" is still there, but it is not longer us, we've ended.
Ended, but not ceased to have existed as all of the stuff which made us is still there in one form or another correct?
As with questions about the beginning, this leads anyone, even if god is inserted, to conclude that yes, they have never observed an ending to anything.
The question becomes, if you've never observed a beginning, can give no example of it, yet still insist something must have begun somewhere, why then can you not also point to an ending?
There is no observable, theorized, even conceivable beginning -- literally the human mind is incapable of imagining actual "nothingness" (darkness perhaps, but not nothingness) -- this by itself may be attributed to some quirk of our nature or a lack of understanding of the Universe, that's fair enough, but when coupled with the fact that we also cannot observe, theorize, or really even conceive a state of actual complete ending, it becomes more than a coincidence I think.
If things began we'd observe them end. We cannot. Therefore I believe beginning and ending is a trick of a consciousness that becomes self-aware and understands it will cease at some point to be aware, and so projects that feature of itself onto all things, when the reality is that all the things, the stuff, which makes us conscious for a time, has always existed and will always exist, just like everything, whether we are conscious to observe it or not.
Saving the "weak" has benefited us. Survival of the fittest has more to do with random circumstance than who is bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter. There is value in the gene pool of even the "weak" and saving them allows us to benefit from that value.
The premise is incorrect however. We are a slave to evolution. Even if we build computers to incubate superhumans who were never even conceived the "natural way," it would still only be because we've evolved to do so.
That we are more likely to save the "weak" among us is a result of evolution, not contradictory to it. And other animals do it as well as humans quite often, we are not the only ones.
And I would argue it does not matter how they would vote because some rights are and should be guaranteed on a national level. And I'd not be so confident at least a few would force that child to have a child whist waiving flag and cross. I do not trust them to be level-headed.
There is no southern nation. There are southern states within the United States however, and I do not condemn any of them. The confederate flag represents a failed coup, one which was sold as State's rights to an undereducated population, but which really represented defending the right of an elite few to continue to enslave a group of people. Waving a confederate flag in the United States is no more patriotic nor representative of a heritage than if one were to waive a Nazi flag, or a Soviet flag while yelling communism will rise again!
Southern states by average have the lowest standard of living of any geographic area in the U.S., the biggest gap in between rich and poor, the most cases of racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious discrimination, and are the most likely to reject any effort within the various states to turn any of these statistics around because any politician, activist, or religious leader who does bring attention to these very real problems more common in the south than anywhere else in the nation, will be labeled as not appreciating southern "heritage" -- a modern carpet bagger whether liberal, libertarian, or moderate conservative. That silly flag represents that today, and there is a direct line from the failed coup of 1861 and the "state's rights" branding the elite put on the underlying racism, and the "heritage" branding which covers the combination of racism, classism, and anti-progression which continues to hold back those various geographic areas.
People liking that silly flag affects me no more than misguided neo-nazis wearing swastikas. If a skin head tells me that they don't hate, they just think "races" should be separated, it sounds no more enlightened to me than when someone tries to explain "the confederate flag isn't racist it's just pride in the southern heritage."
What heritage is the question?
The assumption seems consistent; the religious believe those who do not believe must believe so from a lack of knowledge about the various superstitions of whichever particular religion they are representing.
In fact though I find the opposite to be true. Atheists being less than 20% of the population, and the religious by percentage reproducing in greater numbers than atheists, at the same time the number of atheists increasing necessarily means that most atheists were once religious.
Myself included, by no choice of my own, indoctrination the culprit in my case.
That you are aware that Corinthians is a series of letters in no way diminishes my case that the stance that any god would judge man so harshly is tyrannical. And that that only logical conclusion when one removes themselves from the religion itself, which can be arrived at based on the various silly posts I've replied to, is that this christian god is not good at all, quite evil.
If your argument is that this god has been misrepresented I respect your stance and wish you'd dispute with those misrepresenting you god instead of quoting Bible minutia to me that I am both aware of and indifferent about.
AP Wiretaps - They had subpoenas. It was part of an "investigation" into a failed terrorist attack according to the Justice Department--which is a separate branch of government. I personally am against this. It is part of the Patriot Act which was only partially repealed, but it is not illegal, and you'd need to "impeach" the judges which granted the subpoenas if it were, obviously. It will not stop feeding frenzy on the right who, if those wires weren't tapped would have just pretended they were. But for level heads we should keep the story straight at least.
IRS Scandal - This one was hilarious to me, but probably not a good idea for the IRS. The real scandal is that these political organizations, right, left or in the middle, are allowed to even file to be tax exempt. It's retarded. They should pay taxes and so should religious groups while we're at it. Anyone with an obvious ideological or political motive that has nothing to do with charity should pay the same taxes as any other organization.
That's the real scandal. But yeah, it was a bully move picking on the dumb tea party. I mean, I'd do the same if I were given my job by a guy and then a bunch of people started making up lies about him and stirring up hatred, I get why they did it from a human aspect, but bad idea none-the-less.
To keep it in perspective though, the average for being granted tax-exempt status is 9 months, and a handful of these crazy fringe groups had to wait 11-22 months. They were targeted for extra scrutiny, they were not forced to pay more taxes or rejected without legal reasons any group would be rejected for. No laws were broken, and this one literally had nothing to do with president, so I'm not even sure the House of Representatives would be able to spin it into an impeachable offense.
Benghazi - This is just a silly witch hunt.
The most important element of that entire story is that Congress recently had cut funding for security for all ambassadors, no crazy outrage over that, but I guess people can't really dislike Congress any more than they already do.
---
None of these things are impeachable, or really even traceable to the president. It doesn't look good, but it's not criminal activity.
But then again neither is getting a blow job, so who knows. The House will probably try to impeach him.
Comparing any of this to lying to the American people in order to start a war where hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die and thousands of Americans and our allies die is just retarded. And let's remember, Bush was not impeached.
---
All of that is a distraction to the real issue that Congress refuses to vote on fixing the sequester in order to save potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs, feed hungry kids, and fund head start programs,
but they are about to take their 47th vote to repeal Obama Care.
That's the fucking scandal.
To clarify I don't like how marijuana makes me feel, so I've not used it more than a dozen times at most, and that when I was young party animal. I prefer alcohol even though it is actually worse for me.
Marijuana can damage brain function though, well chemicals in it, in extreme cases of over-use or specifically over-use while the brain is still developing.
That could be said for hanging out in freshly painted homes for hours a day and inhaling deeply, or if one were to spend hours a day playing with cement glue.
Again, cancer is uncontrollable, pregnancy and sex is controllable. How many times do we have to go over this? Never claimed that majority is the basis for what should and should not be covered. What does determine coverage is risk and uncertainty.
I don't need to prove cancer is controllable, I only need to prove anything under the sun any insurance covers is controllable. Anything.
And I've done that. A cold. A flu. Chicken pox with a vaccine "well you didn't get the vaccine, that was your choice so no insurance isn't going to cover medicine for your chicken pox."
You are holding one thing that you don't like others having, sex, to a higher standard based on, in your case I'm guessing from your weird negative view that everyone is always out for themself and so let it all burn (libertarian),
you want to punish them.
Well, they shouldn't be punished.
Get over it.
Responsibility usually comes when people take accountability for their decisons such as paying for abortions out of their pocket or raising children.
And making them pay for flu shots out of pocket will teach those bastards to wash their hands!
Same thing.
Actually, abortion is an act of irresponsibility because of lack of protection or respect for the act of sex.
Unless the condom broke, or they were raped, or the pill didn't work, or they timed it wrong, or there is a problem with the pregnancy and abortion is a medical necessity,
There are a million "unlesses" and as much hatred as you have for people in general and how much you want them to suffer personally because everyone except for you is irresponsible and everything is their fault no matter what,
The real fact is outside of that dark philosophical corner is that there are a million scenarios where abortion is not irresponsible, arguments for abortion being responsible are just as strong as any arguments against, and what circumstances lead to the abortion are none of your business
(which if "libertarian" was not just a hypocritical neo-conservative Atlas Shrug set of philosophies based on disproven economic theories and ways of getting masses to fall for those disproven theories)
would be self-evident.
I digress.
The point is, it is not irresponsible in every case. No more than a broken leg is always irresponsible in every case. Sometimes it might be, sometimes it is not,
but they pay for the insurance so the abortion should be available as well as the cast.
The children are just victims to dependency. Charity can always fill the void to help those in extreme circumstances.
That's just stupid. If a woman has insurance she has a job, hence your hateful dependency arguments, which are complete bs anyway, have nothing to do with the argument.
You want to put people who get abortions in this box, where they are all irresponsible jobless hobos.
Ignoring that irresponsible jobless hobos should be the exact people you should encourage abortions for, it's not true. They are paying for insurance.
They are not irresponsible jobless hobos any more than the person who has their dental checkup covered by their insurance.
And charity has nothing to do with this argument at all. That's just some of your hatred for any social program that helps people pouring into an unrelated debate.
Insurance is only overpriced because of government constant intervention invoking mandates forcing people to pay coverage of things that dont limit risk and uncertainty.
That also is not true, again, as we see in real life outside of these disproven theories, because we currently have the least regulation and the most expensive and one of the worst insurance systems in the world. Every system with more government control than we currently have has better insurance and it is also more affordable insurance.
So cute as those theories are, they don't work. Time to put them to rest with theories like the earth is flat and sky has holes in it.
1. I wasn't trying to prove she had awareness.
Then there was no reason to mention it.
but that's not the truth of why you mentioned it. You mentioned it because you were attempting to compare a fetus, in which these parts do not exist, to an unconscious person, whom does have these parts.
You changed your mind after I explained the difference, so okay we've put the "abortion is same as killing someone in a coma" retarded debate. Glad that's over.
My wife had no sign of any higher brain function for the most part of her (3 week long) coma.
Damn, I thought we were done with this.
Okay, so you didn't see signs, but did an MRI show little flashes of activity? Did the doctors say she would regain consciousness?
If my argument is that the difference is the existence of these parts of the brain and the possibility of consciousness, and my argument is that prior to the existence of these parts abortion is okay and post only should be done in extreme circumstances,
you do see that your argument is a strawman right?
Indeed the entire line of arguments you and that silly kid keep bugging me with are as you say, red herrings.
So copy and paste that argument under her silly drivel, you lunatics only listen to one another anyway.
They are not required for a human being to qualify for the equal protections of our laws.
Legally, yes they are.
You are working under the incorrect notion that the law protects those without a consciousness and without self-awareness. This is incorrect. You are wrong. Why you keep arguing this is a mystery.
- I already proven with obvious facts that both kinds of patients do not have any consciousness of their surroundings, much less their own self. You however has yet to prove your claim that: "The mentally ill and people in comas do have a degree of awareness."
You did not. And had you it still would not help your argument in any way.
- My good sir, the article gave their sources and I would love to hear your evidences that Dr Kazuyuki Shinorhara was a psuedo scientist
Also, you merely called it "happy hormones" but lets be honest, whats the difference between calling it as "Emotion" and calling it "Hormones at work"?
Both cases are the same, only in different languages
Again, inconsequential to the debate. It's a theme of yours. But the "science" in that article is not science, it's a propaganda piece with no backing outside of anti-choice nut's fairytale about conscious fetuses.
-correction, freedom to murder
It does not correlate because murder has a victim and abortion does not.
- please sir, dont create lies. What I said was:
"Lets not beat around the bush and please tell me what is a necessity to be a human.
Is it conciousness? If so, then are mentally illed, or people in coma considered as an animal?"(look it up if you doubt me)
Your argument that the mentally ill and the retarded do not have self-awareness pretty much proves that you are not equipped to handle any sort of debate nor tying your shoes. It's stupid and wrong, and even if it were correct would not support your case in any way whatsoever. Even if it were true that that mentally ill and the retarded were not self aware, to be clear they are self aware, but even if they were not it would not have anything at all to do with abortion. Nothing. Not a thing.
-My good sir, just what part of Wikipedia is a red herring?
Ugh.
A red herring is a distraction from a debate that has nothing to do with the debate but is stated in a way as if it does.
Whether the mentally ill have self-awareness is a red herring to the abortion debate.
A stupid red herring because it does not even support your case in any imaginable way,
but a red herring none the less.
- Sir, did you read it?
The article showed completely when and how a babies senses develop and it examines the babies psychology and how the emotions of the mother affects them.
A baby knows if the mother is happy, a baby knows if its not wanted. What is not being self aware in it?
No, it doesn't show that at all. It doesn't even attempt to show that.
You do not understand the article you linked.
You didn't get it.
It was too hard for you to understand.
You projected your belief about abortion on to an article not related to self-awareness of a fetus.
I tried to explain to you what the article was saying,
but you still do not understand because you are not very smart...
bordering on retarded some may say and I say this only to point out the irony that
You insist one who is retarded is not self-aware so by your arguments you would not be self-aware yourself.
Which still has nothing to do with abortion but is funny.
Okay.
But still not as important as air, water, and shelter.
Hence not "the greatest needs."
I just feel the way we use language is important. You meant to say the three greatest educational needs perhaps...
Even then, reading, writing, and arithmetic are still more important.
The irony of a debate about the importance of communication while mis-communicating the argument's premise does not escape me however.
No, I'm talking about the inevitable result of libertarian theories of role of government.
If a business for example makes the calculation that 1% of people who take this drug will definitely die from it, but the other 99% will pay X amount which is more than they would make if that 1% lived to buy more.
The libertarian ideology says, "oh no, that could never happen because people will just not buy it." Or the real anti-government ones say really dumb stuff like, "yeah! they do that because government made them! They'd be magically more moral if only government weren't there."
I am saying this premise is incorrect. Not only will that company go through with selling that drug, this and similar things will happen in every part of society. In the libertarian world that company is rewarded for killing that 1%, and they will become more powerful.
The good business that on their own makes the decision to not sell that drug will have less money. They will eventually be swallowed by those that are greedier. This is the necessary result on a large scale, and it would happen everywhere on a smaller scale to of course.
Amidst all of the shifting libertarians do between what is and is not libertarian, when they do or do not want government,
The constant is don't spend any taxes (since there are none or next to none) "interfering" with business. That this fact falls in line with a lot of current conservative thinking in no way diminishes this.
Do you think that Exxon would have cleaned up the gulf if government did not make them?
Do you think people would stop buying oil in protest to that disaster, until they did clean it up?
Explain to me, if people cannot collectively decide what is and is not acceptable for a business, when a business needs to stop doing something, when a business can or cannot stor combustible fertilizer in unsafe conditions, etc
who can? If you have money and power, who can stop you from doing whatever you want?
Vigilantes? Well that business can hire 10 thugs for ever vigilante that wants justice.
What power do people have over business that does bad things and then covers up, or lies about it, or has a monopoly so you can't go elsewhere?
When you realize that today, power is no longer how big and strong you are or how many followers you have or how big a clan you are from, that power is money,
then you realize that democracy is that group of villagers protesting with pitchfork in hand a tyrant lord or duke.
Libertarians think that government is that lord or duke. They are wrong. That was government and is in dictatorships and monarchies, but in a democracy, this government is the people.
- Prove it then.
So your position is that the mentally ill and those in comas do not by definition have self-awareness?
That's retarded.
- Scientists has supported my argument. Whats silly again?
That link is called pseudo science and it's an entertainment article not a scientific finding.
And you didn't even understand the article anyway. The theory is happy hormones have a different effect on development, it has nothing to do with consciousness.
If you can't understand the very articles you link what makes you think you can actually debate this subject, out of curiosity?
- Free to choose what?
Free to choose to have an abortion. wtf?
- Thats synonymous my friend, both accusations implies your doubt. And with doubt must come reasons. Otherwise, its just plain denial and closeminded defeat.
Come on my little friend, prove to me they are wrong by giving me credible scientific articles
It is not synonymous and there is no such implication.
Ignoring again that you have trouble even understanding this debate,
The subject was that those who think that fetuses are self-aware are wrong. You on one hand claim that the mentally ill are not self-aware, then a paragraph later say that the fetus, which does not even have the parts of the brain to make self-awareness possible, are self-aware.
So you see why it is difficult to take you seriously.
Its a long story, but here is the explaination why abortion has a FULL effect on the crime rate
What part of "red herring" do you not understand?
- Done
That link, again, says not a single word about self-awareness. It is not about that at all. You could replace "fetus" with "ant" in that article and it would be exactly the same.
Why do you not see that self-awareness is not the subject of that article? Really, it's disturbing.
You must not understand libertarian ideology. The state forms two classes of people.
Despite pyg's insistence to the contrary, I do understand this theory very well.
I understand it so well I know it to be incorrect.
Again, humans naturally create a number of classes and governments as a necessary extension of humanity reflect this to a degree.
But government potentially also offers the only means to power for those who are not born powerful. It is the only tool to allow people to "be free" as you libertarians love to say.
Without this power dispersed more evenly, humans naturally form classes and consolidate power for the few.
Libertarian ideology is not freedom, it is taking away that hard-won power from the people, and putting it back in the hands of the few.
