Not another lame lefty thread

Started by Methos, September 05, 2008, 01:05:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Methos

Given the proliferation of absolute lefty non-sense on this part of the board, to compensate I decided to start a thread dedicated solely to not being another lame lefty thread.

To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Secondly, capitalism and a free economy are a good thing. All other systems of economic systems of organization create less wealth across all classes and/or are unsustainable over the long term.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Cherri Tart

i would like to point out, just for the sake of fairness, that in listening to Mr Obama's speech at the DNC, he actually outlined many of his idea and presented them to the public at large.  Pardon me for being undeducated, but they sounded like he'd actually thought them through and had actually plans on implementing them once put into office.  If you'd like, i'd be happy to post a copy of that speech or PM it to you so you can read it.  Seeing as how this is meant for people other then myself, i'll refrain from posting here in the future, but I just needed to point out the facts as I see them.

Respectfully yours,
cherri.
you were never able to keep me breathing as the water rises up again



O/O, Cherri Flavored

Vekseid

Obama's health care plan is quite detailed, and addresses a lot of issues - both well-known and not - about the modern healthcare system. Addressing ballooning malpractice insurance costs (especially with OB/GYN), doctors being paid by the number of patients cared for rather than quality of said care (a friend of mine had a doctor visit that consisted of a jab in the back and one sentence), etc.

I have to wonder, sometimes, if I'm too tolerant nonsense that pops up in general, by people who don't bother researching things. This is a role playing forum, however, so I try not to be too heavy handed.

Quote from: Methos on September 05, 2008, 01:05:40 AM
Given the proliferation of absolute lefty non-sense on this part of the board, to compensate I decided to start a thread dedicated solely to not being another lame lefty thread.

And I'm sure you'll be happy to point out exactly where and why these people are wrong?

QuoteTo open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.

QuoteSecondly, capitalism and a free economy are a good thing. All other systems of economic systems of organization create less wealth across all classes and/or are unsustainable over the long term.

Are you claiming that the right wing has promoted capitalism or a free market economy?

The free market requires several things that are absent from many facets of the current American economy.

1: The absence of fraud. Not just in the legal sense, but also in the moral sense. Frequently in the American economy, one or both parties to a trade does not fully reveal proper information about their product or service, even initiating lawsuits in order to suppress such information. More recently, news agencies face the threat of a loss of revenue when reporting negative information about a high-profile client.
2: The above may also be terms as both parties to a trade being fully informed and mentally capable of making such decisions. This goes a great deal further than truth in advertising, it also means a proper education, which many Americans lack.
3: The free market implies that one party is not inherently advantaged over another, whether by means of monopoly or government intervention. That is, one party should not be coerced - via financial or whatever means - into doing business with another specific party.
4: Capitalism and the free market in their own right do not prohibit the existence of social programs. The reasoning for this ought to be patently obvious - people naturally want to survive. If someone does not have the means or knowledge to acquire a need lawfully they will do so unlawfully.

There are not any truly free markets in the United States. Food comes close - and if a number of lobbies fail, it may return to that, but at the moment the corn lobby is busy driving up diabetes and obesity in America with its corn syrup via sugar tariffs. Always, at some point, in almost every trade in America, at one step or another the government or some informing party plays a hand. Whether it is to withhold information, provide subsidies, or indefinite copyright extensions.

But the right-wing has almost entirely been about making these matters worse.

...of all the examples I could list, of the vast abuses of power that have occurred under the republican watch in this country, I'm just going to put out one.

Because it represents the republican party in such a nutshell.

Slavery.

Inkidu

Look all I know is that Obama thinks the European Union is a country. Not even Bush made a goof like that.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Storiwyr

Quote from: Inkidu on September 05, 2008, 08:16:40 AM
Look all I know is that Obama thinks the European Union is a country. Not even Bush made a goof like that.

"Amigo! Amigo!" --George W. Bush, calling out to Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in Spanish at the G-8 Summit, Rusutsu, Japan, July 10, 2008

"Throughout our history, the words of the Declaration have inspired immigrants from around the world to set sail to our shores. These immigrants have helped transform 13 small colonies into a great and growing nation of more than 300 people." --George W. Bush, Charlottesville, Va., July 4, 2008

"Should the Iranian regime-do they have the sovereign right to have civilian nuclear power? So, like, if I were you, that's what I'd ask me. And the answer is, yes, they do." --George W. Bush, talking to reporters in Washington, D.C., July 2, 2008

"Your eminence, you're looking good." --George W. Bush to Pope Benedict XVI, using the title for Catholic cardinals, rather than addressing him as "your holiness," Rome, June 13, 2008

"I heard somebody say, 'Where's (Nelson) Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas." --George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007

"Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for your introduction. Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit." --George W. Bush, addressing Australian Prime Minister John Howard at the APEC Summit, Sept. 7, 207

"As John Howard accurately noted when he went to thank the Austrian troops there last year..." --George W. Bush, referring to Australian troops as "Austrian troops," APEC Business Summit, Sept. 7, 2007

.....


Sorry, but I really, REALLY beg to differ on that statement. Bush has made a million really embarrassing, very public and easily avoidable statements that have made our entire country look idiotic.
Lords, get to know me before you snuggle all over me. Sorry, but I get a little anxious! Ladies and Lieges, cuddles are always welcome, read my O/O for more detailed info.
"There's no need to argue anymore. I gave all I could, but it left me so sore. And the thing that makes me mad, is the one thing that I had. I knew, I knew, I'd lose you."

Storiwyr

#5
Quote from: Inkidu on September 05, 2008, 08:16:40 AM
Look all I know is that Obama thinks the European Union is a country. Not even Bush made a goof like that.

I'm also trying to figure out where the hell you got this information. I've been spending the last half hour looking for anything similar to this at all. I see only places where you could have twisted his words, and no actual statement to that effect. I'd be very interested in any textual and reputable backup you have for this statement so I can actually credit it with consideration.
Lords, get to know me before you snuggle all over me. Sorry, but I get a little anxious! Ladies and Lieges, cuddles are always welcome, read my O/O for more detailed info.
"There's no need to argue anymore. I gave all I could, but it left me so sore. And the thing that makes me mad, is the one thing that I had. I knew, I knew, I'd lose you."

Inkidu

That's all well and good. You can call the Pope your eminence, its not exactly right. But you can call him Mr. Pope. I'm sure he can forgive you.

But you didn't prove me wrong. I read all those and he still didn't mistake a continent for a country.

He confused. Countries and numbers but not a continent.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Storiwyr

#7
Quote from: Inkidu on September 05, 2008, 08:38:12 AM
That's all well and good. You can call the Pope your eminence, its not exactly right. But you can call him Mr. Pope. I'm sure he can forgive you.

But you didn't prove me wrong. I read all those and he still didn't mistake a continent for a country.

He confused. Countries and numbers but not a continent.

I'm sorry, but that defense is so pathetic I can't even begin to justify it with a serious and well-crafted answer. Clearly you're not interested in facts or truth, so I'm not going to waste my time.

OH! A continent for a country! That's >SO< much worse than screwing up your OWN nation's history, addressing an important religious leader incorrectly, getting the WRONG LANGUAGE for the country you're in, or claiming that a very much alive and important figure is dead.
Lords, get to know me before you snuggle all over me. Sorry, but I get a little anxious! Ladies and Lieges, cuddles are always welcome, read my O/O for more detailed info.
"There's no need to argue anymore. I gave all I could, but it left me so sore. And the thing that makes me mad, is the one thing that I had. I knew, I knew, I'd lose you."

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 05, 2008, 05:33:41 AM

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.

I'm just curious how this differs from you putting up a quote of Tom Ridge tripping over his own tongue to snear at it. I really don't see the value in that particular thread aside from your personal desire to equate Bush with McCain despite substantial political differences between the two. There was no argument made there. It was simply proferred for purely partisan reasons.

Now if you haven't figured it out from the title the purpose of this thread is two fold 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Storiwyr

Quote from: Methos on September 05, 2008, 08:53:01 AM
I'm just curious how this differs from you putting up a quote of Tom Ridge tripping over his own tongue to snear at it. I really don't see the value in that particular thread aside from your personal desire to equate Bush with McCain despite substantial political differences between the two. There was no argument made there. It was simply proferred for purely partisan reasons.

Now if you haven't figured it out from the title the purpose of this thread is two fold 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that.

He provided a video and made absolutely no comment about the video to indicate how he felt about it.

That's a fair site different from statements like this: To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Where's your evidence for this? Where's even an amusing quote from Obama to back up this statement?

I also fail to see how your reasoning for posting this thread holds up, when you say you posted it because the other threads on the forum are: 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that. It strikes me as playground logic ... "HE STARTED IT." Doesn't smack of maturity or reasonable argument. Many of the threads on this forum--biased, yes, because if you have a strong viewpoint, it's unavoidable--actually contain factual backup, news media articles, quotes from candidates, etc. This thread has no real information in the initial post. It's by far the most biased and ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum yet.
Lords, get to know me before you snuggle all over me. Sorry, but I get a little anxious! Ladies and Lieges, cuddles are always welcome, read my O/O for more detailed info.
"There's no need to argue anymore. I gave all I could, but it left me so sore. And the thing that makes me mad, is the one thing that I had. I knew, I knew, I'd lose you."

Inkidu

Quote from: Storiwyr on September 05, 2008, 08:40:12 AM
I'm sorry, but that defense is so pathetic I can't even begin to justify it with a serious and well-crafted answer. Clearly you're not interested in facts or truth, so I'm not going to waste my time.

OH! A continent for a country! That's >SO< much worse than screwing up your OWN nation's history, addressing an important religious leader incorrectly, getting the WRONG LANGUAGE for the country you're in, or claiming that a very much alive and important figure is dead.
If we put you're life under a microscope you fuck up to. Just because he president doesn't mean he's not human.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Valerian

Everyone stop and take a breath, please.

Inkidu, perhaps you could post your source for Obama's confusion about the EU?  If we could get to some facts and veer away from the edge of personal attacks, this can still be a worthwhile thread.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Inkidu

Quote from: Valerian on September 05, 2008, 09:05:05 AM
Everyone stop and take a breath, please.

Inkidu, perhaps you could post your source for Obama's confusion about the EU?  If we could get to some facts and veer away from the edge of personal attacks, this can still be a worthwhile thread.
I know I've been looking for it! I saw it on T.V.
Someone was asking Obama, who was outlining his policy on re-establishing ties with other countries, and someone asked him what countries he was going to work on and he said the EU.
I know its out there.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Sabby

Quote from: Storiwyr on September 05, 2008, 08:59:39 AMThis thread has no real information in the initial post. It's by far the most biased and ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum yet.

Pretty much.

Methos

Quote from: Storiwyr on September 05, 2008, 08:59:39 AM
He provided a video and made absolutely no comment about the video to indicate how he felt about it.

That's a fair site different from statements like this: To open with Obama sucks. He hasn't seen a vapid, meaningless platitude he didn't like, and a platform of liking sunshine and puppies is about as deep as his resume.

Where's your evidence for this? Where's even an amusing quote from Obama to back up this statement?

I also fail to see how your reasoning for posting this thread holds up, when you say you posted it because the other threads on the forum are: 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that. It strikes me as playground logic ... "HE STARTED IT." Doesn't smack of maturity or reasonable argument. Many of the threads on this forum--biased, yes, because if you have a strong viewpoint, it's unavoidable--actually contain factual backup, news media articles, quotes from candidates, etc. This thread has no real information in the initial post. It's by far the most biased and ridiculous thing I've seen on this forum yet.

You see I view there as being no real particular difference in making the statement myself and fiding a surrogate in video form to make the statement for me. However, if you REALLY insist by the power of YOUTUBE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EIrcpMTAac&eurl=http://barackobamasucks.net/
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Storiwyr

Quote from: Inkidu on September 05, 2008, 09:02:07 AM
If we put you're life under a microscope you fuck up to. Just because he president doesn't mean he's not human.

Another reason it's not worth arguing with you.

I do make mistakes. I can document them for you.

However, you're the one who brought out a 'mistake' to laugh at someone for in the first place.

I am, as I said, no longer wasting my time, since you'd rather jump down my throat than provide evidence of your statement.
Lords, get to know me before you snuggle all over me. Sorry, but I get a little anxious! Ladies and Lieges, cuddles are always welcome, read my O/O for more detailed info.
"There's no need to argue anymore. I gave all I could, but it left me so sore. And the thing that makes me mad, is the one thing that I had. I knew, I knew, I'd lose you."

Sherona

#16
Locking this thread so people can calm down a bit.



Unlocked. Be nice. ~T


calamity

#17
I was nervous as I read the thread this stemmed from, hoping that someone had addressed this.  It was a perfectly reasonable reply.

And, you know, if you'd like to know what a real blunder is, try forgetting an entire country that rests between two others.  Here, John POW McCain discusses the work we need to do on the Iraq-Pakistan border:



For reference:



Here's the thing.  I mix up geography all the time.  Most people I know mix up geography all the time.  But the president should have a fucking immaculate grasp on geography.  He is, after all, considered the leader of the free world.  Of course, he's going to be human.  But you know what?  My expectations are still higher than those I have for my buddies when we're discussing Middle Eastern politics.  They aren't making any of the decisions, after all.  And neither am I.

But, please remember.  There is a huge difference between referring to Europe as the EU (which is genuinely acceptable - did anyone not know what he meant; had anyone not heard the reference made that way before?) and legitimately forgetting geography.  Did he ever say, "Golly gee, iddn't the EU that one big continent up above Africa?  lolz?"

Edit: I merged this post over from this thread because it had nothing to do with the definition of the EU and everything to do with the thread where this conversation began. ~T
O&O

Schwarzepard

Quote from: Vekseid on September 05, 2008, 05:33:41 AM

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.


I say the same about this:


Quote
Because it represents the republican party in such a nutshell.

Slavery.


Vekseid

Quote from: HeretiKat on September 05, 2008, 11:04:08 PM
I say the same about this:

This is unlocked now? Okays.

Did you read the article?

The Republican party was created on the promise of ending slavery. Where's the congressional investigation? Where's the outrage? The founding reason -for- the party was to put an end to that. And yet, a contractor for a war that has been driven by them since its inception gets caught doing it, and we hear next to nothing. Parties in control of the information most Americans receive from the main stream media have their own agenda. Newsworthy items get swept under the rug for vacuous stories about Hilton and Spears.

McCain -did- declare he would strike out against corruption while in office. Which is encouraging, but it really seemed like he was riding Obama's coattails for a lot of his speech, though not once did Palin or McCain mention the middle class.

Quote from: Methos on September 05, 2008, 08:53:01 AM
I'm just curious how this differs from you putting up a quote of Tom Ridge tripping over his own tongue to snear at it. I really don't see the value in that particular thread aside from your personal desire to equate Bush with McCain despite substantial political differences between the two. There was no argument made there. It was simply proferred for purely partisan reasons.

For one, it's its own thread, its own tone and its own purpose. Trolling is always a fishy subject and I apologize, but this:



Still makes me smirk. As does the 'stumped without a teleprompter' clip.

Point the short? I always consider facts and statements to be fair game. My goal in life is not to be right, but to learn.

QuoteNow if you haven't figured it out from the title the purpose of this thread is two fold 1) to point out I think most of the threads in this section of the forum are ridiculously biased 2) to mock that.

1) Well you succeeded admirably there
2) You still need to work on that.

Now if you want to say - Obama's human too, look at all this idiocy, and present, that's fine. Do that. Point out every last actual slipup and gaffe if you want, there are plenty. FISA capitulation, moving from 'change' to 'hope', whatever. There's quite a lot to pick from there.




My primary concern for the 2008 election season is the elimination of corruption and restoring a transparent government. In this regard, both Obama and Biden have a significantly cleaner record than McCain or Palin from my vantage point.

To me, everything else is tertiary, at best. An honest and transparent government are required first, everything else comes later.

Thus, I don't particularly care about Obama's ludicrous tax plan, while his FISA capitulation galled me. Some make the comment that he would have been spitting in Pelosi's face with that - I'm certainly less than pleased with her - and that may be true, but I don't have to be happy about it.

The thing is, though, it's the current administration that asked for it, and the current republican party, under threat of mass filibuster, drove it and created the very do-nothing congress that Palin herself just mocked.


RubySlippers

How is Obama going to pay for all his promises and I will direct that same question to anyone else running, we have a HUGE Federal debt and constantly have no balanced budget for 23 out of the last 25 years in short- there is no money to go throwing around at the levels as desired as far as I can see.

As for Health Care ok he has lots of ideas but affordibility of co-pays and deductibles can still make health care out of reach, if they can't afford these either. I have insurance now thankfully and I have to forgo care due to the costs I do have to pay and those are fairly low and I have to avoid expensive care when I can. I don't see that changing for me.

Schwarzepard

Quote from: Vekseid on September 06, 2008, 01:37:35 AM
This is unlocked now? Okays.

Did you read the article?

The Republican party was created on the promise of ending slavery. Where's the congressional investigation? Where's the outrage? The founding reason -for- the party was to put an end to that. And yet, a contractor for a war that has been driven by them since its inception gets caught doing it, and we hear next to nothing. Parties in control of the information most Americans receive from the main stream media have their own agenda. Newsworthy items get swept under the rug for vacuous stories about Hilton and Spears.



I absolutely read the article.  Only after reading it thoroughly did I conclude your post was worthy of what you said to Methos.

The article is totally irrelevant to your statement that slavery defines the Republican party in a nutshell.  It didn't support your statement in any way.

The company sued was Jordanian.  KBR wasn't even named in the lawsuit.  Even if, as the article states, that doesn't mean KBR wasn't involved, it sure as hell doesn't mean, prove, or even suggest that KBR was involved.  That requires further investigation, which the lawyer who filed the case is doing.

I'd like to hear more about the specifics of who did what to whom after the line about the 'middlemen' (human traffickers?) that the victims' families paid so the victims could get connected to the Jordanian company.  Were these 'middlemen' responsible for hiring or transporting the victims?  Were other 'middlemen'?  Did they lie to the victims with the knowledge of company officials who could have done something or at least reported it?   

Here's why there weren't Congressional investigations:

Congress is a legislative body not an international law enforcement agency.  In this case, all they could do is issue subpoenas to the accused foreign nationals who would promptly ignore them. 

The article states 'The killings were recorded and broadcast internationally through the news media' in 2005, which caused the lawyer to file the suit and work on it for free for 3 years.  That seems pretty outraged to me.  The missing outrage is the outrage against the failures of the governments and law enforcement agencies of Jordan and Nepal, and of course the human traffickers themselves.

How you wrangled the statements in the article into a conclusion that the Republican party is defined by slavery is more twisted than the love child of a 3-way between a pretzel, a moebius strip, and M.C. Escher.

KBR has been a contractor in public works projects and WW2 and Vietnam, wars started and prosecuted by Democrats.  If the Republican party is defined by slavery because they hired KBR, then the Democratic party must also be defined by slavery since they hired KBR for even larger projects.

We agree that the media and those that control it have an agenda.  We just disagree on what that agenda is.

Vekseid

Quote from: HeretiKat on September 06, 2008, 12:46:49 PM
The company sued was Jordanian.  KBR wasn't even named in the lawsuit.  Even if, as the article states, that doesn't mean KBR wasn't involved, it sure as hell doesn't mean, prove, or even suggest that KBR was involved.  That requires further investigation, which the lawyer who filed the case is doing.

The issue is that it's happening, under our (supposed) jurisdiction. A group hired by KBR was found to be involved in human trafficking, but -their- hands may be clean, so they're completely off the hook? KBR has no responsibility for the people that do their hiring? What sort of sense does that make?

QuoteHere's why there weren't Congressional investigations:

Congress is a legislative body not an international law enforcement agency.  In this case, all they could do is issue subpoenas to the accused foreign nationals who would promptly ignore them. 

And not go over KBR with a fine-toothed comb, because KBR isn't responsible for who it hires?

The US actually has a pretty good record on cracking down on human trafficking, in part due to congressional action. But the point was not solely about KBR, it's one of thousands of injustices committed under the watch of this administration.

QuoteKBR has been a contractor in public works projects and WW2 and Vietnam, wars started and prosecuted by Democrats.  If the Republican party is defined by slavery because they hired KBR, then the Democratic party must also be defined by slavery since they hired KBR for even larger projects.

...the US did not start the Vietnam war, but you are absolutely missing the point on that one.

QuoteWe agree that the media and those that control it have an agenda.  We just disagree on what that agenda is.

Make money and continue making money, and in the case of ABC and NBC, guard the reputation of their parent corporations. This means not pissing off the people who advertise with them, not losing access to the government's press office...

Quote from: RubySlippers on September 06, 2008, 09:59:49 AM
How is Obama going to pay for all his promises and I will direct that same question to anyone else running, we have a HUGE Federal debt and constantly have no balanced budget for 23 out of the last 25 years in short- there is no money to go throwing around at the levels as desired as far as I can see.

As for Health Care ok he has lots of ideas but affordibility of co-pays and deductibles can still make health care out of reach, if they can't afford these either. I have insurance now thankfully and I have to forgo care due to the costs I do have to pay and those are fairly low and I have to avoid expensive care when I can. I don't see that changing for me.

Which is why I'm pretty sure Obama's tax plan won't materialize. At least not as is. On the same token, McCain would have no control over a democratic congress. If Obama does get elected and the democrats gain a filibuster-proof majority in 2008 or 2010, I certainly hope they don't get as spendhappy as the 2002-2006 congress.

Health care is such a fustercluck right now and I trust it's personal enough for Obama that it will get straightened out. There's a lot that can reasonably be fixed and expected to lower costs in the first place.

Schwarzepard

Quote from: Vekseid on September 06, 2008, 03:43:24 PM
The issue is that it's happening, under our (supposed) jurisdiction. A group hired by KBR was found to be involved in human trafficking, but -their- hands may be clean, so they're completely off the hook? KBR has no responsibility for the people that do their hiring? What sort of sense does that make?

Perfect sense.  The Jordanian company that hired the Nepalis and then was taking them to another job site against their will when they were killed is responsible.  That's why they were named in the case and that's why the judge ruled against them.  There was no evidence against KBR.  Their hands are clean until proven dirty and that means KBR is off the hook. 

What you're describing is guilt by association.

If you were to hire me to operate a coal mine and I engaged in human trafficking to get workers for that mine, I would be the criminal not you.

Also it states in the article that the case was about getting insurance money for the victims' families, not about human trafficking (in direct contradiction of the article's title).  Even the Jordanian company was not convicted of human trafficking.  It wasn't even charged with human trafficking.  Strangely, the article is silent on the actual individuals who trafficked the victims.  It doesn't even say if the traffickers were employees of the Jordanian company or if they were yet more subcontractors, or even professional criminals paid by the employees of Jordanian company to traffick the victims. 

Despite all the times it mentioned KBR, the article revealed no facts implicating KBR.  Instead it just created insinuations with statements like 
"...other Nepali men working in Iraq were managed by KBR employees who wore KBR uniforms."

QuoteAnd not go over KBR with a fine-toothed comb, because KBR isn't responsible for who it hires?

Exactly.  The article states that KBR's contracts do not make it responsible for crimes committed by the subcontractors it hires.  KBR, like Congress, is not a cop.  It cannot police the subcontractors it hires, the same way Congress can't even police its own members.  The article, your reference, states that the U.S. is cracking down on human trafficking within Iraq.
 
Quote
The US actually has a pretty good record on cracking down on human trafficking, in part due to congressional action. But the point was not solely about KBR, it's one of thousands of injustices committed under the watch of this administration.

...the US did not start the Vietnam war, but you are absolutely missing the point on that one.

I retract my statement that U.S. Democrats started the Vietnam War and WW2. 
Democratic U.S. presidents brought the U.S. into WW2 in response to Japanese aggression and entered the Vietnam War / 2nd Indochina War in response to communist aggression.  They waged war and hired KBR just like Republican presidents.


I'm not missing the point.  The point is that you just have a severe dislike of the Republican Party. 

My point is that your statement that slavery defines the GOP is false and it's the same kind of statement that you just gave Methos a hard time about.

On another topic, are you on the level about not being right but learning instead?  This is a serious question, totally unconnected to the current discussion.

Vekseid

Quote from: HeretiKat on September 06, 2008, 09:30:47 PM
Perfect sense.  The Jordanian company that hired the Nepalis and then was taking them to another job site against their will when they were killed is responsible.  That's why they were named in the case and that's why the judge ruled against them.  There was no evidence against KBR.  Their hands are clean until proven dirty and that means KBR is off the hook.

What you're describing is guilt by association.

If you were to hire me to operate a coal mine and I engaged in human trafficking to get workers for that mine, I would be the criminal not you.

Are you seriously suggesting this?

No, I mean it. We have laws in the United States to prosecute this sort of activity, so it's not like my opinion is just a sole voice in the crowd here.

QuoteAlso it states in the article that the case was about getting insurance money for the victims' families, not about human trafficking (in direct contradiction of the article's title).  Even the Jordanian company was not convicted of human trafficking.  It wasn't even charged with human trafficking.  Strangely, the article is silent on the actual individuals who trafficked the victims.  It doesn't even say if the traffickers were employees of the Jordanian company or if they were yet more subcontractors, or even professional criminals paid by the employees of Jordanian company to traffick the victims. 

Err, it's pretty clear on that to me - they were misled. That's how human trafficking generally works. They don't kidnap people.

QuoteDespite all the times it mentioned KBR, the article revealed no facts implicating KBR.  Instead it just created insinuations with statements like 
"...other Nepali men working in Iraq were managed by KBR employees who wore KBR uniforms."

Which suggests it ought to be looked into, in my opinion.

QuoteExactly.  The article states that KBR's contracts do not make it responsible for crimes committed by the subcontractors it hires.

If I were arguing the technical legalities, this would not be a debate at all. Likewise, employment clauses in contracts were recently found to be unenforceable. The presence or lack of something in a contract does not mean it can be forced or ignored. And even if it is, it does not make it 'right'.

QuoteKBR, like Congress, is not a cop.  It cannot police the subcontractors it hires, the same way Congress can't even police its own members.  The article, your reference, states that the U.S. is cracking down on human trafficking within Iraq.

People have oversight responsibility for who they hire. We're talking about people's lives here, not how well painted road stripes are. And Congress does have arresting authority, it's just never been used - never even talked about being used until a few months ago.

And ultimately, it stinks of the same scheme used to employ illegal immigrants in the United States.
 
QuoteI retract my statement that U.S. Democrats started the Vietnam War and WW2. 
Democratic U.S. presidents brought the U.S. into WW2 in response to Japanese aggression and entered the Vietnam War / 2nd Indochina War in response to communist aggression.  They waged war and hired KBR just like Republican presidents.

A better response would have been to say that Kennedy was responsible for most of the escalation of Vietnam. But this point is simply entirely extraneous - you're acting as if present actions and guilt stretch back into past ones, or should if my argument holds, which makes absolutely no sense.

Quote
I'm not missing the point.  The point is that you just have a severe dislike of the Republican Party. 

I thought both parties were equally horrible until 2007. The Republicans for instigating our modern crisis and the Democrats for letting it happen.  I don't particularly care for most modern democrats either, but at least there's a movement in the party to develop transparency in government, something that the entire Republican elected body has staunchly worked against.

QuoteMy point is that your statement that slavery defines the GOP is false and it's the same kind of statement that you just gave Methos a hard time about.

It's what I see the policies the republican party leading to - attempts to misinform the public, conceal the truth and trap people into working in neverending debt.

Perhaps it was far too facetious. I'll admit that. And certainly every elected democrat who did not stand against it shares blame - Obama included.

QuoteOn another topic, are you on the level about not being right but learning instead?  This is a serious question, totally unconnected to the current discussion.

I do concede debates on occasion, if that's what your asking.  Usually what happens is some sort of middle ground is reached.

Schwarzepard

Quote from: Vekseid on September 06, 2008, 10:14:13 PM
Are you seriously suggesting this?

No, I mean it. We have laws in the United States to prosecute this sort of activity, so it's not like my opinion is just a sole voice in the crowd here.

If you hired a person and that person committed a crime and no one could prove you knew about it or were involved with it, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Quote
Err, it's pretty clear on that to me - they were misled. That's how human trafficking generally works. They don't kidnap people.

Your response doesn't address my statement, the point of which was that the conclusion that KBR is somehow responsible for human trafficking is totally unsupportable with the information given in the article.

Quote
Which suggests it ought to be looked into, in my opinion.

Only if you subscribe to tarring KBR with guilt by association without a shred of evidence that they are guilty of anything.  There is not nearly enough info in that article to accuse either company of human trafficking.

Quote
If I were arguing the technical legalities, this would not be a debate at all. Likewise, employment clauses in contracts were recently found to be unenforceable. The presence or lack of something in a contract does not mean it can be forced or ignored. And even if it is, it does not make it 'right'.

This doesn't show any support for the conclusion that KBR is in any way responsible for the fate of the victims.

Quote
People have oversight responsibility for who they hire. We're talking about people's lives here, not how well painted road stripes are.

That's correct, and the Jordanian company failed in its responsibility.  KBR could not oversee the workers hired by its subcontractor.


QuoteBut this point is simply entirely extraneous - you're acting as if present actions and guilt stretch back into past ones, or should if my argument holds, which makes absolutely no sense.

I'm not acting in the way you're saying I am and I didn't mention guilt.  I was disproving your statement that the Republican party is defined by slavery because the administration of a Republican president hired KBR by pointing out that Democratic presidents have hired KBR multiple times.


QuotePerhaps it was far too facetious. I'll admit that. And certainly every elected democrat who did not stand against it shares blame - Obama included.

It was mean, especially after you jumped on Methos for saying something as mundane as a particular candidate sucks.  You made a similar statement to Inkidu in the Obama-Biden thread then told him that you were losing patience with him and that wasn't a good spot for him to be in.

Quote
I do concede debates on occasion, if that's what your asking.  Usually what happens is some sort of middle ground is reached.

I was asking you to confirm your statement that learning something from discussion was more important that being right.

Vekseid

Quote from: HeretiKat on September 08, 2008, 04:04:33 AM
If you hired a person and that person committed a crime and no one could prove you knew about it or were involved with it, you are innocent until proven guilty.

RICO and new laws being drafted to cover indirect employers of illegal immigrants fall under this sort of domain. You are responsible for the work you have agreed to perform.

If this is an isolated incident, KBR is off the hook. If it is endemic to the subcontractors that KBR hires, then it becomes suspect.

QuoteYour response doesn't address my statement, the point of which was that the conclusion that KBR is somehow responsible for human trafficking is totally unsupportable with the information given in the article.

Only if you subscribe to tarring KBR with guilt by association without a shred of evidence that they are guilty of anything.  There is not nearly enough info in that article to accuse either company of human trafficking.

The article states that the Jordanian company misled the Nepalise, which fits the definition of human trafficking unless someone in the article is outright lying. The whole idea is to ship a victim to a place where they don't speak the local language.

QuoteThis doesn't show any support for the conclusion that KBR is in any way responsible for the fate of the victims.

That's correct, and the Jordanian company failed in its responsibility.  KBR could not oversee the workers hired by its subcontractor.

An incident like this, to me, requires investigation. If it is commonplace amongst KBR's subcontractors, then KBR is most certainly liable.

QuoteI'm not acting in the way you're saying I am and I didn't mention guilt.  I was disproving your statement that the Republican party is defined by slavery because the administration of a Republican president hired KBR by pointing out that Democratic presidents have hired KBR multiple times.

It was one example of an injustice under the watch of the current administration out of over a thousand that are known about. Only a handful of which are getting any serious attention.

And that's a strawman, you are making the claim that since I am saying that KBR may be guilty of a crime now, that I must also infer that KBR has always been guilty of crimes.

QuoteIt was mean, especially after you jumped on Methos for saying something as mundane as a particular candidate sucks.  You made a similar statement to Inkidu in the Obama-Biden thread then told him that you were losing patience with him and that wasn't a good spot for him to be in.

Regarding Methos, I responded to one attack with another when I shouldn't have.

Regarding Inkidu, it should not be the responsibility of the reader to double-check every last fact someone posts, and that was not the first time he had been nudged about that, and I was not the first person to do so.

QuoteI was asking you to confirm your statement that learning something from discussion was more important that being right.

Yes.

Madalina

~Does Risky Business slide into this thread too~

So, I do not really follow politics. But, there are a couple things I wanna see what Vekseid and others think about ^.^

I am very undecided about who I wish to cast my vote for in November. There are things about both candidates that scare me. Barack's health care plan is one huge one though. I am a health care worker, and I work closely with a fair number of physicians. I've have heard his ideas of change in this health care plan being termed as Universal Health Care. God.. I really hope not. : / (( And a side note, I've heard Barack say that part of his plan is to spend money converting the medical field into the digital age. Well, that is already required. All of our charts have to be electronic by 2010.))

Annnd, there is an article that I read that I cannot really find a lot of background information for.
Sowell's Article Really? Oh, and the capital gains thing.. Is this really a good thing to tax capital gain? Like, I'm going to get taxed when I sell my house next year?

^.^ Okay! And McCain. Is he going to completely blow our economy to hell? I always vote for whoever is pro-life, but I don't want to send us into a depression for it!

Vekseid

Quote from: Madalina on September 08, 2008, 02:48:22 PM
There are things about both candidates that scare me. Barack's health care plan is one huge one though. I am a health care worker, and I work closely with a fair number of physicians. I've have heard his ideas of change in this health care plan being termed as Universal Health Care. God.. I really hope not. : / (( And a side note, I've heard Barack say that part of his plan is to spend money converting the medical field into the digital age. Well, that is already required. All of our charts have to be electronic by 2010.))

I linked Barack's health care plan, it's rather specific on a lot of points. As I understand it it's not the blanket universal care that was Edward's plan, however, the goal really is to cover everyone.

And just because your charts are digital doesn't mean I can go look up my medical records safely on-line, for example. :-p

QuoteAnnnd, there is an article that I read that I cannot really find a lot of background information for.
Sowell's Article Really? Oh, and the capital gains thing.. Is this really a good thing to tax capital gain? Like, I'm going to get taxed when I sell my house next year?

Holy simplification, batman! I wonder if this guy would abolish the FDIC or SEC just because they are New Deal programs. Nevermind that they're basically the only reason the American banking system is still in tact at the moment.

Some of FDR's plans were quite horrible. A few of them were brilliant and remain in effect to this day.

It also paints FDR as being solely responsible for the Depression from the getgo. By the same token, would he argue that Bill Clinton was responsible for eight years of uninterrupted growth? Somehow I doubt that. Unless he wants to blame FDR for the Dustbowl too, and explain why.

Capital Gains taxes basically operate under the assumption that it's a form of income. They can apply to your home if you sell it within two years of your purchase, and then if you only are making a profit on the sale - ie it has accumulated in value, which given the housing collapse isn't a garauntee.

Anyway, I've mentioned before that I don't believe Barack will follow through with his tax plan as is. Almost the entirety of the reason I support him is because he's more transparent than his opponent, and the same goes for the VP comparison. That nut needs to be cracked wide open, in my opinion - we can't afford four more years of Cheney's fourth branch status and liberal destruction of records. Worse, tolerating and expecting it.

Quote^.^ Okay! And McCain. Is he going to completely blow our economy to hell? I always vote for whoever is pro-life, but I don't want to send us into a depression for it!

I guess I'd be more curious as to why you always vote pro-life. That's prolly best for another thread.

Roe versus Wade may get overturned if McCain becomes president, but it won't mean anything if few or no states take advantage of it.

Regardless, the presidency is supposed to be one of three branches, specifically, meant to enforce those decisions made by Congress as verified constitutional by the Judicial branch. He can influence policy decisions and be a barrier or enabler, but not directly draft them. McCain can't, on his own, trash things.

I wouldn't be worried at all if I were confident that the Democrats in Congress, as a rule, had balls, but I'm not so confident. Like I said, I'm voting for transparency in government, not economically.  I believe the latter will eventually follow the former.

Vekseid

I just noticed a quote from that article that should be addressed:

QuoteAlthough the Great Depression of the 1930s began under Herbert Hoover, unemployment during Hoover's last year in office was not as high as it became during each of the first five years under FDR.

From here:

1928    4.2
1930    8.7
1932    23.6 <- Hoover's last year
1934    21.7
1936    16.9
1938    19.0
1940    14.6
1942    4.7
1944    1.2
1946    3.9
1948    3.8

1933 had an unemployment rate of nearly 25% I believe, but other than that, Roosevelt's first year was the only one in which unemployment was worse than the last year of Hoover's.

It's important to note that unemployment statistics are a bit unreliable during the 20's and 30's, and even modern unemployment statistics are suspect for many reasons.

Still.

Madalina

Quote from: Vekseid on September 08, 2008, 05:07:31 PM
I guess I'd be more curious as to why you always vote pro-life. That's prolly best for another thread.

Yeah, would sort of be straying topic I guess ^.^ I've only gotten to vote for one presidential election anyway, so its not like I've had very many candidates to consider. But I will throw in its just something that's very important to me. Don't get me started on abortion and funerals @_@

But anyway - You give me things to mull over. Especially to drag out the fact that we do have a checks and balances system, so one man can't stroll in and ruin us all, and of course I knew this, but I guess I get caught up and worry.


Quote from: Vekseid on September 08, 2008, 05:07:31 PM
I wouldn't be worried at all if I were confident that the Democrats in Congress, as a rule, had balls, but I'm not so confident. Like I said, I'm voting for transparency in government, not economically.  I believe the latter will eventually follow the former.

I follow you on this one.


And the looking up medical records online safely ^.^ That would be nice if we could ever get to that point, but save me from patients of average intelligence! Most people are not going to know what their records mean and blow things way up and out of proportion, and drive me -insane-. I loathe the day that these types of people learned how to look up their diseases online! Or what they -think- they have XD

Sherona

Quote from: Madalina on September 08, 2008, 06:25:27 PM


And the looking up medical records online safely ^.^ That would be nice if we could ever get to that point, but save me from patients of average intelligence! Most people are not going to know what their records mean and blow things way up and out of proportion, and drive me -insane-. I loathe the day that these types of people learned how to look up their diseases online! Or what they -think- they have XD

Forgive me if I am wrong but can they not look up symptoms and such online? Places like Web MD, that are intended to give people peace of mind through knowledge..but end up being self diagnosis?

That being said, to bring this back on topic...a universal health care plan could eliminate a good many of people who do this because they can not afford to go to doctor unless it is VERY bad.

Madalina

My my Sherona ^.^

What you quoted was mostly just me whining about some of the more irrational patients I have to deal with, like ones who see "irritability" listed as a side effect on the medicine they are taking, then call us saying they are having an allergic reaction because they are in a bad mood.

And most of the time its not really their fault. I was reading in a magazine the other day about women's health, and it actually listed fatigue, irregular periods and cramping as signs of uterine cancer. Which would be something that someone would experience with uterine cancer, but also with every period that any woman has ever had in her life.

My biggest fear with Universal Health Care comes down to money. In order to cover everyone, profits will have to decrease. I know that in a perfect world, this shouldn't matter... but most people use doctors who own private clinics, and they cannot have these clinics if they are not turning a profit. I fear that in order to make money, their quality of care will go down due to staff cuts and lower budgets for supplies and equipment.

Sherona

Considering the hell I went through in an underfunded state hospital before I probably should be scared. But considering that was funded by a very poor state anyways, and I think obama's would be federally funded it might make a difference. And since doctors in many other parts of the world, Canada, Sweden being two manage to operate well under a universal healthcare, tehre should be no reason US doctors can not. But I will be the first to tell you I do not have a brain for economics.

Vekseid

Quote from: Madalina on September 08, 2008, 06:25:27 PM
Yeah, would sort of be straying topic I guess ^.^ I've only gotten to vote for one presidential election anyway, so its not like I've had very many candidates to consider. But I will throw in its just something that's very important to me. Don't get me started on abortion and funerals @_@

One needs to be careful about legislating perceived morality. Abortion is illegal in Brazil, yet the abortion rate is twice that of the US. Just because you say a person should or should not do something, even with the force of law behind it, does not mean they will comply.

Nor does it necessarily make them wrong to avoid compliance.

Being pro-choice does not mean someone believes abortion is right - I detest abortions as a general rule, but I'm pro-choice, myself.

QuoteBut anyway - You give me things to mull over. Especially to drag out the fact that we do have a checks and balances system, so one man can't stroll in and ruin us all, and of course I knew this, but I guess I get caught up and worry.

What worries most is that the next president will be picking a few supreme court justices.

QuoteAnd the looking up medical records online safely ^.^ That would be nice if we could ever get to that point, but save me from patients of average intelligence! Most people are not going to know what their records mean and blow things way up and out of proportion, and drive me -insane-. I loathe the day that these types of people learned how to look up their diseases online! Or what they -think- they have XD

It's just an example - the entire pharmaceutical industry also comes to mind. Expert systems will probably be handling a great deal of that eventually.

Sherona

QuoteBeing pro-choice does not mean someone believes abortion is right - I detest abortions as a general rule, but I'm pro-choice, myself.


Yay, someone else who has figured out this out. I am pretty much teh same way, Pro-choice, I won't trample on a person's right to the choice (though I would like to see a way to make it more fair on the male equivalent...) but it is not something I could choose to do myself.

QuoteWhat worries most is that the next president will be picking a few supreme court justices.

This is something that bothers me as well. However, I do hope the last four years or so of civil liberties being trampled on will have taught whoever else getsinto office that the price is not quite worth it.

Schwarzepard



QuoteIf this is an isolated incident, KBR is off the hook. If it is endemic to the subcontractors that KBR hires, then it becomes suspect.

We agree.  And if the Bush Administration or any other organization knowingly and repeatedly hires contractors who do in FACT repeatedly engage in human trafficking, then that entity does represent slavery.

QuoteThe article states that the Jordanian company misled the Nepalise, which fits the definition of human trafficking unless someone in the article is outright lying. The whole idea is to ship a victim to a place where they don't speak the local language.

The suspicious thing is that the article doesn't say that.  It says:
"A dozen men from Nepal had been hired by a U.S. defense subcontractor and taken against their will to work at a military base in Iraq. On the way, they were captured by insurgents, taken hostage and executed."

It says they were "taken against their will to work at a military base in Iraq." 

The use of the passive voice makes it unnecessary to specify who exactly transported the men to Iraq.   I am very aware that this is splitting an extremely fine hair, but I'm not going to come to a conclusion that the subcontractor is guilty of human trafficking until I know who or what exactly trafficked the men.  It is very telling that the lawyer was not even able to get the Jordanian company charged with human trafficking.  That means there was not enough evidence.  If the judge decided the subcontractor should be tried on that charge, then I would be inclined to conclude the subcontractor was involved or knew about it.

Quote
An incident like this, to me, requires investigation. If it is commonplace amongst KBR's subcontractors, then KBR is most certainly liable.

The incident has been investigated.  If KBR knowingly hired a subcontractor who practiced human trafficking, then they have some responsibility.  To use my previous example, if you hired me to operate a coal mine for you and you knew I engaged in human trafficking, then someone could bring a case against you.  If you didn't have a reason to suspect me of any illegal practices, there's no way someone could point a finger at you.

Investigating KBR when there wasn't enough evidence to even charge the subcontractor with human trafficking simply and only because KBR hired other Nepalis directly is not reasonable.

Quote
It was one example of an injustice under the watch of the current administration out of over a thousand that are known about. Only a handful of which are getting any serious attention.

We disagree, but that is a different discussion.

Quote
And that's a strawman, you are making the claim that since I am saying that KBR may be guilty of a crime now, that I must also infer that KBR has always been guilty of crimes.

My argument isn't a straw man.  I'm not misrepresenting your position.  My argument was that the D-party was not defined by slavery because KBR was innocent when hired by a D-administration, KBR is innocent now because it wasn't even charged, and so the R-party hiring the innocent KBR just like the D-party administrations means the R-party isn't defined by slavery either.


QuoteRegarding Inkidu, it should not be the responsibility of the reader to double-check every last fact someone posts, and that was not the first time he had been nudged about that, and I was not the first person to do so.

As far as I know, nobody has any responsibility to make their posts factually accurate.  They should if they want to be taken seriously, but there's no requirement.  There is one HELL of alot of highly inaccurate posts on these boards.  The other things I have to say about this I'll write to you in a PM.

Vekseid

Quote from: HeretiKat on September 08, 2008, 11:06:32 PM
The suspicious thing is that the article doesn't say that.  It says:
"A dozen men from Nepal had been hired by a U.S. defense subcontractor and taken against their will to work at a military base in Iraq. On the way, they were captured by insurgents, taken hostage and executed."

It says they were "taken against their will to work at a military base in Iraq." 

It most certainly does:

QuoteIn 2004, the Nepalis had been told they were going to work at a luxury hotel in Jordan. But there were no hotel jobs.

^^^

That's how human trafficking works.

Quote
My argument isn't a straw man.  I'm not misrepresenting your position.  My argument was that the D-party was not defined by slavery because KBR was innocent when hired by a D-administration, KBR is innocent now because it wasn't even charged, and so the R-party hiring the innocent KBR just like the D-party administrations means the R-party isn't defined by slavery either.

For me, it says what a lot of current Republican party members would be perfectly willing to let happen. Like I said, it's far from the only indiscretion.

QuoteAs far as I know, nobody has any responsibility to make their posts factually accurate.  They should if they want to be taken seriously, but there's no requirement.  There is one HELL of alot of highly inaccurate posts on these boards.  The other things I have to say about this I'll write to you in a PM.

It was a part of the rules when you joined here, and was until we sliced the rules recently. As mentioned, it didn't mean they're no longer in effect, it just means that rather than forcing everyone to read 60+ rules, when someone fouls up on something, we let them know that way. Much less anal looking, because really, 98% of the people here are fine.

Do I expect everyone to be 100% accurate? No. No one is and no one can be. That's not the issue. When someone doesn't bother checking facts that would have taken them less time to research than to post, that's an issue.

As for the inaccurate posts, I know it happens a fair deal. Sometimes I have the time to weigh in, sometimes I don't. If you see something as a serious issue, feel free to point it out or weigh in on the discussion yourself.

NightBird

Quote from: Madalina on September 08, 2008, 06:44:07 PM
<snip>

My biggest fear with Universal Health Care comes down to money. In order to cover everyone, profits will have to decrease. I know that in a perfect world, this shouldn't matter... but most people use doctors who own private clinics, and they cannot have these clinics if they are not turning a profit. I fear that in order to make money, their quality of care will go down due to staff cuts and lower budgets for supplies and equipment.

I so swore that I wasn't going to jump in on a political discussion, but I'm just going to bring up a couple of angles to consider: When there are currently the number of people who cannot pay their bills, won't the health care providers actually be getting more overall if they get some reasonable proportion for everyone? Where I live, the numbers are 30% of patients served in ERs or admitted through ERs pay less than 10% of what they owe. Clinics would no longer have to charge paying patients an amount to cover services offered the indigent, and there are still many health care providers who do not refuse emergency services to those who cannot pay. The AMA has come out in favor of universal health coverage on that basis: there is every chance that there will be more money overall going into the health care system when all services receive some moderately reasonable sort of remuneration.

Also, the broader the overall risk pool for any sort of insurance, the lower the benefit per insured averages out to be. A national health care system is honestly the best averaging there is when considered from that perspective. And, as far as that goes, another thought ot ponder would be whether the sort of profit percentages and executive salaries that have come to be expected from health care and pharmaceuticals are viable, sustainable numbers. We would have a lot more money for staff, supplies and equipment if we paid higher executives something closer to the multiplier of the average worker's pay that's the standard in other industrialized countries or if more money was reinvested rather than siphoned off into profits. Just because any firm has every right to make decisions that favor executives and profits over reinvestment doesn't mean that it's the best long-run strategy to do so.

Like I said, those are just some things to consider. I'm not going to tell anybody they're wrong in this thread, just suggest that there are more angles from which one can view the health care crisis.

Vekseid

Before flying to India became a viable health care choice, people would instead come to the US to get suitable health care for situations that may potentially be an emergency - I've known Canadians who, faced with a six month waiting list to get checked for cancer, came down to the US instead.

Edit: That is to say, a blanket universal healthcare system is not necessarily the answer. You need to have a balance between making sure everyone is okay, and not allowing the system to become overloaded.

NightBird

I won't argue that that's happened, since it's readily documentable that it has.

Again, I would suggest, though, that the problems in the systems as created thus far are not necessarily inherent in every conceivable system. I have great faith in human ingenuity to solve as well as to screw up, even if the latter tends to be far more common and arguably far more easy to achieve.

Methos

Quote from: Sherona on September 08, 2008, 06:50:31 PM
Considering the hell I went through in an underfunded state hospital before I probably should be scared. But considering that was funded by a very poor state anyways, and I think obama's would be federally funded it might make a difference. And since doctors in many other parts of the world, Canada, Sweden being two manage to operate well under a universal healthcare, tehre should be no reason US doctors can not. But I will be the first to tell you I do not have a brain for economics.

Actually Sherona that's something of a fairytale claiming that Canada's system manages fairly well. All our hospitals are generally underfunded, understaffed and lacking in diagnostic equipement. You wait a terribly long time to see any medical personal and if you need non-critical surgery good luck with that! MRIs are hard to come by and patients have very few if any rights. If that's an ideal system to emulate you're kidding your self. Bad medical care for everyone is a silly idea and pretty much what we have..
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 05, 2008, 05:33:41 AM
Obama's health care plan is quite detailed, and addresses a lot of issues - both well-known and not - about the modern healthcare system. Addressing ballooning malpractice insurance costs (especially with OB/GYN), doctors being paid by the number of patients cared for rather than quality of said care (a friend of mine had a doctor visit that consisted of a jab in the back and one sentence), etc.

I have to wonder, sometimes, if I'm too tolerant nonsense that pops up in general, by people who don't bother researching things. This is a role playing forum, however, so I try not to be too heavy handed.

And I'm sure you'll be happy to point out exactly where and why these people are wrong?

Put up a real argument, or drop it. Address specific points. Tear apart his health care plan. Whatever. But this is just trolling.

Are you claiming that the right wing has promoted capitalism or a free market economy?

The free market requires several things that are absent from many facets of the current American economy.

1: The absence of fraud. Not just in the legal sense, but also in the moral sense. Frequently in the American economy, one or both parties to a trade does not fully reveal proper information about their product or service, even initiating lawsuits in order to suppress such information. More recently, news agencies face the threat of a loss of revenue when reporting negative information about a high-profile client.
2: The above may also be terms as both parties to a trade being fully informed and mentally capable of making such decisions. This goes a great deal further than truth in advertising, it also means a proper education, which many Americans lack.
3: The free market implies that one party is not inherently advantaged over another, whether by means of monopoly or government intervention. That is, one party should not be coerced - via financial or whatever means - into doing business with another specific party.
4: Capitalism and the free market in their own right do not prohibit the existence of social programs. The reasoning for this ought to be patently obvious - people naturally want to survive. If someone does not have the means or knowledge to acquire a need lawfully they will do so unlawfully.

There are not any truly free markets in the United States. Food comes close - and if a number of lobbies fail, it may return to that, but at the moment the corn lobby is busy driving up diabetes and obesity in America with its corn syrup via sugar tariffs. Always, at some point, in almost every trade in America, at one step or another the government or some informing party plays a hand. Whether it is to withhold information, provide subsidies, or indefinite copyright extensions.

But the right-wing has almost entirely been about making these matters worse.

...of all the examples I could list, of the vast abuses of power that have occurred under the republican watch in this country, I'm just going to put out one.

Because it represents the republican party in such a nutshell.

Slavery.

See Vekseid statements like 'the Republican Party is represented by slavery' - are exactly why I created this thread. I knew the moment I put a post in the political forum of this nature that some people would show up slavering at the fact I made statements that weren't found in their Michael Moore handbook and go off on ridiculous tangents like that. I won't bother to reiterate HeretiCat's critique of your bizarre interpretation of the contents of the link, but really your getting into Kevin Bacon's Five Degrees of seperation there and its just silly.

Are my comments about Obama vauge? Yes actually - I'm guessing you don't grasp the irony there. But a vauge criticizism of Obama its ironic because the man speaks vaguely. You just need to say "Yes we can!" make jokes about the Obamamessiah.

And nowhere in my post did I say that the American economy per say was perfect. I simply said capitalism is preferable to all other systems of wealth generation. You've offered nothing to disprove that, aside from venting your spleen regarding some aspects of the American economy.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

kongming

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 01:08:29 AM
some people would show up slavering at the fact I made statements that weren't found in their Michael Moore handbook

Michael Moore is a complete tool. Most left-wing people know that. Yes, he's probably good at getting teenage rebels on his side, the ones that are sure that their parents are to blame for the state of the world, but in general, he talks a load of shit, makes things up to suit his agenda (much like any politician in that regard), and is generally annoying. Seriously. Don't compare us to him, unless you want to be heaped in with such pillars of right-wing as Bush or (ooh! Ooh! I'm going to invoke Godwin here!) Hitler.

Quotecapitalism is preferable to all other systems of wealth generation. You've offered nothing to disprove that, aside from venting your spleen regarding some aspects of the American economy.

You are wrong on so many levels there. Just about every country that is a little bit more socialist is considered a lot better than America - Western Europe tends to have less poverty, infant mortality and the like, and people don't hate their own governments quite so much. Socialism as its ideal is really the perfect system, it's just that greedy people, who want to be able to have more than other people and use their possessions as a means to get away with breaking laws, won't ever work with socialism.

We can't have the perfect system as long as greedy people exist, as they demand to have a system where they can be rich. So instead we make do with Capitalism, and as a result, far more people end up suffering than otherwise. I can totally justify Lenin deciding an important factor of communism was to round up and kill all the people who were too attached to their wealth. I don't condone his decision to actually go ahead and do that, and he did many other things wrong, but I can see where he was getting at.

Remember, Capitalism is pretty much designed so that it's a crime to live in the slums, but not to own them, and the reason why there are "rich/white drugs" and "poor/black drugs" with different penalties applied, and why there is so much poverty in general.

tl;dr? Capitalism is shit, but because we don't just exile/shoot greedy people who can't play by the rules, we have to put up with it and just try to allow in as much socialism as we can.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.

Ons/Offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=9536.msg338515

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 01:08:29 AM
See Vekseid statements like 'the Republican Party is represented by slavery' - are exactly why I created this thread. I knew the moment I put a post in the political forum of this nature that some people would show up slavering at the fact I made statements that weren't found in their Michael Moore handbook and go off on ridiculous tangents like that. I won't bother to reiterate HeretiCat's critique of your bizarre interpretation of the contents of the link, but really your getting into Kevin Bacon's Five Degrees of seperation there and its just silly.

Are my comments about Obama vauge? Yes actually - I'm guessing you don't grasp the irony there. But a vauge criticizism of Obama its ironic because the man speaks vaguely. You just need to say "Yes we can!" make jokes about the Obamamessiah.

Oh, how cute, I bet you're proud of yourself.

So you have no intention of discussion, reason, or debate, just trying to rile people up when people on these forums are watching friends and family suffer and die before their eyes?

You wonder why discussion here might get a little heated, or a little left leaning?

When I read your post I thought of one of them in particular. This person is a light to my life and one of the reasons Elliquiy exists, but they can't afford basic medical care. The world has given them nothing but suffering. My heart breaks every moment that I can do nothing for them.

But you don't care. You don't even know them. As far as you know, they don't exist. You haven't experienced a thousandth of the torment they have gone through, nor do yo have a thousandth of their cares, reading your posts.

You just come on, spit in their faces and make empty posts like that one. You haven't bothered to address a single point that I've made, and Heritikat is only seriously contesting one. And you know what? I was pissed off.

I still am. A lot of people are. People are dying, people are suffering, and people are starving. The economy has grown but most Americans are making less than they did eight years ago, and that's with two years of growth since the Democrats retook the House and Senate.

It's only natural for me to be a bit surprised and incensed when someone does not care. Don't you think?

And you, apparently, think I've read or watched something by Michael Moore. No idea where you got that idea.

QuoteAnd nowhere in my post did I say that the American economy per say was perfect. I simply said capitalism is preferable to all other systems of wealth generation. You've offered nothing to disprove that, aside from venting your spleen regarding some aspects of the American economy.

...what?

Do you have something to say?

----

And I'm going to split off Heritikat's last post there. Definitely needs its own thread.

Methos

Quote from: kongming on September 09, 2008, 01:35:35 AM
Michael Moore is a complete tool. Most left-wing people know that. Yes, he's probably good at getting teenage rebels on his side, the ones that are sure that their parents are to blame for the state of the world, but in general, he talks a load of shit, makes things up to suit his agenda (much like any politician in that regard), and is generally annoying. Seriously. Don't compare us to him, unless you want to be heaped in with such pillars of right-wing as Bush or (ooh! Ooh! I'm going to invoke Godwin here!) Hitler.

You are wrong on so many levels there. Just about every country that is a little bit more socialist is considered a lot better than America - Western Europe tends to have less poverty, infant mortality and the like, and people don't hate their own governments quite so much. Socialism as its ideal is really the perfect system, it's just that greedy people, who want to be able to have more than other people and use their possessions as a means to get away with breaking laws, won't ever work with socialism.

We can't have the perfect system as long as greedy people exist, as they demand to have a system where they can be rich. So instead we make do with Capitalism, and as a result, far more people end up suffering than otherwise. I can totally justify Lenin deciding an important factor of communism was to round up and kill all the people who were too attached to their wealth. I don't condone his decision to actually go ahead and do that, and he did many other things wrong, but I can see where he was getting at.

Remember, Capitalism is pretty much designed so that it's a crime to live in the slums, but not to own them, and the reason why there are "rich/white drugs" and "poor/black drugs" with different penalties applied, and why there is so much poverty in general.

tl;dr? Capitalism is shit, but because we don't just exile/shoot greedy people who can't play by the rules, we have to put up with it and just try to allow in as much socialism as we can.

Well regarding Michael Moore it wasn't so long ago that he was seated in a place of honour at the Democratic National Convention - so its not like I'm just pulling some obscure figure that no one on the left choses to associate with out of thin air. Secondly, Hitler wasn't even right wing. His party was the National Socialists, and they were statists. Its nothing more than a leftist slur to try and throw him on the right side of the political spectrum to begin with.

Although if Western Europe is such a great place to live why are the people of Holland leaving in rather large numbers? Why didn't all those happy residents of Western Europe bring children into their socialist paradise? Instead their countries are shrinking, fading away and/or being over run by Muslim immigrants. Their style of government is in a demographic death spiral.

And the idea that greedy people are the problem with the world? Damn you just don't care much for human nature do you? A good system is a system that deals with the parts it has. You don't build an airplane saying "Now this plane would fly if I had a hyperdrive" you put in the sort of engine you have to work with. The idea that we can all hold hands and share alike while sitting around the fire singing Kumbaya is nothing more than a stupid immature fantasy that has no basis in relatity. People are quasi-ego centric, they care about themselves, their family and their friends. The rest of the world by and large can go hang itself.

If you think the problem with capitalism is greedy people, you fail entirely to realize that any system that guarantees people an equal result is simply designed to benifet the stupid or the lazy. Why those sort of people should benefit at the expect of the hardworking, the talented or the ingenius is something that will always baffle me about the left. A free market assigns wealth principly on the basis of demand at least on the theoretical level. Its simply wrong headed and ignorant to suggest that all people contribute equally, they don't. A grade three student doing a group work project can figure that out pretty quickly. Benifet should mirror contribution and its never equal.

You could just as easily make a counter argument that we should kill all the stupid and lazy people. That way capitalism would function much better. We'd all have relatively equal levels of income as we'd have weeded out all the people who pose a drag on the system, and createda more level playing field. Eugenics anyone? Hell it would make a great deal more sense than getting rid of all the smart and ambitious people because they're too fond of being sucessful.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 01:57:20 AM
Oh, how cute, I bet you're proud of yourself.

So you have no intention of discussion, reason, or debate, just trying to rile people up when people on these forums are watching friends and family suffer and die before their eyes?

You wonder why discussion here might get a little heated, or a little left leaning?

When I read your post I thought of one of them in particular. This person is a light to my life and one of the reasons Elliquiy exists, but they can't afford basic medical care. The world has given them nothing but suffering. My heart breaks every moment that I can do nothing for them.

But you don't care. You don't even know them. As far as you know, they don't exist. You haven't experienced a thousandth of the torment they have gone through, nor do yo have a thousandth of their cares, reading your posts.

You just come on, spit in their faces and make empty posts like that one. You haven't bothered to address a single point that I've made, and Heritikat is only seriously contesting one. And you know what? I was pissed off.

I still am. A lot of people are. People are dying, people are suffering, and people are starving. The economy has grown but most Americans are making less than they did eight years ago, and that's with two years of growth since the Democrats retook the House and Senate.

It's only natural for me to be a bit surprised and incensed when someone does not care. Don't you think?

And you, apparently, think I've read or watched something by Michael Moore. No idea where you got that idea.

...what?

Do you have something to say?

----

And I'm going to split off Heritikat's last post there. Definitely needs its own thread.

That's really the problem with a debate per say with most people of a left wing persuasion. Nothing is really about a strictly logical argument it all boils down to some *feeling* you have. Your unhappy with the whole health care system in place because someone you know personally is ill and you were rather they were well. Fair enough your entitled to wishing your friend/loved one was well. On the other hand that really doesn't create any sort of moral obligation for everyone else in your country to shell out for that person's health. Illness and death are an unavoidable part of the human condition. There will always be those with access to better services, better goods and the like its been that way for the entire course of human history. I expect nothing different to transpire tomorrow. Nor even assuming some vast pile of money that could be ploughed into health care could all the illness and suffering even be eliminated. Cancer kills lots of people whatever treatments are administerd, many diseases can be managed but are ultimately fatal. Our current obsession with abnormally prolonging human life is really a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Inerrant Lust

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 01:58:02 AMAnd the idea that greedy people are the problem with the world? Damn you just don't care much for human nature do you? A good system is a system that deals with the parts it has. You don't build an airplane saying "Now this plane would fly if I had a hyperdrive" you put in the sort of engine you have to work with. The idea that we can all hold hands and share alike while sitting around the fire singing Kumbaya is nothing more than a stupid immature fantasy that has no basis in relatity. People are quasi-ego centric, they care about themselves, their family and their friends. The rest of the world by and large can go hang itself.

Instead of putting the engine into the plane and going "Well, I did my best. Let's hope it doesn't blow up in mid-air and kill 400 people." why don't we just take steps to make a better engine?

QuoteIf you think the problem with capitalism is greedy people, you fail entirely to realize that any system that guarantees people an equal result is simply designed to benifet the stupid or the lazy. Why those sort of people should benefit at the expect of the hardworking, the talented or the ingenius is something that will always baffle me about the left. A free market assigns wealth principly on the basis of demand at least on the theoretical level. Its simply wrong headed and ignorant to suggest that all people contribute equally, they don't. A grade three student doing a group work project can figure that out pretty quickly. Benifet should mirror contribution and its never equal.

If by stupid and lazy, you mean those who find the idea of exploiting other human beings deplorable. Capitalism breeds greed and underhanded tactics before hard work and ingenuity. Because it works.

On a seperate note, is Paris Hilton truly talented, hardworking, or ingenius? No- her money should go to someone who needs it.

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 02:08:13 AM
That's really the problem with a debate per say with most people of a left wing persuasion. Nothing is really about a strictly logical argument it all boils down to some *feeling* you have. Your unhappy with the whole health care system in place because someone you know personally is ill and you were rather they were well. Fair enough your entitled to wishing your friend/loved one was well. On the other hand that really doesn't create any sort of moral obligation for everyone else in your country to shell out for that person's health.

No, but it would be economically beneficial for everyone else in the country to do so, which is the great irony of it. Returning a productive worker to the economy enriches everyone, while trapping them in nonproductive agony does nothing.

It's similar to the reason behind public education - it's a right in the United States and other countries because an educated workforce is economically beneficial to everyone.

Not to say that they aren't horribly mismanaged - both education and health care, but the primary driver of an economy is a productive workforce.

...not to mention, it's absolutely silly. You pay for emergency care anyway, research into odd and new diseases is always beneficial to those who come later. It does not make sense to outright deny care to people.

QuoteIllness and death are an unavoidable part of the human condition. There will always be those with access to better services, better goods and the like its been that way for the entire course of human history. I expect nothing different to transpire tomorrow. Nor even assuming some vast pile of money that could be ploughed into health care could all the illness and suffering even be eliminated. Cancer kills lots of people whatever treatments are administerd, many diseases can be managed but are ultimately fatal. Our current obsession with abnormally prolonging human life is really a futile attempt to stave off the inevitable.

And yet cures for many forms of cancer have already been found, and one of my best friends just survived an episode of a very rare cancer. Alive today because of those who sought treatment before.

And everyone who doesn't, everyone who is forced to wait until it's too late, ends up depriving the world of someone who could have made something.




Please discuss Hitler / the Nazis in the new thread, thanks.

Methos

Quote from: Inerrant Lust on September 09, 2008, 02:23:53 AM
Instead of putting the engine into the plane and going "Well, I did my best. Let's hope it doesn't blow up in mid-air and kill 400 people." why don't we just take steps to make a better engine?

If by stupid and lazy, you mean those who find the idea of exploiting other human beings deplorable. Capitalism breeds greed and underhanded tactics before hard work and ingenuity. Because it works.

On a seperate note, is Paris Hilton truly talented, hardworking, or ingenius? No- her money should go to someone who needs it.

Your missing the point entirely Inerrant - the point being there is no sense wishing for a better engine. People are what they are and fundamentally haven't changed much over the course of thousands of years of human history. They are flawed creatures subject to greed, laziness, brilliance and insanity. Expecting them to be anything more than a mixed bag is simply wide eyed idealism that has no foundation in reality. If that's cynical fine, but cynicism most often closely resembles reality.

For whatever its worth Paris Hilton appears to be masterful at the art of self promotion. If she were truly the brainless idiot that she appears to be I doubt she'd have managed to capitalize on a bit of ameteur pornography to captapult a television and film career. Although I do take the point that I don't consider her to be particularly clever or talented in the conventional sense. On the other hand one of her ancestors clearly was, as he created a worldwide chain of hotels. I'm of a mind that having done so, he had every right to pass on the benifet of his talents and hard work to his family. People have a right to the fruits of their own labours and to pass them on as they see fit, generally to their loved ones.

As for saying capitalism is unfair that's generally the mark of someone whose really not interested in trying to advance their own place in the world and instead wants a handout.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

kongming

Exactly, IL. And Methos has just proven what I suspected: that he's one of the born-into-a-good-position kind who are too self-centred to accept that the majority of people in poverty or even just "not that well off" are stuck where they are, and nothing short of random fate will enable them to break out of it and rise. The system is designed to keep them there, while the upper class float to the top like fecal matter, blissfully unaware of the problems and just assuming that their success is a result of hard work.

Occasionally someone does well as a result of hard work and/or clever thinking, although even then they're usually born into a lifestyle that lets them do that. I am one of those lucky ones, I was given the chance and I may end up becoming a pharmacist or even a doctor, using hard work and clever thinking to succeed and to help others. And some of that help will be going to people who can only afford it because our government feels it wasn't actually their fault for being born with debilitating health conditions or the like.

But it's rare that it happens as a result of their own work.

Likewise, there are plenty of people in poverty too lazy to try. But you know what? There are so many more who are trying, and their lack of results are sending a clear message to the others, encouraging the laziness. And then there are those who are simply rendered unable to help themselves.

But Methos has convinced me that he was born into a life of upper-middle class pseudo-luxury, and had the easy ride from there, and gets to play with the rules used for rich people.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head.

Ons/Offs:
https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=9536.msg338515

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 02:32:31 AM
No, but it would be economically beneficial for everyone else in the country to do so, which is the great irony of it. Returning a productive worker to the economy enriches everyone, while trapping them in nonproductive agony does nothing.

It's similar to the reason behind public education - it's a right in the United States and other countries because an educated workforce is economically beneficial to everyone.

Not to say that they aren't horribly mismanaged - both education and health care, but the primary driver of an economy is a productive workforce.

...not to mention, it's absolutely silly. You pay for emergency care anyway, research into odd and new diseases is always beneficial to those who come later. It does not make sense to outright deny care to people.

And yet cures for many forms of cancer have already been found, and one of my best friends just survived an episode of a very rare cancer. Alive today because of those who sought treatment before.

And everyone who doesn't, everyone who is forced to wait until it's too late, ends up depriving the world of someone who could have made something.




Please discuss Hitler / the Nazis in the new thread, thanks.

No offense Vekseid but a truly productive worker would be compensated to an extent that would allow them to afford health insurance. If you can't your likely an entirely replaceable worker.

Is it beneficial to keep everyone healthy? Perhaps but health care systems aren't designed to keep everyone healthy and working, they're designed to treat illnesses. A large portion of the money is thrown at the elderly who are not going to be made into productive workers again, or even ever be made well again. The claim that its an economic benefit is thus in my mine entirely unsubstantiated.

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Schwarzepard

Quote from: kongming on September 09, 2008, 01:35:35 AM
Michael Moore is a complete tool. Most left-wing people know that. Yes, he's probably good at getting teenage rebels on his side, the ones that are sure that their parents are to blame for the state of the world, but in general, he talks a load of shit, makes things up to suit his agenda (much like any politician in that regard), and is generally annoying. Seriously.

We agree.


Quote from: kongming on September 09, 2008, 01:35:35 AMI can totally justify Lenin deciding an important factor of communism was to round up and kill all the people who were too attached to their wealth. I don't condone his decision to actually go ahead and do that, and he did many other things wrong, but I can see where he was getting at.

This is my response:

QuoteOh, how cute, I bet you're proud of yourself.

So you have no intention of discussion, reason, or debate, just trying to rile people up when people on these forums are watching friends and family suffer and die before their eyes?

The soil of the Rodina drank the blood of millions because of people who think like you.  And it didn't even make socialism work. 

Communism ended hunger in Russia, not for Russians but for the rats and cockroaches that feasted on their corpses.

Social welfare states only worked in Western capitalist democracies because capitalism provided a functioning economy to pay for the socialist programs.


Methos

Quote from: kongming on September 09, 2008, 02:39:32 AM
Exactly, IL. And Methos has just proven what I suspected: that he's one of the born-into-a-good-position kind who are too self-centred to accept that the majority of people in poverty or even just "not that well off" are stuck where they are, and nothing short of random fate will enable them to break out of it and rise. The system is designed to keep them there, while the upper class float to the top like fecal matter, blissfully unaware of the problems and just assuming that their success is a result of hard work.

Occasionally someone does well as a result of hard work and/or clever thinking, although even then they're usually born into a lifestyle that lets them do that. I am one of those lucky ones, I was given the chance and I may end up becoming a pharmacist or even a doctor, using hard work and clever thinking to succeed and to help others. And some of that help will be going to people who can only afford it because our government feels it wasn't actually their fault for being born with debilitating health conditions or the like.

But it's rare that it happens as a result of their own work.

Likewise, there are plenty of people in poverty too lazy to try. But you know what? There are so many more who are trying, and their lack of results are sending a clear message to the others, encouraging the laziness. And then there are those who are simply rendered unable to help themselves.

But Methos has convinced me that he was born into a life of upper-middle class pseudo-luxury, and had the easy ride from there, and gets to play with the rules used for rich people.

I'm two generations removed from being a poor Eastern European peasant, so I can't help but laugh at your suggestion that I'm 'to the manor born'. I'm middle class and my education was financed through hard work, scholarships and debt. I have no particular sympathy for those that bemoan endlessly the fate of the lower class - the question is what are those in the lower class doing to better their situation? Far to few of them make use of the opporunities given to them, and instead lead lives riddled with crime, drugs and alcohol. They aren't early trying to grasp the brass ring and improve their life so why should I give them anything? If they wish to improve their situation, let them take steps to do so. Rarely does hard work go unrewarded. And if you think its unfair that some are not as clever as others, well then what can they do but work harder to try and make up for it? Ambition is not genetic its a personal choice.

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 02:39:41 AM
No offense Vekseid but a truly productive worker would be compensated to an extent that would allow them to afford health insurance. If you can't your likely an entirely replaceable worker.

You are making several assumptions:

1: This person has had the time to do so. A child is supposed to amass $10,000 for medical costs?
2: That you're in a system where emergency care is only for those who can afford it. That is not currently the cast. You pay for emergency treatment anyway, and honestly, it can't be permitted any other way - if someone is mugged, or loses their ID, or some similar mishap occurs, there simply isn't time to determine those things. A lot of money goes into this at the moment.
3: There is no such thing as an epidemic in your world. I mean this quite literally - it is rather imperative that we make sure people don't ignore a strange illness. Or worse, become unable to afford the full treatment for a deadly but once curable disease...

QuoteIs it beneficial to keep everyone healthy? Perhaps but health care systems aren't designed to keep everyone healthy and working, they're designed to treat illnesses. A large portion of the money is thrown at the elderly who are not going to be made into productive workers again, or even ever be made well again. The claim that its an economic benefit is thus in my mine entirely unsubstantiated.

The only elderly I care deeply about are extremely well off. They've certainly earned their money and I doubt you've been nearly as productive in your life. I don't begrudge them one dime of their millions. Their parents were impoverished after all.

But yeah, I'm all for limiting social security to several years, etc. I believe there are reasons for government provided programs, but there is no argument that things are are less than perfect in many ways.




And as for your comment about the lower class not doing enough to better themselves, what are they going to do when they don't know any other way, but to impose themselves on you? One way or another?

Again, this is something I mentioned before - it isn't enough for there to be opportunity, people must understand how to take hold of it.

Inerrant Lust

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 02:34:41 AM
Your missing the point entirely Inerrant - the point being there is no sense wishing for a better engine. People are what they are and fundamentally haven't changed much over the course of thousands of years of human history. They are flawed creatures subject to greed, laziness, brilliance and insanity. Expecting them to be anything more than a mixed bag is simply wide eyed idealism that has no foundation in reality. If that's cynical fine, but cynicism most often closely resembles reality.

I didn't say wishing for a better engine, I said working to make it better.

Are you seriously saying humankind hasn't progressed in the ten thousand years it has been on this earth? Cause I can't tell you how many times those damn vikings/mongols/huns have raided my city, killing all the men and raping all the women. I wish someone was smart enough to illegalize slavery. I wish the draft was gone. I wish women weren't considered property. And so on. And so on.

Human nature may lean towards raping and pillaging and exploiting, but you are a fool if you think that mankind is incapable of overcoming such base instincts. The very existence of such 'useless' things as art and philosophy defy all concepts of darwinism, and by extention, human nature.

QuoteAs for saying capitalism is unfair that's generally the mark of someone whose really not interested in trying to advance their own place in the world and instead wants a handout.

Because it's entirely my fault that my mother got a disease that prematurely ended her career, and I'm likely to suffer the same fate. Thanks. Thanks alot.

QuoteIs it beneficial to keep everyone healthy? Perhaps but health care systems aren't designed to keep everyone healthy and working, they're designed to treat illnesses. A large portion of the money is thrown at the elderly who are not going to be made into productive workers again, or even ever be made well again. The claim that its an economic benefit is thus in my mine entirely unsubstantiated.

Health is a concept above such petty things as wealth. I would rather be poor and healthy, than rich and dying. You may dissagree, but you should NEVER make that choice for another human being.

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 02:53:18 AM
You are making several assumptions:

1: This person has had the time to do so. A child is supposed to amass $10,000 for medical costs?
2: That you're in a system where emergency care is only for those who can afford it. That is not currently the cast. You pay for emergency treatment anyway, and honestly, it can't be permitted any other way - if someone is mugged, or loses their ID, or some similar mishap occurs, there simply isn't time to determine those things. A lot of money goes into this at the moment.
3: There is no such thing as an epidemic in your world. I mean this quite literally - it is rather imperative that we make sure people don't ignore a strange illness. Or worse, become unable to afford the full treatment for a deadly but once curable disease...

The only elderly I care deeply about are extremely well off. They've certainly earned their money and I doubt you've been nearly as productive in your life. I don't begrudge them one dime of their millions. Their parents were impoverished after all.

But yeah, I'm all for limiting social security to several years, etc. I believe there are reasons for government provided programs, but there is no argument that things are are less than perfect in many ways.




And as for your comment about the lower class not doing enough to better themselves, what are they going to do when they don't know any other way, but to impose themselves on you? One way or another?

Again, this is something I mentioned before - it isn't enough for there to be opportunity, people must understand how to take hold of it.

The child's family should have had an insurance plan that would have added them to their coverage. Furthermore, a child that is already acruing that great an expense in medical care may never be a productive worker. So it rather goes against your point that it would be an economic benefit for everyone to cure them if that's even possible.

Actually there are such things as epidemics in my world. I just rather doubt that we can stop them. I view death as a constant that you can't stop with a really good social program. If there is an epidemic it may be necessary to contain it. On the other hand what the hell does that have to do with a national health care system? That's an emergency.

As for the poor? Were it up to me I'd eliminate welfare for all those except those that are disabled to the point of being unable to work. Everyone else would be left to their own devices to make their way in the world as best they can. Be given the option of comfortable poverty as opposed to truly having to wander where their next meal is coming from if they don't seek gainful employment leads to complacency and welfare recipients breeding more welfare recipients. Malthus has been right for several centuries, the grain dole and its sucessor welfare only results in a greater number of poor people than should otherwise have existed.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Quote from: Inerrant Lust on September 09, 2008, 02:54:25 AM
I didn't say wishing for a better engine, I said working to make it better.

Are you seriously saying humankind hasn't progressed in the ten thousand years it has been on this earth? Cause I can't tell you how many times those damn vikings/mongols/huns have raided my city, killing all the men and raping all the women. I wish someone was smart enough to illegalize slavery. I wish the draft was gone. I wish women weren't considered property. And so on. And so on.

Human nature may lean towards raping and pillaging and exploiting, but you are a fool if you think that mankind is incapable of overcoming such base instincts. The very existence of such 'useless' things as art and philosophy defy all concepts of darwinism, and by extention, human nature.

Because it's entirely my fault that my mother got a disease that prematurely ended her career, and I'm likely to suffer the same fate. Thanks. Thanks alot.

Health is a concept above such petty things as wealth. I would rather be poor and healthy, than rich and dying. You may dissagree, but you should NEVER make that choice for another human being.

My point is that you aren't going to make people better. People are people and they are imperfect. Always have been always will be. Expecting otherwise is non-sensical and ignores the entire evidence of human history.

Are people different today than they were ten thousand years ago? No not really, there are still good people and bad people. Some customs and practices change but people remain the same creatures they always have been. You can say that no one like the Huns or the Vikings exist these days but then you probably haven't been hanging around with the Taliban. They would have fit right in with Atilla.

I didn't say I thik people are incapable of overcoming their base impulses. I said they will always have base impulses. Mankind will never be idealic. They will never be perfect. You cannot base a system of economics or government around the assumption that they will be. Its silly, it won't happen, never has, never will.

Medicine is just another service along with any other. Some people have nicer cars, better houses, better education, better entertainment, and inevitably better medicine. Inequality will always exist as the talents of people for accumulating resources will always be divergent.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Inerrant Lust

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 03:11:00 AM
My point is that you aren't going to make people better. People are people and they are imperfect. Always have been always will be. Expecting otherwise is non-sensical and ignores the entire evidence of human history.

For someone who says that hard work is the paragon of human worth, you're quite eager to give up. I am, by no means, an idealist. Yet I work towards making the world perfect, even if it shall never be accomplished. If I can change one thing for the better, that is progress.

QuoteAre people different today than they were ten thousand years ago? No not really, there are still good people and bad people. Some customs and practices change but people remain the same creatures they always have been. You can say that no one like the Huns or the Vikings exist these days but then you probably haven't been hanging around with the Taliban. They would have fit right in with Atilla.

Call me when Al Qaeda or the Taliban amass enough power to exert their control over entire continents in the way that the Mongols did.

QuoteI didn't say I thik people are incapable of overcoming their base impulses. I said they will always have base impulses. Mankind will never be idealic. They will never be perfect. You cannot base a system of economics or government around the assumption that they will be. Its silly, it won't happen, never has, never will.

Please tell me you don't find me so naive as to believe in perfection. Please don't tell me you think I would just let someone walk all over me because I believe mankind is inherently progressing.

QuoteMedicine is just another service along with any other. Some people have nicer cars, better houses, better education, better entertainment, and inevitably better medicine. Inequality will always exist as the talents of people for accumulating resources will always be divergent.

A service? Does a human life really have a price?

Health is, as I said, a concept that is ethically superior to all else. Forget education, forget welfare, forget everything.. A government should not let its people suffer in the name of 'fiscal responsibility.'

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 03:03:02 AM
The child's family should have had an insurance plan that would have added them to their coverage.

Actually, the child I'm thinking of did have them on insurance.  Family went into bankruptcy anyway. Your point?

I mean, above and beyond the ridiculousness of having to be privileged by birth.

QuoteFurthermore, a child that is already acruing that great an expense in medical care may never be a productive worker. So it rather goes against your point that it would be an economic benefit for everyone to cure them if that's even possible.

Waitwaitwait.

Are you even familiar with medical costs in the US here?

You have got to be kidding me. The average American makes several million dollars over the course of their lives.  To deny a child or even someone under the age of forty a hundred thousand dollars in medical care, you need to make the claim that less than one in ten will go on to live fully productive lives.

To put another way, even with the ridiculously inflated costs of modern medical care, a pretty simple exercise shows it's worth it:

1: 40 year old, below average American makes $40,000 per year. Over the next 25 years until their retirement - if they retire then - they'll make about ~1 million dollars, before taxes. Regardless, their employer - whomever they are - considers them to be worth it.
2: Person gets into an accident, loses all of their fingers on one hand, total cost after insurance is willing to pay - $250,000.
3: This person is useless to their job if they don't get their fingers back.

Let's make this your 'capitalist' world, though. He doesn't get any form of health care or support, he's let go from his job and completely on his own due to no fault of his own. In your perfect world, there's no such thing as food stamps.  He needs food, he needs to support his family. He can't afford another education.

He has a gun. What is he going to do when he finally gets desperate?

In your scenario, society is out three quarters of a million dollars worth of productivity.

QuoteActually there are such things as epidemics in my world. I just rather doubt that we can stop them. I view death as a constant that you can't stop with a really good social program. If there is an epidemic it may be necessary to contain it. On the other hand what the hell does that have to do with a national health care system? That's an emergency.

Epidemics can only be contained if caught early. But more seriously, our current health care system actively promotes their creation - not a good way to be.

QuoteAs for the poor? Were it up to me I'd eliminate welfare for all those except those that are disabled to the point of being unable to work. Everyone else would be left to their own devices to make their way in the world as best they can.

In a nation where there is a gun for every man, woman and child, is that really what you want? Think hard.

QuoteBe given the option of comfortable poverty as opposed to truly having to wander where their next meal is coming from if they don't seek gainful employment leads to complacency and welfare recipients breeding more welfare recipients. Malthus has been right for several centuries, the grain dole and its sucessor welfare only results in a greater number of poor people than should otherwise have existed.

And so does failing to provide ladders for them to escape from poverty.

1: They need to know how (education)
2: They need to be capable (healthy)

As I mentioned, very early on in this thread, capitalism implies that people are making informed decisions and have the full capacity to do so. You are actively denying people this.

Methos

Quote from: Inerrant Lust on September 09, 2008, 03:34:48 AM
For someone who says that hard work is the paragon of human worth, you're quite eager to give up. I am, by no means, an idealist. Yet I work towards making the world perfect, even if it shall never be accomplished. If I can change one thing for the better, that is progress.

Call me when Al Qaeda or the Taliban amass enough power to exert their control over entire continents in the way that the Mongols did.

Please tell me you don't find me so naive as to believe in perfection. Please don't tell me you think I would just let someone walk all over me because I believe mankind is inherently progressing.

A service? Does a human life really have a price?

Health is, as I said, a concept that is ethically superior to all else. Forget education, forget welfare, forget everything.. A government should not let its people suffer in the name of 'fiscal responsibility.'

I happen to believe Edmund Burke had the right of it when he said that its foolishness to ever think the world can ever be vastly improved. We can only strive to make some minor improvements.

Well if you want examples of barbaric backwaters how does most of Africa and the Middle East strike your fancy? They still stone women in the middle east for having allowed themselves to be raped.

Medicine is a service. Your hiring a professional to give you advice on a problem. And yes there is a price tag on that whether you expect it to be paid through taxes or insurance premiums, its horribly naive to expect it to be free.

There is nothing sacred about health. In fact its fairly fickle. But if you want a shoulder to cry on regarding it, I'd recommend taking up religion.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 03:44:53 AM
Actually, the child I'm thinking of did have them on insurance.  Family went into bankruptcy anyway. Your point?

I mean, above and beyond the ridiculousness of having to be privileged by birth.

Waitwaitwait.

Are you even familiar with medical costs in the US here?

You have got to be kidding me. The average American makes several million dollars over the course of their lives.  To deny a child or even someone under the age of forty a hundred thousand dollars in medical care, you need to make the claim that less than one in ten will go on to live fully productive lives.

To put another way, even with the ridiculously inflated costs of modern medical care, a pretty simple exercise shows it's worth it:

1: 40 year old, below average American makes $40,000 per year. Over the next 25 years until their retirement - if they retire then - they'll make about ~1 million dollars, before taxes. Regardless, their employer - whomever they are - considers them to be worth it.
2: Person gets into an accident, loses all of their fingers on one hand, total cost after insurance is willing to pay - $250,000.
3: This person is useless to their job if they don't get their fingers back.

Let's make this your 'capitalist' world, though. He doesn't get any form of health care or support, he's let go from his job and completely on his own due to no fault of his own. In your perfect world, there's no such thing as food stamps.  He needs food, he needs to support his family. He can't afford another education.

He has a gun. What is he going to do when he finally gets desperate?

In your scenario, society is out three quarters of a million dollars worth of productivity.

Epidemics can only be contained if caught early. But more seriously, our current health care system actively promotes their creation - not a good way to be.

In a nation where there is a gun for every man, woman and child, is that really what you want? Think hard.

And so does failing to provide ladders for them to escape from poverty.

1: They need to know how (education)
2: They need to be capable (healthy)

As I mentioned, very early on in this thread, capitalism implies that people are making informed decisions and have the full capacity to do so. You are actively denying people this.

No I mean quite simply that if someone is that sickly at an early age, its quite likely that they will be sickly for the duration of their life and be a continued drain on the system assuming the government is footing the bill. If they require that much money to rectify their situation now, its unlikely they will reach the income projections your offering.

And in the example of your 40 year old worker, losing the fingers of one hand doesn't necessarily prohibit you from working although it may require you to change employment. In your scenario the fellow is probably also married and a homeowner which leaves him with the options of his spouse working if she is not already or alternatively borrowing against his own equity while he retrains for other employment.

The health system actively promotes their creation? Oh what a load of bunk Vekseid. The next time a bought of dysentry or the plague breaks out in the United States let me know. The only epidemics we have these days are stemming from chinese backwaters where they live to close to their farm animals and have poor sanitation.

If everyone has a gun Vekseid I don't see the problem. Its difficult to rob another armed person. If your suggesting insurrection I shouldn't think that a rifle would be much use against a Blackhawk helicopter or a tank.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Inerrant Lust

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 03:45:01 AM
I happen to believe Edmund Burke had the right of it when he said that its foolishness to ever think the world can ever be vastly improved. We can only strive to make some minor improvements.

...Isn't that what I said? :P A single raindrop is insignifigant, yet enough of them can flood entire cities.

QuoteWell if you want examples of barbaric backwaters how does most of Africa and the Middle East strike your fancy? They still stone women in the middle east for having allowed themselves to be raped.

A minority. That's 2 of the 6 populated continents? In previous centuries, 6 of the 6 populated continents were barbaric.

Besides, not all of Africa and the Middle-east is a crapshoot, and there is certaintly people trying (some successfully) to improve it- which is more than you can say for yourself.

QuoteMedicine is a service. Your hiring a professional to give you advice on a problem. And yes there is a price tag on that whether you expect it to be paid through taxes or insurance premiums, its horribly naive to expect it to be free.

There is nothing sacred about health. In fact its fairly fickle. But if you want a shoulder to cry on regarding it, I'd recommend taking up religion.

And what if you were stricken by some illness tommorow, that costs some obscene ammount of money that you could never afford. Is your response 'Tough luck'?

You are incredibly callous. No offense, but I pray you never become the head of a state. "The world's a shitty place, but I'm not gonna go anything about it."

QuoteIf everyone has a gun Vekseid I don't see the problem. Its difficult to rob another armed person. If your suggesting insurrection I shouldn't think that a rifle would be much use against a Blackhawk helicopter or a tank.

Are you kidding?

Your first response isn't "We should avoid as much violence as we can"

...but instead, "We can handle it."

Really?

Mia

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 03:45:01 AMits horribly naive to expect it to be free.

Strangely enough, in most modern countries (and others) it is. And don't come to me screaming about Cuba and so on... just look how most countries in EU has solved it and you get a good picture.
I would like to meet the woman that invented sex to see what she is working on now.

ON and OFF: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=8615.0

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 03:56:36 AM
No I mean quite simply that if someone is that sickly at an early age, its quite likely that they will be sickly for the duration of their life and be a continued drain on the system assuming the government is footing the bill. If they require that much money to rectify their situation now, its unlikely they will reach the income projections your offering.

I know three who have incurred costs over a hundred thousand dollars as children, though mostly borne by insurance. All of them are productive.

Being in Canada you probably just don't know how easy it is to run up a $10,000 bill here. Or even $100k.

QuoteAnd in the example of your 40 year old worker, losing the fingers of one hand doesn't necessarily prohibit you from working although it may require you to change employment. In your scenario the fellow is probably also married and a homeowner which leaves him with the options of his spouse working if she is not already or alternatively borrowing against his own equity while he retrains for other employment.

Possibly. It could be that that support net exists, it might not. Society is still out his productive net if he cannot find work for one reason or another.

QuoteThe health system actively promotes their creation? Oh what a load of bunk Vekseid. The next time a bought of dysentry or the plague breaks out in the United States let me know. The only epidemics we have these days are stemming from chinese backwaters where they live to close to their farm animals and have poor sanitation.

I was referring to resistant strains, of course. I figured you'd understand that but I guess not.

QuoteIf everyone has a gun Vekseid I don't see the problem. Its difficult to rob another armed person. If your suggesting insurrection I shouldn't think that a rifle would be much use against a Blackhawk helicopter or a tank.

I am not suggesting insurrection, I'm suggesting that given a gun and no other perceived way to obtain food, the gun will become the tool.

Methos

Quote from: Inerrant Lust on September 09, 2008, 04:03:33 AM
...Isn't that what I said? :P A single raindrop is insignifigant, yet enough of them can flood entire cities.

A minority. That's 2 of the 6 populated continents? In previous centuries, 6 of the 6 populated continents were barbaric.

Besides, not all of Africa and the Middle-east is a crapshoot, and there is certaintly people trying (some successfully) to improve it- which is more than you can say for yourself.

And what if you were stricken by some illness tommorow, that costs some obscene ammount of money that you could never afford. Is your response 'Tough luck'?

You are incredibly callous. No offense, but I pray you never become the head of a state. "The world's a shitty place, but I'm not gonna go anything about it."

Are you kidding?

Your first response isn't "We should avoid as much violence as we can"

...but instead, "We can handle it."

Really?

I'm afraid that made me laugh. What's two continents? That's a third of the world and a large percentage of the populaton.

And its inaccurate to say all of the world was previously barbaric. Alexander the Great brought much of the world under a relatively civilized Hellenic rule briefly. The Roman Empire imposed rather orderly rule on much of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. There was a period when the Islamic Caliphate was rather civilized before it was overun by Turks. China had a stable civilization for centuries while the rest of the world was comparitively backward. Barbarism and order come and go.

So what the fact I don't believe I can't save the world is suposed to make me feel bad? Guess what it doesn't.

As for the tough luck bit, yea for most people "tough luck" is pretty much what it winds up to. Either that or "Man I'm glad I kept my premiums current". Although in Canada its more along the lines of "I hope I don't die while waiting for medical treatment or test results."

If by your standards the fact I don't have any messianic program is a condemnation of my political suitability, I'll actually take that as a complement. Politicians who think they can save the world are generally a) a disaster b) delusional and c) bound to waste a lot of other peoples money.

I really don't have any problem with the use of violence to impose just order.  So yes "we can handle it" would be my response to that unlikely scenario.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Quote from: Mia on September 09, 2008, 04:10:45 AM
Strangely enough, in most modern countries (and others) it is. And don't come to me screaming about Cuba and so on... just look how most countries in EU has solved it and you get a good picture.

The EU won't exist within several generations. Its an aging and shrinking population that can't afford its entitlements.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Mia

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 04:17:07 AM
The EU won't exist within several generations. Its an aging and shrinking population that can't afford its entitlements.

So you say... that was a interesting concept since the only country that is actually shrinking within EU is Italy. But in the real long run neither EU nor US will be on top, we have had our fun and 21st century and later on will belong to China and India.
I would like to meet the woman that invented sex to see what she is working on now.

ON and OFF: https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=8615.0

Vekseid

Quote from: Mia on September 09, 2008, 04:23:03 AM
So you say... that was a interesting concept since the only country that is actually shrinking within EU is Italy. But in the real long run neither EU nor US will be on top, we have had our fun and 21st century and later on will belong to China and India.

There's a class / religious warfare brewing in the EU (and India, and China, and the US) that he's hinting at.  That said, I have more confidence in Brazil's potential as a superpower than India and maybe even China.

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 04:13:24 AM
I know three who have incurred costs over a hundred thousand dollars as children, though mostly borne by insurance. All of them are productive.

Being in Canada you probably just don't know how easy it is to run up a $10,000 bill here. Or even $100k.

Possibly. It could be that that support net exists, it might not. Society is still out his productive net if he cannot find work for one reason or another.

I was referring to resistant strains, of course. I figured you'd understand that but I guess not.

I am not suggesting insurrection, I'm suggesting that given a gun and no other perceived way to obtain food, the gun will become the tool.

I really don't see there as being any epidemics in the Western World at this point in time. All we occasionally have are imported ones.

As far as medical costs go, those who maintain decent insurance have access to reasonable medical care. All that suggests to me is that its incumbent upon people to look after and provide for their families. Which really they should be doing anyway. If some fail to do so, its unfortunate but its the nature of life. I'm not going to let my heart bleed over the lack of medical care of one person because they are fecudent, as opposed to the the millions in the world that live in a truly wretched state. We all live priveleged lives in the western world, however, not everyone is as priveleged as others. However, even the least fortunate among us wouldn't trade his life for that of your average Zimbawean.

And I can't really respond to 'for some reason or another' its a might bit vague.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Take a look at the demographic trends in Europe Mia, the replacement birth rate is 2. The birthrate for every European country is below that and in many its below 1. A socialist system requires a stable tax paying population, they have a declining population. It won't work out for them. The smart ones are leaving already.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 04:27:51 AM
I really don't see there as being any epidemics in the Western World at this point in time. All we occasionally have are imported ones.

That was part of my point, we haven't had one in 90 years now.

QuoteAs far as medical costs go, those who maintain decent insurance have access to reasonable medical care. All that suggests to me is that its incumbent upon people to look after and provide for their families. Which really they should be doing anyway. If some fail to do so, its unfortunate but its the nature of life. I'm not going to let my heart bleed over the lack of medical care of one person because they are fecudent, as opposed to the the millions in the world that live in a truly wretched state. We all live priveleged lives in the western world, however, not everyone is as priveleged as others. However, even the least fortunate among us wouldn't trade his life for that of your average Zimbawean.

I really don't thin Zimbabwe is a good comparison. I have pity for the people Mugabe is driving out, I have pity for the people in Darfur...

But ultimately we can only do so much at a time. America's hands are a bit tied at the moment.

QuoteAnd I can't really respond to 'for some reason or another' its a might bit vague.

There are a million potential reasons why he may not be able to find work again. And certainly,  it's not unreasonable to expect a 50% paycut in such a situation. Like I said, the economy nets less with a worker in a crippled state, in all but the most egregious circumstances.


Inerrant Lust

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 04:15:40 AMAnd its inaccurate to say all of the world was previously barbaric. Alexander the Great brought much of the world under a relatively civilized Hellenic rule briefly. The Roman Empire imposed rather orderly rule on much of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East. There was a period when the Islamic Caliphate was rather civilized before it was overun by Turks. China had a stable civilization for centuries while the rest of the world was comparitively backward. Barbarism and order come and go.

You have to be kidding if you can tell me that mankind, as a whole, is morally the same as it was a thousand years ago. For every North Korea there is a South Korea. For every Saudi Arabia there is a England, A France, A Newfoundland, ect. ect. ect.

That is a stark contrast to the days where pretty much everyone was universally boned.

QuoteSo what the fact I don't believe I can't save the world is suposed to make me feel bad? Guess what it doesn't.

Did I ever say 'save the world', no, I said try to make an effort, dammit. If a man falls off a high ledge and hangs onto it for dear life- do you run over to pull him up, or do you stand by and do nothing?

By the looks of it, you're condemning humanity to fall off that ledge.

At the very least, grab his arm. Even if he still falls, you tried.

QuoteI really don't have any problem with the use of violence to impose just order.  So yes "we can handle it" would be my response to that unlikely scenario.

It's not imposing order. It's that instead of PREVENTING violence, you begin to seek ways to combat it. (Against your own people, no less)

Both are valid strategies... but if you should never omit prevention.

Methos

Well this isn't star war vekseid we can't build him a robotic hand to begin with to send him back to his old job. So its a worse job for him socialist health care or not.

As for the Zimbawae thing, I simply point out that the people in worse straits in the world are legion. The only reason to cry over the state of those closer to home is fecundity. You have to see them. I admittedly don't find their geographical location particularly persuasive. Poverity exists, illness exists, always have always will.

And I'm afraid I don't follow how your suggesting that the US's current health care model is encouraging epidemics when your saying there hasn't been one in 90 years. If there is a point there, I don't see it.

"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 04:40:36 AM
Well this isn't star war vekseid we can't build him a robotic hand to begin with to send him back to his old job. So its a worse job for him socialist health care or not.

Exactly, as of now there is only one chance to reattach his fingers.

It's a very good chance. Quite certain to succeed perfectly.

And this story is told every single day.

QuotePoverity exists, illness exists, always have always will.

Only if people like you have a say in making sure it continues. I'd rather it not.

QuoteAnd I'm afraid I don't follow how your suggesting that the US's current health care model is encouraging epidemics when your saying there hasn't been one in 90 years. If there is a point there, I don't see it.

Are you completely and utterly unfamiliar with the problem of mistreated diseases?

Methos

Quote from: Inerrant Lust on September 09, 2008, 04:39:27 AM
You have to be kidding if you can tell me that mankind, as a whole, is morally the same as it was a thousand years ago. For every North Korea there is a South Korea. For every Saudi Arabia there is a England, A France, A Newfoundland, ect. ect. ect.

That is a stark contrast to the days where pretty much everyone was universally boned.

Did I ever say 'save the world', no, I said try to make an effort, dammit. If a man falls off a high ledge and hangs onto it for dear life- do you run over to pull him up, or do you stand by and do nothing?

By the looks of it, you're condemning humanity to fall off that ledge.

At the very least, grab his arm. Even if he still falls, you tried.

It's not imposing order. It's that instead of PREVENTING violence, you begin to seek ways to combat it. (Against your own people, no less)

Both are valid strategies... but if you should never omit prevention.

No I'm not kidding. I think people tend to do exactly as much as they think they can get away with. The only difference between people in a barbaric country and one in an orderly one is what they think they can get away with. Fear poses restraint upon the dark impulses which lurk within people. As I just pointed out "everyone" wasn't always as you put it 'just boned'.

Nor do I view the world through such simplistic scenarios as people hanging off a cliff. If you can't accept the reality of the world and its deficiencies that's your hang up not mine. I see the world as it is, imperfect and full of suffering and deem that unlikely to change with or without my intervention.

I don't share your adversion to violence. If its necessary so be it. I don't believe ridiculous lengths need to be gone to appease people to prevent it.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Methos

Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 04:45:50 AM
Exactly, as of now there is only one chance to reattach his fingers.

It's a very good chance. Quite certain to succeed perfectly.

And this story is told every single day.

Only if people like you have a say in making sure it continues. I'd rather it not.

Are you completely and utterly unfamiliar with the problem of mistreated diseases?

But again you said yourself that emergency care is already covered, his being rushed to the hospital emergency room would have been your opporunity to reattach the fingers. So really your advocating for the status quo with that particular scenario.

Many maladies are misdiagnosed mostly because a variety of illnesses present similair symptoms. But still I'm left asked "what's your point here?"

In any case further responses from me will have to wait till tomorrow. Its about 4 am.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

Vekseid

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 04:54:04 AM
But again you said yourself that emergency care is already covered, his being rushed to the hospital emergency room would have been your opporunity to reattach the fingers. So really your advocating for the status quo with that particular scenario.

No, the emergency room will make sure he doesn't bleed to death.

Inerrant Lust

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 04:50:25 AM
No I'm not kidding. I think people tend to do exactly as much as they think they can get away with. The only difference between people in a barbaric country and one in an orderly one is what they think they can get away with. Fear poses restraint upon the dark impulses which lurk within people. As I just pointed out "everyone" wasn't always as you put it 'just boned'.

And yet that restraint (that an orderly society provides) has instilled a sense of justice and ethics in many people that would maintain such restraint even outside of society.

Even IF we're all bastards who would murder and rape at the first opportunity, the effect of society and government keeping us in line is undeniably more positive than the anarchy and/or immoral governments of previous generations.

QuoteNor do I view the world through such simplistic scenarios as people hanging off a cliff. If you can't accept the reality of the world and its deficiencies that's your hang up not mine. I see the world as it is, imperfect and full of suffering and deem that unlikely to change with or without my intervention.

Indulge me in a better metaphor, then. :P

But...again, you label me an idealist. I KNOW how crummy the world is, that is why I strive to change it.

Clearly you're not an ignorant idealist- so that just makes you apathetic, which is far worse.

QuoteI don't share your adversion to violence. If its necessary so be it. I don't believe ridiculous lengths need to be gone to appease people to prevent it.

You misjudge me once again. I believe war and violence can be, at times, neccesary. But the scenario was defined thusly;

Cause: Getting rid of welfare.
Effect: People turn to banditry to feed themselves. Or open rebellion. Violence.

Riduculous lengths? Please.

ShrowdedPoet

#79
Quote from: Vekseid on September 09, 2008, 01:57:20 AM
Oh, how cute, I bet you're proud of yourself.

So you have no intention of discussion, reason, or debate, just trying to rile people up when people on these forums are watching friends and family suffer and die before their eyes?

You wonder why discussion here might get a little heated, or a little left leaning?

When I read your post I thought of one of them in particular. This person is a light to my life and one of the reasons Elliquiy exists, but they can't afford basic medical care. The world has given them nothing but suffering. My heart breaks every moment that I can do nothing for them.

But you don't care. You don't even know them. As far as you know, they don't exist. You haven't experienced a thousandth of the torment they have gone through, nor do yo have a thousandth of their cares, reading your posts.

You just come on, spit in their faces and make empty posts like that one. You haven't bothered to address a single point that I've made, and Heritikat is only seriously contesting one. And you know what? I was pissed off.

I still am. A lot of people are. People are dying, people are suffering, and people are starving. The economy has grown but most Americans are making less than they did eight years ago, and that's with two years of growth since the Democrats retook the House and Senate.

It's only natural for me to be a bit surprised and incensed when someone does not care. Don't you think?

This made me cry and it's very true. 

Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 01:58:02 AM
People are quasi-ego centric, they care about themselves, their family and their friends. The rest of the world by and large can go hang itself. 

system that guarantees people an equal result is simply designed to benifet the stupid or the lazy.

You know, this is why I look at the world and feel sick to my stomach.  This is the type of thing I think about when I'm deep in the darkness of depression.  You make me sick!

I am not lazy, I work HARD and for all my hard work I have NOTHING!!!  I burn day in and day out cause I know, KNOW, that I can't afford to live!  I can't afford to breathe!  And It HURTS!!!!  I am far from lazy!  And as for Stupid, I'm far from vane but I consider myself highly inteligent!

Quote from: Inerrant Lust on September 09, 2008, 02:23:53 AM
Instead of putting the engine into the plane and going "Well, I did my best. Let's hope it doesn't blow up in mid-air and kill 400 people." why don't we just take steps to make a better engine?

If by stupid and lazy, you mean those who find the idea of exploiting other human beings deplorable. Capitalism breeds greed and underhanded tactics before hard work and ingenuity. Because it works.

DAMN RIGHT!!!!

Kiss the hand that beats you.
Sexuality isn't a curse, it's a gift to embrace and explore!
Ons and Offs


Sherona

QuoteYou know, this is why I look at the world and feel sick to my stomach.  This is the type of thing I think about when I'm deep in the darkness of depression.  You make me sick!

Do please calm down and keep the personal attacks away from the threads. thank you.

Celestial Goblin

Quote from: HeretiKat on September 09, 2008, 02:49:16 AM
Social welfare states only worked in Western capitalist democracies because capitalism provided a functioning economy to pay for the socialist programs.

Akhem, this is quite true, though for fairness sake I have to mention that Russia was in a shitty situation even before USSR.
But anyway, a mix of capitalism and socialism(not what soviets did!) is probably the easiest and safest solution.

After my country freed itself from Russian-imposed communism, people didn't ask for ruthless anarcho-capitalism like Methos advocates but indeed, were quick to show support for moderate solutions. Many veterans of anti-communist activism became activists for social justice when democracy was attained. A man named Jacek Kuron comes to my mind. Political prisoner under communism, under democracy he created a program of goverment-funded kitchens dispensing free soup for poor and unemployed. He accomplished many other things of course, though the 'Kuron soup' remained a particularly popular term.

When people bring up USSR and it's failings as an argument against either modern socialism, redistributive policies in a capitalist state or goverment regulations of bussines practices, it shows really huge ignorance.

Also, to adress Kongming's comment that you responded too. Lenin didn't exactly limit his persecution to 'rich people who wouldn't let go of their money'. Lenin was a Bolshevik and Bolsheviks intensely persecuted all the other revolutionary factions whose ideology didn't mesh with theirs. Amongst those were democrats, moderate socialists, anarchists and others. The Russian revolution against the Tsar was not fought solely by communists, despite later propaganda claiming so!

Finally, as for Methos, I won't go to deep into argument. Vekseid said most things I would and he's more of a debater than I am. And I don't come to this forum for this sort of discussion in the first place.
I'll just add three criticisms:
1)At this point Methos seems to backpedal from his usual position. Of course help for those disabled to the point of being unable to work is admirable, but he seems to contradict everything else he wrote here. Why?
Quote from: Methos on September 09, 2008, 03:03:02 AM
As for the poor? Were it up to me I'd eliminate welfare for all those except those that are disabled to the point of being unable to work.
2)Methos argues how humanity is no different than savages and how nothing in life is guaranteed and no one owes nothing to no one. But he seems to except the right to property from this. To property he clings as to a sacred right and feels 'entitled' to a society that enforces his rights at expense of everything else. While i don't oppose the idea of private property, it's important to bear in mind that private property is a human created concept, like everything else.
3)I've got family in Canada and talked to quite a few people from Canada on the internet. They don't claim their healtcare system is anywhere bad. I guess Methos's view is colored by his personal dislike of a socialized system.

Inkidu

Ves, I don't think it's right to say that only capitalism breeds greed. Greed doesn't stem from government, it stems from people not having everything they want, and lets face it that's not going to happen in any realistic economic model. Not even communism or socialism. Someone's always going to have something that someone else wants.

The idea behind capitalism is that a competitive market makes things fair. It was supposed to breed hard work and entrepreneurship. Which it does when everyone plays right, but not everyone plays fair and people cheat the system. People breed greed not an economic model.

If I trade with you some material for another material and it makes your standard of living 20% better and mine only 5% better this is one of the places capitalism breaks down. People don't see it five percent I didn't have before they see it as why did he get twenty? So is it capitalism's fault. Not by the long shot.

If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Krule

Interesting discussion going on here, I feel a bit like I have to weigh, in part, due to some sympathies with Methos, at least with regards to not likly Obama's ideas all that much, but generally, I tend more toward the conservitive side of things then otherwise.  I do believe you can go too far with goverment sponsered health care, and welfare, but a good number of people who end up on those things are desperate, not lazy, I know, I've seen it... and my heart goes out to them.  Personally, I believe it is the responsiblity of careing individuals to do what they can for others.

However, I do disagree with several of his ideas, though my opinion of humanity is general is low, and I do believe that man has a tendacy toward evil, I must disagree with the moral aspect.  Most people are decent, or at least act decently... and more so then a thousands of years ago.   If this was not the case, then hospitals and schools would never haved reached the point they have today.

Compassion and caring are as much a part of human nature as revenge and anger, love as much as hate, hope as much as despair, laughter as much as tears, joy as much as agony, humans are capable of terrible evil, and yet amazing goodness.  People have given thier lives for others, out of love for humanity, or for God, and sometimes even people they never knew.  People have also killed, murdered and tortured others for power or pleasure. 

Inkidu

I don't think people are more apt to being evil, over good. I believe people are more willing to do what's easier over what's right and that makes them more susceptible to what is wrong. 
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Methos

To return to an earlier point of mine regarding Europe and their failed experiment..Eurostats basically comes out and says its 7 years till Europe starts shrinking.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080905.wreckoning0906/BNStory/International/

Briefly

"Eurostat, the European Union's statistics body, created a continent-wide frisson of alarm over the Aug. 31 weekend with a study bearing the innocuous title “Population and social conditions.”

The statisticians discovered that it will be only seven years – not 20 or more years as previously thought – until a population milestone is reached, the point at which deaths will outnumber births across the continent, something that has not occurred since the disease-ridden years of the 18th century.

In other words, as of 2015, Europe's population will no longer increase naturally. And, even with immigration at its current levels, that means that within the next generation, the European population will begin shrinking."


Further down

"The year 2060, as we shall see, is something of a demographic black hole. At the moment, 1 in 5 people on the continent is over 65. This means that the pension costs, public-health and transportation needs (and sometimes the housing and social-welfare requirements) of each senior citizen must be supported by taxes and other deductions from the incomes of just four working-age people (aged 15 to 64), presuming they have incomes.

As birth rates stay low and longevity increases, this gap will widen. By 2060, there will be 50 million fewer workers and 67 million more seniors, so the ratio will have changed to 1 in 3 – in other words, there will be only two working-age people to support each senior.

The costs of supporting the over-65 population are already the largest government expenses in many European states. This doubling of the ratio means that taxes will either have to increase dramatically – some speculate they may have to double – or the quality and level of public services will have to be slashed harshly without any commensurate tax cut. Either choice would badly wound the economy."

I'm going to raise a glass now to socialist non-breeding itself out of existance.
"Till shade is gone, till water is gone, into the Shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath, to spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the last Day."

Ons and offs https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=13590

OldSchoolGamer

Quote from: Methos on September 12, 2008, 01:21:44 AM
I'm going to raise a glass now to socialist non-breeding itself out of existance.

So should we in capitalist countries keep breeding large families until we're eating Soylent Green wafers?

I'm not exactly sure what the motivation is for gloating over a population trend that's pretty much standard in every developed country.

Sabby

O__O Did... I just step into Venezuala? Because this place suddenly erupted into a war.

Celestial Goblin

"Another prophet of disaster, who says this ship is lost
Another prophet of disaster, leaving you to count the cost
Taunting us with visions, afflicting us with fear
Predicting war for millions in a hope that one appears."

Lower population growth is a natural outcome of rising standarts of life, increased sexual freedom, gender equality and individualism. Switching Europe from it's current 'socialistic' policies to anarcho-capitalism or similar would do nothing to reverse the trend in itself. Some people just plain aren't into the whole 'penis into vagina' thing, you know?

The only challenge Europe faces right now is to overcome racism amongst it's populace and not only open the gates for immigrants but also let them assimilate, rather than ghettoize.

Otherwise, I think that offering many 3rd-worlders a chance for a better life is historical justice considering how many European countries were once colonizing the 3rd world and thus retarding it's progress.

Valerian

Also, current predictions are that by about 2030, the U.S. will be in exactly that position itself, so if they're non-breeding themselves out of existence, we're only about twenty years behind.  Gloat while you can.
"To live honorably, to harm no one, to give to each his due."
~ Ulpian, c. 530 CE

Vekseid

Quote from: Valerian on September 12, 2008, 08:52:54 AM
Also, current predictions are that by about 2030, the U.S. will be in exactly that position itself, so if they're non-breeding themselves out of existence, we're only about twenty years behind.  Gloat while you can.

I'm pretty sure that is ignoring the US government's management of immigration rates. We draw up fifty-year plans for a reason and increasing (or, much more rarely, decreasing) legal immigration rates plays a huge factor.

Raw socialism is not the sole source of the EU's troubles. For a long time, Europe had some of the harshest immigration policies in the world, and when they finally open up, not only is it too late, but employment laws prevent many of the new immigrants - especially Muslims - from becoming gainfully employed for various reasons.

Celestial Goblin

Quote from: Vekseid on September 12, 2008, 01:42:57 PM
For a long time, Europe had some of the harshest immigration policies in the world, and when they finally open up, not only is it too late, but employment laws prevent many of the new immigrants - especially Muslims - from becoming gainfully employed for various reasons.
And racism, sadly.

Anyway, I won't likely be contributing to the discussion since I'll be gone (or barely lurking) for a few months.