Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rick James on January 19, 2010, 08:35:00 pm
-
Clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHupKGP3iX8)
Speaking as one who is overall a political liberal, I do sometimes find Keith Olbermann annoying, but the facts he raises are nonetheless disturbing, and the Harper's article (http://harpers.org/archive/2010/01/hbc-90006368) mentioned raises some very uncomfortable questions.
According to the NCIS, each prisoner had fashioned a noose from torn sheets and T-shirts and tied it to the top of his cell’s eight-foot-high steel-mesh wall. Each prisoner was able somehow to bind his own hands, and, in at least one case, his own feet, then stuff more rags deep down into his own throat. We are then asked to believe that each prisoner, even as he was choking on those rags, climbed up on his washbasin, slipped his head through the noose, tightened it, and leapt from the washbasin to hang until he asphyxiated. The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously.
Three prisoners, all in isolated cells, decided at the same time to commit suicide in the exact same fashion as one another?
What the fudge is going on here? How did those detainees actually die? And why?
-
Who knows? Maybe they all decided they'd had enough last time they talked?
-
Given the sorts of things Gitmo interrogators have been known to do, I wouldn't doubt these prisoners were murdered.
I would possibly believe suicide, but the suicides are far too similar.
-
It's possible it was an organized protest... The only way to get a message out, etc.
Although IIRC suicide is forbidden in all the Judeo-Christian religions, that doesn't stop Christians, so I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't stop these guys.
Impossible to tell.
-
When you're in this kind of situation, I doubt religion matters much, especially since I could've sworn I read somewhere that Gitmo interrogators pissed on copies of the Koran in front of them.
-
face it, gitmo was his white elephant excuse to get elected. every politician does it. they look at the world, find something that everyone doesnt likes, and promises to fix it. and then as soon as theyre in office, they dont. seriously, you didnt expect this?
-
no they didn't, they actually thought he would be different, they actually believed in the change. :lol:
-
Who's 'they'?
-
"They" being people who voted for Obama and who thought he would be different from Bush.
-
He is demonstrably different from Bush.
People just remain persistently unaware that the President has relatively little power. In spite of this limitation Obama has done a fair amount to move us back in the right direction, including moving to shut down Gitmo. I'm sure we'd all be happier if it was going a bit faster, though.
Nonetheless, attributing responsibility for these murders to Obama is a bit like blaming a broken leg on the sun rising that morning.
-
Yes, Obama is different from Bush, and depending on your political views that's either good or bad.
Democrat: Obama isn't Bush, we love him!
Republican: Obama isn't Bush, we hate him!
Libertarian: Obama is a corrupt piece of **** just like all politicians, so we hate him.
-
Well, I think Republicans are glad to have someone different from Bush, but they think Obama's different in the wrong direction.
-
Or maybe absolutely no one has a goddamn clue what they're talking about in the first place.
-
Directionless rage?
-
I hate everything that exists.
You bet.
-
The NCIS report also proposes that the three prisoners, who were held in non-adjoining cells, carried out each of these actions almost simultaneously.
Sounds similar to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_of_the_Century ... in which people were possessed and killed themselves because they were being controlled by some supernatural entity. Good movie by the way.
Also, Bush seemed like a Sith by talking in absolutes saying sillying things like 'either you are with us or with the terrorists' when both sides technically committed what would be defined as terrorism.
-
Thank you, President Obama, for instituting some real changes!
-
Thank you, President Obama, for instituting some real changes!
Nonetheless, attributing responsibility for these murders to Obama is a bit like blaming a broken leg on the sun rising that morning.
Hooray for not reading threads?
I wouldn't have blamed Bush for this one (well, maybe for creating the situations that put people there in the first place). No reason to blame Obama.
-
Is it really a good idea to blame presidents so harshly when congress has the real power and the president can't do a thing without congress' approval?
As for people blaming Obama. It is kind of silly to do so since the problem that we have was already there when Obama took office and these problems occured when Bush was president, and taking office while all these problems are present is quite a predicament for Obama to be in (I can imagine the stress a president has to endure and it must be utter hell). Also, Obama hasn't had much time in office yet, which is another reason for people to not be so quick to blame him for any problems. Seems that older people who are pure conservative have a thing against him and always think dropping bombs is the answer.
-
If we wanted a president who could get things done, we'd have a king.
-
so, he closes gitmo only to move all the people there into a prison in illinois, how is this really 'change'? I mean I guess it's not in Cuba anymore, but I don't think this is what you all had in mind when you voted for him on that issue.
-
Yup. Wish he'd stop pandering to morons and be as liberal as they think he is.
Plus, I mean, seriously? Every time he does something retarded that pisses me off, I just remind myself that it could be 100x worse... Bush Jr. Jr. and that lady with the obsession with Russia could be in his place.
-
it's hard to tell which pit of awful is deeper.
-
Until I read the full article I thought this was an overturned case from Bush's time (suicides re-investigated and classified as murders). Looks like things haven't changed as much as I thought.
-
Things don't change overnight. That's life. Another part of life is to not get your hopes up because it usually doesn't work out the way one wants it to. Plus, maybe the culture is what needs some changing, not just changing authorities who have so-called power. People need to define 'change' and change isn't always good, but it can be depending on what is changed.
-
You know what? That post made perfect sense up to the point you added to the end of it.
Just like with posts, not all changes are good, either.
-
It makes even more sense now. My words are correct. I fail to see your logic.
Change isn't always good, but it can be. How can that not make sense? :rolleyes:
-
Judging by the edit timestamp, that's not what it said when I posted.
-
His title rings as true as ever.
-
I must have changed it again not knowing you were posting at the same time :sigh: It is better to edit than double post or post too much, I feel.
Edit: I think I went back and fixed a grammar or spelling error as you were writing your post. Edited it to fix grammar perhaps after adding that sentence.
-
If you would be kind enough to note that with the use of :
"EDIT: [edit goes here]"
There would be much less confusion, and you could stop pretending that you don't actually add an entire sentence every time you edit the post.
-
In spite of this limitation Obama has done a fair amount to move us back in the right direction, including moving to shut down Gitmo.
Ok, other than making moves to shut down Gitmo, in your view what else has he done?
-
The Obameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) tracks Obama's campaign promises.
-
I wonder if he is the first president to have a meter.
-
The Obameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) tracks Obama's campaign promises.
Just to pick one of the promises kept......
On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama promised to clean up the credit card industry by establishing a consumers bill of rights. No more "any time, any reason" rate increases, no more confusing contracts, he said.
Then why did credit card rates and fees go through the roof (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-11-09-bank-credit-card-interest-rates_N.htm) at the end of last year?
-
there is probably enough of a historical record to make every president their own meter.
The Obameter (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/) tracks Obama's campaign promises.
Just to pick one of the promises kept......
On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama promised to clean up the credit card industry by establishing a consumers bill of rights. No more "any time, any reason" rate increases, no more confusing contracts, he said.
Then why did credit card rates and fees go through the roof (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-11-09-bank-credit-card-interest-rates_N.htm) at the end of last year?
they had to make up losses caused by obama's interference.
-
Well, but according to that website he passed the bill in may last year which supposedly put an end to that kind of "anytime" rate increase, but according to the article I just read (which was in November of last year), that is exactly what the banks have done (pull off a massive "anytime" rate increase).
-
I wonder if he is the first president to have a meter.
Bushmeter doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
-
Well, but according to that website he passed the bill in may last year which supposedly put an end to that kind of "anytime" rate increase, but according to the article I just read (which was in November of last year), that is exactly what the banks have done (pull off a massive "anytime" rate increase).
Because the bill hadn’t taken effect yet. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=abjXgQrkgtrE&refer=us)
According to this article, which is one of the ones linked on the Obameter site, “the effective date is nine months after enactment.”
-
if a law gets passed that prevents corporations from screwing over the population, the companies will always find new loopholes to exploit. they will not like the new losses and will find a way to gain back what was lost. a good example would be overtime. companies were exploiting employees making them work longer than sane hours, so the polies said lets have overtime, if theyre gonna work em too hard, they should get more money for it. companies didnt like this so then they stopped letting their employees work more than 40 hours a week and just hired more people. at which point it became difficult for employees to get their full 40 hours. it also caused a bunch of bizarre scheduling so that people would have to come in for a couple hours on a usually off (and wasting time/money in commuting to work), making it rather annoying/inefficient for employees. but its ok, since it made the company more money.
-
I really liked that 'no more back room deals, all negotiations will be broadcast' promise.
-
Then why did credit card rates and fees go through the roof (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-11-09-bank-credit-card-interest-rates_N.htm) at the end of last year?
Credit crunch?
-
so, he closes gitmo only to move all the people there into a prison in illinois, how is this really 'change'? I mean I guess it's not in Cuba anymore, but I don't think this is what you all had in mind when you voted for him on that issue.
That's actually exactly what we all thought should happen, put them into SOME jurisdiction as opposed to the limbo that is Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. Well, I actually expect a little more, like Due Process.
Olebrman has **** for brains though. He's screaming at the dark from teh other direction most days from what I have seen.
-
Then why did credit card rates and fees go through the roof (http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2008-11-09-bank-credit-card-interest-rates_N.htm) at the end of last year?
Credit crunch?
Because new legislation is limiting the privledges of credit card companies. They figure that, since they have to be fairer now (or soon?), they should increase everything so it's legal when the laws come into effect. My family's had credit cards at 13-19% interest (without a balance, mind you) upped to 29+%. Fees are being added because they will be losing some of their penalty fees. They did it because they can. Plus, it's extra profit for them; moving up rates 3 months in advance means they'd have a better Q4 and new Q1.
-
That's actually exactly what we all thought should happen, put them into SOME jurisdiction as opposed to the limbo that is Guantanomo Bay, Cuba. Well, I actually expect a little more, like Due Process.
well... perhaps I have not been fully explained the changes that are going into effect, I have been under the impression that they were basicly moving gitmo to Chicago and changing it's name.
-
But if it’s actually in the geographic United States, it has to abide by US law. That’s why all the sketchy military prisons have been in foreign countries.
-
yeah, I'm sure.
-
Productive response.
-
Productive response.
Informed reply.
Link to substantial evidence (http://nolink)
-
yeah I'm sure that a cosmetic move is going to necessarily entail a change of policy.
'oh, hey guys we cant to that any more cause now we are on American soil'
do you honestly think that something as minor as that is going to have any impact at all? really? it's not just some hand waving to make it look like he did something when in reality the issue hasn't been addressed at all because the inmates will still have the same legal status and will be treated the same way, right? not that I'm really in favor of the closing of gitmo, but I don't think you should dilute your selves just because it's your guy in charge now. I remember a lot of democrats saying 'where were you during Bush's term and he was spending us into a hole' when ever a conservative would bring up the fact that we now have a trillion dollar deficit, well if you are really concerned about the human rights abuses at gitmo shouldn't you make sure they actually end and aren't just moved into the current presidents old stomping grounds where he probably has all sorts of ties with every administrator that will come within ten miles of the militarized perimeter of place?
just because it is physically located in the geographic US it now suddenly must obey US laws where before didn't, as if this were some physical constant of the universe?
yeah, I'm sure.
better?
-
While it's an argument, I'm not sure it works.
The fact that it's now on US soil means that the loophole that was previously used to justify extreme measures is now closed.
If you're cynical, this means nothing, but if you're moderate/optimistic this means either some chance or a good chance of improvement.
You'll find reason to believe nothing will change if you really want to, but I'm skeptical of the assertion that this is some ploy to exploit the Chicago Machine or something. It just feels like a conspiracy theory.
I think it represents a genuine, good-faith effort to clean up.
just because it is physically located in the geographic US it now suddenly must obey US laws where before didn't,
Yes, as a matter of fact, this is law, and therefore as binding as any other element of our legal system. It has nothing to do with physics, but it does have to do with the way our country is set up.
-
was the fact that it wasn't on US soil used? I thought the loophole used was that they were not uniformed members of a national army, and therefore not necessarily covered by the Geneva Convention.
-
The court's majority opinion was that "the will of Congress" should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.
Referring to SCOTUS here.
You're correct, thought, that loophole was used to justify torture.
-
ok, so you think that if it's on US soil then it will force the government to give them a trial? I can see where you are coming from, but I'm still skeptical it will happen, the prison they are being transfered to is federally owned and run by the department of defense, they'll probably claim that it's a military base and therefore not really US soil any more than gitmo was, at the very least it'll be a court battle for a few years.
-
Yeah, but who is 'they'?
Why would Obama move the prison to US soil and then claim it was not on US soil due to a technicality?
Also, this is an honest question, not a jab: are military bases not considered US soil? Is habeas corpus suspended on bases?
Either way I guess we'll see.
-
the they I think you were referring to would be who ever was running the prison, i.e. the department of defense.
I thought military bases were considered US soil no mater where in the world they were, so I don't see how it was considered special when it was in Cuba, and I don't see why it would be treated any different now. I believe military bases fall under the uniform code of military justice (as opposed to city, state, or federal jurisdiction), but aside from that I don't know.
until I see actual results I'm going to doubt.
-
While I've heard the same things about military bases and US soil, the Supreme Court apparently considered the fact that it was not US soil to be meaningful. It now will be.
Wish they'd get a move on with the base closure.
-
US military bases/ships are considered US soil when whatever ****ing politician in power decides it fits his agenda to consider them US soil.
Never been an attack on US soil under the Bush administration? We're not gonna count the attack on the Army base because it wasn't on US soil! (Even though it was a US military base!)
Attack on the USS Cole? Of course it was a terrorist attack under Clinton's Administration!
Torture under Bush? Of course it's not US soil! It's in Cuba. Just keep em there so we can do whatever the **** we want to do with them!
-
US military bases/ships are considered US soil when whatever ****ing politician in power decides it fits his agenda to consider them US soil.
QFT
-
Um, but the Supreme Court isn't a 'politician in power.'
-
Um, but the Supreme Court isn't a 'politician in power.'
SCOTUS has been so removed from implementing true independent justice in the US that it might as well be considered a loose coalition of politicians. Maybe I'm just bitter because of their recent gang rape of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission), but it sure seems that way.
Just ignore me though. I've totally lost faith in US government institutions anyway. No matter what party gets elected to power, they're still going to be wholly owned by the corporate side of America, and totally disregarding of true American values. They'll risk 30,000 American lives so that Boeing, Raytheon, and Blackwater get their 30 million a year, and then sell it to us as a good thing. They'll promise us whatever we want to hear as an electorate so we'll give them the very chance to betray and screw us. I might as well never vote again--it won't make a difference. Third parties mean nothing in American politics, and even if they gained any power, they'd become prey of the corporate machine within months of becoming powerful. **** this, I'm moving to Britain.
-
**** this, I'm moving to Britain.
What, so you can be part of a populace that (at least judging from the general sentiment here) seems to be just as dissatisfied with its government's actions on a daily basis as our own is? And deal with wonderful little institutionalized systems of repression of free expression like the BBFC? You're going to get the same sorts of issues no matter where you live, just under a different guise.
Seriously, what happens now has happened before and will happen again. It's the blessing and the curse of fundamentally-imperfect human beings being put in positions of power, as is required by any system of human government. Either move out into the middle of the Montana wilderness and grow your beard out a foot, or sit back and accept the fact that this is the cost of doing business in our world.
(And while I don't deny the inevitable negative effects that may come from it, I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Under the First Amendment, you can't just restrict the expression of one particular group in a certain circumstance while allowing another the same expression. Like it or not, that's free speech.)
-
Why do you hate freedom (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7536905)?
-
**** this, I'm moving to Britain.
Go to North-Belgium instead. They have better food and a cute language.
-
Why do you hate freedom (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7536905)?
As you know, I believe in having a balance in life, including a balance of freedom; not too little, not too much, because if there is an inbalance and you have too little or too much, we will have problems. But many Americans fail to realize that there are other countries that are just as free but have have more safety and cheaper prices to boot. I heard thee days that Norway and Denmark is #1 when it comes to best quality of life and Canada is #3.
If extreme freedom is what you are looking for in a country and you want to move away from USA, I think many places in Europe are just as free as America, as well as Canada and Australia, if not more free, and have other qualities that USA is not so good at, like better safety, healthier food, and cheaper prices, and better health care and probably even a better culture, without worrying about wars.
I heard these days that Germany has more freedom. Correct? I assume UK does too, even though you must wear school uniforms and people don't carry guns, AFAIK, but that is a good thing and I am not complaining about those rules. Maybe they take education more seriously there and don't lack the discipline that the average American kids and teachers tend to. Those other countries probably have a better infrastructure (up-to-date roads, bridges, and energy alternatives) too. America seems so over-rated these days. They can't accept or even realize that in many ways, other countries have surpassed them. So many blinded by patriotism and not thinking beyond the borders and not trying to understand other cultures. However, I will say that one good thing America has done recently that was necessary and actually didn't involve war is help Haiti.
-
So you hate freedom because you're True Neutral?
'Kay.
-
:rolleyes:
-
you're True Neutral?
'Kay.
That actually makes a lot of sense about Max when you think about it.
Anyway, Supreme Courts says these guys are on U.S. soil in the midwest, then they are. Hopefully something will come about from that. I sure hope so, but I doubt it's guaranteed.
-
a balance of freedom; not too little, not too much, because if there is an inbalance and you have too little or too much, we will have problems.
so you hate freedom
It is amazing how many people here jump to conclusions and put words in people's mouths. Balance is not the same as hating. That makes no sense how you can get 'hate' out of me saying 'I don't like too little or too much'. If I hated it, I would say 'I hate having any'. Only a sith deals in absolutes. I only hate imbalance. I ':rolleyes:' because of that assumption about me. I can't see any place where I said 'hate'. I do hate too much of anything though, no matter what it is. That also goes for too much oppression or too much freedom, but I do not hate a moderate amount of freedom since it is good to have an adequate amount. I also hate extremists who think black and white. There is no 'this' or 'that'. There is much in the middle too but many fail to see it. Do you understand the phrase 'too much'?
I think this: so you hate freedom
is what we can a silly strawman argument.
-
Good god, humor fail.
-
Oh come on HM, the link was a joke.
-
I didn't even read it really. I'm talking about mxlm and Scotty saying it without the link (the comments after that link that were directed about me). It isn't the first time people said to me 'you hate freedom' on the forum. I just hate too much but like a balance, but people like to play strawman here. But I have no problem. It's all cool.
-
The only "too much" in freedom is when you start infringing on the *rights* of others. We are not at risk of having too much freedom generally. I mean, look at prohibition.
-
I didn't even read it really. I'm talking about mxlm and Scotty saying it without the link (the comments after that link that were directed about me). It isn't the first time people said to me 'you hate freedom' on the forum. I just hate too much but like a balance, but people like to play strawman here. But I have no problem. It's all cool.
Good god, humor fail.
-
That's nice.
-
I read it as a personal attack as well, just saying.
-
Um, but the Supreme Court isn't a 'politician in power.'
SCOTUS has been so removed from implementing true independent justice in the US that it might as well be considered a loose coalition of politicians. Maybe I'm just bitter because of their recent gang rape of democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission), but it sure seems that way.
Just ignore me though. I've totally lost faith in US government institutions anyway. No matter what party gets elected to power, they're still going to be wholly owned by the corporate side of America, and totally disregarding of true American values. They'll risk 30,000 American lives so that Boeing, Raytheon, and Blackwater get their 30 million a year, and then sell it to us as a good thing. They'll promise us whatever we want to hear as an electorate so we'll give them the very chance to betray and screw us. I might as well never vote again--it won't make a difference. Third parties mean nothing in American politics, and even if they gained any power, they'd become prey of the corporate machine within months of becoming powerful. **** this, I'm moving to Britain.
Britain has many of the same problems with its own government institutions, although in their case it is less of a case of being in a corporations pocket and more because of massive incompetance. You won't escape the crumbling system there.
-
Oh come on HM, the link was a joke.
Nit pick: the stuff I linked to was serious (Stevens' dissent in the 'corporations are people too!' case), the sentence about hating freedom was certainly not.
-
Oh right.
Well, there you go. :lol:
-
**** this, I'm moving to Britain.
The Brits have it worse, considering their lack of similar constitutional protections.
-
And the fact you guys seem to lack the money to do anything these days.
-
Then again Canada is just a short hop over the border, it doesn't seem as messed up as the UK.
-
'Messed up' is a matter of perception and opinion when talking about countries or cultures. Better for someone to say that it is messed up to them.
-
There's a lot of things I really like about living in the US.
Mostly its other people that ruin it for me. :(
-
'Messed up' is a matter of perception and opinion when talking about countries or cultures. Better for someone to say that it is messed up to them.
I'd rather not, because that would be dishonest with ourselves.
Anyway, I think we can agree that getting arrested for taking pictures of public buildings is messed up (http://boingboing.net/2009/01/11/another-london-photo.html). Yes UK, I'm looking at you.
-
'Messed up' is a matter of perception and opinion when talking about countries or cultures. Better for someone to say that it is messed up to them.
Well, I can say with confidence that if anything like Guantanamo (or the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations unlimited campaign financing) happened in Canada, people would be on Parliament Hill in Ottawa with their pitchforks and torches looking for someone's political blood.
Although I'm not really sure our Stepford Smiler of a Prime Minister has any blood.
-
speaking of, I wonder why usa has bases scattered abroad as if it was trying to take over the world. Are there any other countries out there that have their own bases located in other countries like the usa does?
-
That always irritated me as well. Wonder how we'd feel about it if Brazil or China or Australia decided to run military bases on US soil where they could get away with whatever the **** they wanted, following none of our laws...
-
speaking of, I wonder why usa has bases scattered abroad as if it was trying to take over the world. Are there any other countries out there that have their own bases located in other countries like the usa does?
It Isn't trying to, it largely succeeded. To be fair many of them were originally intended to contain the Soviet Union, especially the ones in Europe, but now that the USSR is toast they've started to become a symbol of imperialism.
-
Q: military bases on foreign soil?
A: because they let us
-
Q: why did they let us?
A: because they didn't want to get conquered by the soviet union.
-
Didn't the USSR fall before I was even born? Try again.
-
Q: why did they let us?
A: because they didn't want to get conquered by the soviet union.
Soviet Union's gone. So why are they still letting us?
We very well should've demobilized after the Cold War, but didn't.
-
I really think it's almost as much a problem with mot of those countries as it is with us. We should have packed up and left germany years ago, but we didn't. But I'd like to know why the Germans haven't thrown us out.
-
Because there's no reason to. Those bases are major economic factors for their respective surroundings, and the Bundeswehr doesn't have the manpower to operate those.
-
Yeah, it's pretty much the money. We pay good rent.
-
That, and a military base is full of soldiers that don't have many things to do with their money. Local industries like people like that.
-
Didn't the USSR fall before I was even born? Try again.
weren't all those bases built before you were born?
-
Didn't the USSR fall before I was even born? Try again.
weren't all those bases built before you were born?
so we can sell the bases and stop pumping money into other countries' local economies. sorry, but that's not exactly what the military is for.
-
the only reason we haven't left is cause they haven't told us to, the only base that has any sort of major angst against it is in Okinawa, and even there it's half hearted cause the locals make so much money off of it, and the government there is worried about if Kimchan is going to wake up one morning and interpret the sun rising in the east as a sign that he should launch a nuke at Nippon, not to mention China, and the fact that it's part of the post WW2 treaty where we agreed to protect them.
honestly I think it would be a good Idea to close most of them, but I reject the notion that they are the US (not so) metaphorically asserting some sort of dominance.
-
Well why else would we keep little THIS LAND IS OURS zones in countries that are at no risk and are no threat?
-
because there is not major momentum to have them removed.
-
weren't all those bases built before you were born?
Don't a lot of them date to Lend-Lease?
-
I'm not sure, do you have some numbers?
-
Most of the British ones did but closed down with the Soviet Union. Gitmo does. Diego Garcia does. There are probably others.
-
We have bombers that can take off, fly halfway around the world, kill a bunch of people, then go back and land.
we only really need about 2 bases, one here, and one on the other side of the world. we'll need fewer bases if we ever militarize space.
-
You don't need bases. You need Laz0rs. In space.
And preferably, large, phallic warships.
-
No, what we need to do is find a way to get along. Also, only military targets are fair game, not civilians. Using orbital bombardment and nukes is the largest form of terrorism that I can think of. Funny that people still whine about the twin towers (only 2000 or so people) when the bomb on Hiroshima was on a much grander scale of terrorism (a few hunderd thousand). Seems many governments have committed terrorism at one time or another. Maybe both sides on the so-called war on terror are bad, just the so called good guys are wolves in sheeps' clothing?
-
No, what we need to do is find a way to get along. Also, only military targets are fair game, not civilians. Using orbital bombardment and nukes is the largest form of terrorism that I can think of. Funny that people still whine about the twin towers (only 2000 or so people) when the bomb on Hiroshima was on a much grander scale of terrorism (a few hunderd thousand). Seems many governments have committed terrorism at one time or another. Maybe both sides on the so-called war on terror are bad, just the so called good guys are wolves in sheeps' clothing?
It was a joke.
-
Too much joking in serious debates.
-
I know it was kind of silly, but the nuke and laser idea is quiet serious and possible, at least the laser might be in the future.
-
Too much joking in serious debates.
Too much seriousness in serious debates.
That said, bring on the phallic warships!
-
Q: why did they let us?
A: because they didn't want to get conquered by the soviet union.
Soviet Union's gone. So why are they still letting us?
We very well should've demobilized after the Cold War, but didn't.
We didn't for two reasons:
1.) It was our shot to run the world
2.) There's an enormous amount of money to be made in the Military Industrial Complex, and combining that with lobbying and our "revolving door" political system we get what we have today.
-
1.) It was our shot to run the world
By saying the word 'our', you just confirmed that you were originally from the USA and not from some other western country, despite living in China. That would explain your apparent dislike for the east, though you live there now for some reason, probably because you have family there and you are part Chinese but Americanized beyond recognition. It's the most logical assumption. It also explains how you were able to have a place to live in China (family there).
Now for the more on topic comments:
No 'one' country should be running the world or have more importance or authority than the others. Countries should have equal authority. Are all leaders of NATO seen as having equal authority or is the American member valued and respected more just because NATO was seemingly founded from here? Is there any one individual or a committee that is seen as the leaders of the world, perhaps the NATO president, which I believe is south Korean?
2.) There's an enormous amount of money to be made in the Military Industrial Complex, and combining that with lobbying and our "revolving door" political system we get what we have today.
That's very poetic and almost warms the heart. Actually, it does the opposite.
You mean it is all about selfish materialism and greed? I'll say it again but with slight differences from what I recall saying in old posts: The sad part is that these days, especially in America and some other western countries and others heavily influenced by them, seem to have money and possessions take precedence over human life and safety and even love ones in many cases. I feel pissed when I think about that. It's a very backwards train of thought that is increasing. It becomes a depressing society and country to live in when more and more people start to assume things about you based on your wealth and care too much about that instead of your personality, way of thinking, and intelligence, which are what really matter in a person, but I have plenty of intelligent comebacks to people who do that and I have rehersed them out loud incase I encounter more people like that. People like that are bastards. I hate them.
Excuse me. I had to get that latter part out.
-
That would explain your apparent dislike for the east
Excuse me, but what the ****? Being from America does not equate to disliking Eastern culture.
It's the most logical assumption.
No, it's not. Maybe he went for a job opening. Maybe he went for kicks and giggles. No way of knowing unless he straight up tells us.
You mean it is all about selfish materialism and greed?
No. People tend to like not being blown up. Additionally, having money, or wanting a better life for yourself/your family is not selfish materialism automatically.
It's a very backwards train of thought that is increasing.
Not denying that it's a bad thing, but your perspective seems kind of... limited, to be making blanket statments like this.
-
Actually, he's not too far off on that.
Why do a fair amount of Americans oppose healthcare reform? Because higher taxes on (sometimes not even) their income is more important to them than 44 million people getting the right to see a doctor.
-
By saying the word 'our', you just confirmed that you were originally from the USA and not from some other western country, despite living in China. That would explain your apparent dislike for the east, though you live there now for some reason, probably because you have family there and you are part Chinese but Americanized beyond recognition. It's the most logical assumption. It also explains how you were able to have a place to live in China (family there).
**** it. I've had enough of warning you about your actions on here.
Perma-ban from General Discussion. Be more sensible on the rest of the site or it will become a perma-ban from the entire site.
-
Why do a fair amount of Americans oppose healthcare reform? Because higher taxes on (sometimes not even) their income is more important to them than 44 million people getting the right to see a doctor.
Some likely do oppose it for the potential tax increases, while others may look at it through the prism of opposition to expanded government control in the private sector. Still others might argue that such reform will negatively impact their own current healthcare coverage, or even some other reason that doesn't come to mind at 2 in the morning. You can't just reduce the opposition of half the country (give or take) to one simple reason, no matter how justified you do or don't find any of said reasons to be.
(Please let's not turn this into Healthcare Debate Part Whatever. This was just a statement against over-simplification, nothing more.)
-
By saying the word 'our', you just confirmed that you were originally from the USA and not from some other western country, despite living in China. That would explain your apparent dislike for the east, though you live there now for some reason, probably because you have family there and you are part Chinese but Americanized beyond recognition. It's the most logical assumption. It also explains how you were able to have a place to live in China (family there).
I am from the US, but everything else is way wrong.
No 'one' country should be running the world or have more importance or authority than the others. Countries should have equal authority. Are all leaders of NATO seen as having equal authority or is the American member valued and respected more just because NATO was seemingly founded from here? Is there any one individual or a committee that is seen as the leaders of the world, perhaps the NATO president, which I believe is south Korean?
South Korea is not a member of NATO.
I'll say it again but with slight differences from what I recall saying in old posts: The sad part is that these days, especially in America and some other western countries and others heavily influenced by them, seem to have money and possessions take precedence over human life and safety and even love ones in many cases.
And where did the poison toys come from? You seriously need to spend more time in "the East" if you think it's any different here.
Some likely do oppose it for the potential tax increases, while others may look at it through the prism of opposition to expanded government control in the private sector. Still others might argue that such reform will negatively impact their own current healthcare coverage, or even some other reason that doesn't come to mind at 2 in the morning. You can't just reduce the opposition of half the country (give or take) to one simple reason, no matter how justified you do or don't find any of said reasons to be.
The biggest reason for many seems to be an ideological opposition to any expansion of government, however justified this maybe. What's sad is that many of those people who would benefit the most and lose the least are the ones out there trying to shout it down. Does anyone have any studies as to how many of these people are lower middle class or lower class? I'd like to see the numbers......
-
That said, bring on the phallic warships!
:nervous: GTVA Giagant(d)ick :nervous:
And to be on topic:
Is it possible that ANYONE will by the redicolous explanation? Unfortunatly, given the stupidity of some people....yes.
-
I'll also throw in that the kind of money we;re talking about with the MIC is measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Even the lobbyists who work for them make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Frankly it's really hard to say no to that kind of money, it gives you real freedom.
-
many of those people who would benefit the most and lose the least are the ones out there trying to shout it down.
they also don't want it forced on them, they view it as socialism and a hand out and they are ideologically opposed to this.
-
they view it as socialism and a hand out and they are ideologically opposed to this.
Because they're stupid enough to believe the old Cold War propaganda that socialism = communism = hates America.
Better (the 44 million uninsured) dead then (kinda sorta well not really) Red!
-
Because they're stupid
because your stupid!
-
Well what else do you want to call them? Had they even read a book on socialism they'd realize that the Marxist class struggle socialism that leads to communism isn't the one being practiced in most Western countries. Had they read even the Wikipedia article on social democracy, they'd realize the socialism anyone intends to implement in the US wants to see capitalism and republicanism preserved, but the faults of the former corrected.
So yes, they're stupid! And deliberately kept uninformed by Fox and certain politicians. I swear to God, every time I watch a Teabagger protest, I feel ashamed that these self-centered dumbass bigots live in the same country as me.
-
ok, I get it, your ideology is the only 'smart' one everyone else is just intolerant racists, gotcha.
-
ok, I get it you ideology is the only 'smart' one everyone else is just intolerant racists, gotcha.
Dude, have you watched a Tea Party protest?
I'm not saying everyone who disagrees with me is a moron. I'm saying the people who still believe Obama is a Kenyan Nazi socialist Muslim terrorist who wants to implement Soviet-style communism and Nazi eugenics and that the healthcare bill will establish death panels are all morons who need to read a book (or, I dunno, the healthcare bill) rather than just mindlessly spout what they heard on Glenn Beck the night before.
That's what they disgust me--because they're mindless, Cold War-hyped, stupid drones.
-
you are just using this to distract from the fact that the majority of the people who this is intended to benefit are the primary source of opposition to it, that it is being forced on them by people who 'know better'. when this happens internationally it's called imperialism, but when all those foolish rednecks oppose these wonderful progressed ideas it's just shameful.
why don't you go to Iran and try to get them to stop executing homosexuals?
-
Oh really? These are spontaneous, grassroots movements, not astroturfed horse**** funded and organized by Fox and FreedomWorks intended to benefit the upper 2% of Americans who will be taxed the heaviest to pay for national healthcare? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Astroturfing_allegations) Or if they're even grassroots at all, simply not the result of political hysteria fueled by unbelievably (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_panel#Death_panels) outrageous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Bachmann#Health_care) claims by some of either the most incredibly ignorant or the most evilly manipulative of American politicians and news commentators?
Some of these people are Americans with legitimate concerns--how efficient will health care be under the federal government, what effect will reform have on the economy--but they're vastly outnumbered by the town hall-disrupting, deliberately-uninformed, intolerant, hate-your-neighbor-and-America-before-tolerating-Obama majority.
There are proper venues to address healthcare reform and opposition to it--and it does not involve unwarranted, shameless depiction of Holocaust victims, or labeling your movement as an oppressed people like the Iranians.
But thanks for the strawman on Iran! That was completely applicable to what we're talking about. :rolleyes:
-
oh, so first they were stupid, now they're just manipulated, of course it still doesn't change the fact that they don't want it and you are trying to force it down their throats whether they want it or not because you have a more elite intellect than them and are above being manipulated by politicians and the media..
the Iran comment was not meant to identify those opposed to health care reform as a oppressed minority, it was meant to point out how imposing your will on stupid people was ok, so long as they were white.
-
If they don't want it, they could just go ahead and buy private insurance instead of taking the public option.
But see, I just lost my primary health insurance and I'll be losing my other one when I turn 23 and it is highly unlikely that someone with my medical history will ever be able to afford private health insurance (if I can even find someone who will cover me) on their own in the current system. So yeah, I really don't care about the people who are going "waaahhhh, socialism, waaaaahhh, handouts." If they don't want it, they don't have to use it. People who need it shouldn't have to be subject to their tantrums.
-
so you want them to be forced to buy your insurance for you against their will without getting anything in return, I see, how noble of you.
-
Well, they already buy a military, an infrastructure, political campaigns, and god knows what else, much of which (the military in particular) they'll never see any benefit from. Meanwhile, having health care would boost worker productivity and save god knows how much in the long run.
You could argue it's no different from any other taxed expense, and if funding it doesn't involve a tax hike...
-
or maybe these are the same eople who voted for Bush because he cut taxes?
-
so you want them to be forced to buy your insurance for you against their will without getting anything in return, I see, how noble of you.
I feel ashamed that these self-centered dumbass bigots
Thanks for proving my point.
Or did you actually think people were going to help the 44 million uninsured through their own good graces?
I don't understand. Do you think these people are lazy or something, or that they deserved the circumstances they live in? Sure, there might be some just plain lazy people out there--but a lot of these people are going to die unless they have health insurance. They're victims of an unregulated monster of an insurance industry that puts profit over people's lives.
Is an extra 2% (probably not even that much) off your paycheck not worth a few thousand lives?
This isn't an issue of stupid versus smart, or left versus right, or socialism versus free market; it's literally life and death. What the **** is the point of everyone who's given their lives for the US to make it a better place when we can't give nearly 15% of the population access to a doctor?
When people on the other side of the world tell us we're the most greedy country on Earth, I try my best to tell them we're not--we give millions to countries affected by natural disasters, we routinely give gallons of blood...but when our own neighbors are dying, we don't do a damned thing about it.
So if the best argument these guys have against healthcare reform is "I don't wanna pay for it", it disgusts me. Christ, this isn't social security or unemployment benefits; it's the right to life!
-
What the **** is the point of everyone who's given their lives for the US to make it a better place when we can't give nearly 15% of the population access to a doctor?
And to these people who don't want it, the sentiment is "What the **** is the point of everyone who's given their lives for the US to make it a better place when the government can force something upon us like this."
DISCLAIMER: I am not giving my opinion on this topic with that sentence. I'm just playing the devil's advocate for right now.
-
The whole point of the government is its ability to compel when necessary.
-
"When necessary" is the key phrase there, and obviously the millions who oppose the bill have come to the conclusion (good or bad, immediately or through consideration) that the compulsion is not necessary.
-
44 million lives aren't necessary?
****, we've destroyed two countries and gotten hundreds of thousands killed in the name of 3,000 people dead...hell, statistically, that many die every month from lack of health coverage.
-
44 million lives are as necessary as ANY number of lives. Fortunately, all 44 million of them will NOT keel over and die if this bill is not passed soon. Second, please stop accusing me as if I agree with these people. I think we should have something to that effect. However, I don't think the bill in question is the way to do that.
-
What the **** is the point of everyone who's given their lives for the US to make it a better place when we can't give nearly 15% of the population access to a doctor?
And to these people who don't want it, the sentiment is "What the **** is the point of everyone who's given their lives for the US to make it a better place when the government can force something upon us like this."
Millions of people didn't want racial integration.
Millions of people didn't want women to vote.
I stopped caring about what the other side has to say about this when they tried to turn this into a "welfare makes people lazy" deal. All this is really about is about a bunch of rich ****s who see this as an issue of "paying for a sick guy's medical coverage will make me slightly less rich than I am already" astroturfing the National Mall by getting a bunch of Cold War hysterical rednecks whipped up in a frenzy about threats of communism which don't exist, and getting their bought-and-sold Congressional representatives to spout lie after lie attacking the healthcare bill until absolutely zero action can be done in Congress, leaving reform to die due to inactivity.
I tried to be nice earlier, but I've just had it up to here with this nonsense.
This isn't about government forcing something down people's throats. This isn't about even the minor threat of socialism taking over the US. This is about how a few really, really rich people can convince a bunch of really, really stupid people to screw their fellow American by denying them right to life.
I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this. I'm not attacking people who have legitimate questions about reform--I fully invite them to join in the debate. I'm angry that a lot of people don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to their opposition, and yet no one in the federal government has just come out and said "go **** yourselves, you're killing your neighbors." No, not all 44 million of them will die if this doesn't get passed, but 120 die every day, 3700 per month, 44000 per year.
EDIT: I'm not directing this at you, but if you're going to play devil's advocate, I'm just throwing this all out there. :)
-
oh, so first they were stupid, now they're just manipulated,
It is entirely possible it is a combination of the two.
or maybe these are the same eople who voted for Bush because he cut taxes?
He didn't cut taxes for them, he cut it almost entirely for the rich. My middle class parents didn't see a dollar from those tax cuts.
so you want them to be forced to buy your insurance for you against their will without getting anything in return, I see, how noble of you.
We are going to end up paying for their care anyway, in the form of emergency room visits because they didn't get the preventative care they needed to prevent that in the first place. The cost of preventative care is far far below what it costs to go to the ER.
of course it still doesn't change the fact that they don't want it and you are trying to force it down their throats whether they want it
A lot of people didn't want an end to segregation or slavery. Just because they dont want it doesn't mean it isn't good for them.
or not because you have a more elite intellect than them and are above being manipulated by politicians and the media..
Don't underestimate the effects of Rush Limbaugh/Fox news/etc,. The stuff they have on their shows really is very manipulative and heavily distorted.
Frankly while I generally support a public option, my concerns are over how it is going to be paid for with our massive deficit and that it doesn't go far enough into addressing the real problems of our system (hospital's overcharging for one thing).
-
I didn't lose my primary health insurance because I'm lazy, I lost it because I turned 18. I've been on my parents' insurance my whole life, and I've got a good number of health problems, some of which are chronic.
If I didn't have health insurance two summers ago, I would probably have never gone to a doctor because of the cost, and I just might be dead now.
There are 44 million people who, if they get that sick, have a good chance of dying from something perfectly treatable. I'm lucky to have parents with employer insurance. But I am ****ed, through no fault of my own, when I lose Tri-Care.
I don't deserve to have to choose between bankruptcy and good health just because some jackasses think I should just "pull myself up my bootstraps" or what the **** ever.
Besides, it is pretty assholeish for someone to think their money is more important than my *life.*
-
We are going to end up paying for their care anyway, in the form of emergency room visits because they didn't get the preventative care they needed to prevent that in the first place. The cost of preventative care is far far below what it costs to go to the ER.
This is a good argument and needs to be brought up more often.
-
I want y'all to hit ctrl-f and type the word lazy and hit enter several times on the last few pages, and see who typed that word.
-strawman
I consider even more important than my life my freedom, my ability to think and to act in accordance to my own will. I want to be allowed to do things that are known to be unhealthy or unadvisable, I don't need a good reason, walking along the grass on a sunny day exposes me to deadly UV rays and can give me cancer, but I don't care I want to feel the warmth of the sun on my face. there are millions of people who do things like this, eat fatty foods, have unprotected sex, drive motorcycles, smoke cigarettes. these are things that can be quantifiably proven to be bad, and yet they still want to do it. I don't care if it is economical, I don't care if it's fare, if the people who will benefit from something and the people who will suffer from it both agree that they don't want it, how the hell can you justify it? this exemplifies a mind set of authoritarianism, that people must be controlled for there own good, once you accept that I don't see how you can have any sort of freedom, let alone liberty. oh yes, you just winced when I used those propaganda words there didn't you, now my opinion isn't an opinion any more, its the crazed ranting of some stupid redneck, i'm hardly even human anymore.
you know maybe I just happen to like the principals of life, liberty and blah blah blah that my country was founded on, maybe I would like there to be one place in the universe were I won't have to worry about having sausage outlawed. I'm not saying this as an asinine reaction, I really want to know, if there are nations in this world who have liked this problem, and all the other 'social justice' problems, or at least done a lot better than we have, aside from the expense of a ticket, why don't you move there? clearly most of the country doesn't subscribe to your philosophy, clearly what you thought this country was it isn't, why are you trying to impose your will on s lesser beings when the thought of trying to break a tribal culture of their savage ways (I hope the irony of some of the words I use in this rant is not lost) and become more civilized is an abomination? we just want to be free! leave us the **** alone! if there was any ware left on the planet to run to, I would, and let you have even my home, but there isn't, as constrained and curtailed our liberties are this is the freest country on the planet, this is the last stand, I have no where left to run to.
-
This is in no way the freest country in the world.
-
it's closest to the definition I use. what is a better country for you? why don't you go there and try to fit it more to your ideal I think that be a more efficient use of everyone's time.
and again, I'm not being a jackass, I really think it would be best if people went to the place that most resembled their ideal and strived to perfect it, than try to make there ideal the only one, or are you saying the US is the closest to how you think a country should be? this is one reason why I don't like big government, if power rested more at the state level, not only would you have a greater influence on it, there would be a greater diversity of environments that you could choose from, to find the one that is best for you, not be told what is best by the one monolithic government.
-
What definition? 25% of the world's prisoners are American. We don't have the right to use an almost totally harmless drug for medicinal use in most states let alone because we just feel like it. I don't have the right to marry the half of the population I'm more attracted to just because some assholes think it's okay to impose their religious views on me. It's currently okay to fire or not hire someone just because they're transexual. Religious zealots bomb abortion clinics because their *opinion* on when life begins is more important than the lives of women and the doctors/nurses/receptionists who assist them in regaining their bodily autonomy. It goes on and on.
As for why don't I move somewhere better? Mostly personal reasons: free countries have cold climates, I'm poor, and I have such a hard time making new friends as to be prohibitive to moving very far away.
-
I agree that those are huge glaring problems, I stand by my position cause as ****ty as this one is, I can't think of a better country.
all of those problems stem from one group of people thinking they must enforce there interpretation of "correct" on everyone else, I think it would be best if we allowed people to have differences of opinion and didn't simply dismiss them when it was convenient. it would be better if we didn't respond to authoritarian intolerance with the same, because the only people who benefit from that are the authorities.
-
The problem is that the majority of our leaders are perfectly happy with imposing the majority opinion of correct on the general populace. Any country with gay marriage and reasonable drug laws is automatically a better place, IMO. IT doesn't hurt that such places also tend to have less crime and considerably higher standards of living.
-
where do these leaders come from and how do they get there? it's a social problem and it needs a social solution, you can't fight authoritarianism with authoritarianism, it's the biggest fundamental problem with American society.
-
it's closest to the definition I use. what is a better country for you? why don't you go there and try to fit it more to your ideal I think that be a more efficient use of everyone's time.
and again, I'm not being a jackass, I really think it would be best if people went to the place that most resembled their ideal and strived to perfect it, than try to make there ideal the only one, or are you saying the US is the closest to how you think a country should be? this is one reason why I don't like big government, if power rested more at the state level, not only would you have a greater influence on it, there would be a greater diversity of environments that you could choose from, to find the one that is best for you, not be told what is best by the one monolithic government.
I don't particularly care for bloated government either, but I don't like the idea of having my medical problems going untreated because I dont have insurance. The bottom line is that this would provide the very diversity you would want by providing real compition to greedy insurance carriers, who aren't likely to actin your own interest. The public option is just that, an option. You don't want it? Fine, you aren't required to have it, you can just walk away. That's real freedom, something we dont have.
-
For God's sake Bob, it's not authoritarianism. The majority of Teabaggers have health insurance...otherwise, they wouldn't be opposing reform!
I don't know how many ****ing times I need to cover the idea of "astroturfing".
-
I agree. As much as I try to empathize with opposing points of view, I simply can't see how public option health insurance is different from any of the myriad programs we already pay taxes to support.
-
so I can opt out of paying for it?
given how it's all optional and all.
-
I agree. As much as I try to empathize with opposing points of view, I simply can't see how public option health insurance is different from any of the myriad programs we already pay taxes to support.
Note that I emphasized different from any of the myriad programs we already pay taxes to support.
You can't opt out of paying for those either.
We all paid for the space program. I'd like to make everyone continue to pay for it. Governments exist because of their ability to coerce and I don't believe anybody thinks governments should simply go away. The debate is in exactly how much coercion should be practiced.
Public option health care seems to be an economic investment that will, in the long run, help everybody more than it hurts. Either you pay for their preventative health care via insurance, or you pay far more when they have to go in for care (via lost worker hours, healthcare costs, so on.) Either way you're paying. This way you pay less.
In any case...I don't believe the proposed public option involved a tax hike. So this whole debate is a red herring, isn't it?
I honestly hadn't put much thought into the public option debate before, but now that I do I find myself more and more strongly favoring it.
-
Freedom......such a strange word. Where does freedom end and opression begin? Is enforcing laws inherently bad? One mas hell is another man's paradise.
Reaching a concensus on this is pretty much impossible.
There's will always be people who think they are entilted to X and people who think otherwise.
-
God help us that some people think they are entitled to affordable regular check ups. What greedy SOBs.
-
so I can opt out of paying for it?
given how it's all optional and all.
What exactly do you have against giving people health insurance?
Cus the "you're taking my money!!!111" argument is getting really tiresome. If that's all you've got against the public option, then all it does is make you look like a greedy SOB.
-
I don't know about that. I can certainly understand not wanting to pay more taxes. But was the public option going to involve a tax hike?
-
if it didn't then it was going to involve a trillion dollars more debt.
-
Are you sure? At least on the campaign trail, Obama's big idea was to cut down on waste in health care in order to help offset new costs.
-
The house bill calls for a surtax of 5.4% on incomes over $500,000 for single people or $1,000,000 for families. The Senate bill calls for increasing the Medicare payroll tax from 1.45% to 2.35% on incomes over $200K for individuals and $250K for families. The house bill would cost about $1.05 trillion over 10 years, but that would still reduce the deficit by $138 billion. The Senate bill would cost $871 billion over 10 years, reducing the deficit by $132 billion. That's all from the nonpartisan CBO.
So see? The rich are being taxed to pay for it, not your average American. The leaders of FreedomWorks, Fox, and Americans for Prosperity are going to be taxed, not the idiots they wrangled together and filled with lies and misinformation. It's not going to increase the deficit, no one under $200K would pay additional taxes under either bill.
There's no legitimate grassroots opposition to the bill...****, 70% of Americans supported the public option. The rich are just being greedy assholes again.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Seriously, Bob, if you can find any legitimate opposition to this from someone making under $200K that doesn't involve "they're taking my money", "it's going to increase the deficit", or "it's evil socialism" (all of which have been disproved at one point or another here), I'll give it some credit. Otherwise, those fears are completely unfounded.
But I'm guessing you don't have anything else to contribute? Look, I know your entire argument fell apart when I quoted the stats from the bills, but you can at least have the decency to just say "Golly, maybe I was wrong!"
-
Speaking as the oldest child in a three-person, single parent family that makes ~$36,000/year, I am still opposed to this bill on principle, if nothing else. Yes, health care/insurance for everyone would be absolutely fricking wonderful, but I don't think that the federal government should be the enacting party here. That's not an "EVIL SOCIALISM!" argument, it's a legitimate concern.
-
Then who should enact it? The Senate bill calls for the states to create their own insurance exchanges that would have to follow one of two plans for insurance. Is it a federal vs states concern?
By the way, it is a legitimate concern. Appreciate it. :)
-
Seriously, Bob, if you can find any legitimate opposition to this from someone making under $200K that doesn't involve "they're taking my money", "it's going to increase the deficit", or "it's evil socialism" (all of which have been disproved at one point or another here), I'll give it some credit. Otherwise, those fears are completely unfounded.
But I'm guessing you don't have anything else to contribute? Look, I know your entire argument fell apart when I quoted the stats from the bills, but you can at least have the decency to just say "Golly, maybe I was wrong!"
that's not what I was rolling my eyes at, the fact that you posted that seems to indicate you haven't heard a single word I've typed.
-
I think a lot of people are worried about more government control over one-sixth of the economy. To be fair, a lot of people are also worried about the fact the government already accounts for 50% of all health care spending already, and they believe that that is what's driving up costs. And government is notorious for budget overruns and programs costing way more than anticipated. Social Security and MediCare were supposed to be far cheaper than they have been.
-
I've heard so far you're against health care reform because it's authoritarian and you don't want to pay for it.
Then I heard the argument where you essentially told everyone who has left-leaning policies to take their liberal ideas and GTFO your country:
I really think it would be best if people went to the place that most resembled their ideal and strived to perfect it, than try to make there ideal the only one
Which puzzles me, since a few posts ago you were telling me how it was bad to enforce one way over another just because you disagree with it.
Then you came out with that ****ing stupid ad hominem "winced at the propaganda words" referring to liberty and freedom. **** you, I don't hate liberty or freedom, I'm putting my life on the line for it. Your entire argument was based around "if everybody doesn't want it, then it's authoritarianism", and I told you repeatedly that the Tea Party protests were astroturfed nonsense based on irrational fears of people who've been lied to and misinformed.
No one's trying to outlaw sausage dammit, we just want to be able to see a doctor every now and then and we know those people who "just want to be left alone" won't do a damned thing on their own to help out. Is that too much to ask?
I think a lot of people are worried about more government control over one-sixth of the economy. To be fair, a lot of people are also worried about the fact the government already accounts for 50% of all health care spending already, and they believe that that is what's driving up costs. And government is notorious for budget overruns and programs costing way more than anticipated. Social Security and MediCare were supposed to be far cheaper than they have been.
Dude, the health insurance industry is one of the least-regulated in the economy, and that's the problem--there's no protection for people who lose their entire policies because company X doesn't want to pay out and is more concerned for their profit then those people's health. Telling the health insurance industry that it can't screw over average Americans anymore is what this is supposed to do.
-
whatever you just keep hearing what you want and I'll see you when the riots start.
-
Pretty irritating to me how people who apparently want to riot over rich people having to pay for other people to be frigging healthy don't mind the billions the government spends on imprisoning people for smoking a plant that's less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, etc... They don't mind that the government controls who they can marry. They don't mind that the government places killing other people over educating our own....
-
whatever you just keep hearing what you want and I'll see you when the riots start.
And as soon as they do something that's antithetical to democracy or attacking freedom, I'll be right there in the streets protesting it.
But no one's attacking your freedom here. That's the whole point--you're not paying for it, you're not being forced into anything, you don't even have to give up your private insurance if you don't like. This isn't about some government take-over of the health insurance industry--they're just making some rules to protect the average American from disgusting, greedy practices. The government's stepping in to protect people's right to life, their right to be free from a monstrosity of a corrupt industry, and their right to not go into bankruptcy because of medical bills.
Obama's government isn't out to destroy your personal freedom--fine, walk outside if you want, no one's stopping you. But don't whine and ***** when the government pays for health education to teach people the science behind cancer-causing UV rays. Eat as many sausages as you'd like, just don't whine and ***** when the FDA establishes standards for keeping poisons out of the supermarket. Go ahead and get as sick as you want; just don't whine and ***** when your insurance cops out on you and the government isn't there to give you affordable coverage because you thought it was a authoritarian powergrab.
-
if the government controls health care they control your life literally, they can mandate any arbitrary rule they want under the pretenses of improving health, they can claim the authority to do this because they are the ones providing health care. not that they can't do this now but it has a much bigger impact if they are literally footing the bill for it, it doesn't come for free it comes at the cost of your autonomy.
-
Slippery slope fallacy. Banning abortion is more likely to lead to all that nonsense anyway.
-
if the government controls health care they control your life literally, they can mandate any arbitrary rule they want under the pretenses of improving health, they can claim the authority to do this because they are the ones providing health care. not that they can't do this now but it has a much bigger impact if they are literally footing the bill for it, it doesn't come for free it comes at the cost of your autonomy.
But they're not in control; it's called a public option for a reason.
Plus, look what happened when the government started doing whatever they wanted with the police force in the name of improving security over the last eight years. Remember the stink that raised?
-
if the government controls health care they control your life literally,
Yet that has not happened in other countries with nationalized health care. Why would it happen here?
-
Nor, in fact, would the government control your healthcare. Not anymore than it already does. I'm still not convinced this is the best idea to go about reform, but I know that any argument about government take-over of the industry has no leg to stand on.
-
My doctor sister anticipates NO change in her job after reform, other then being able to accept many more patients than she can now.
-
Frankly, I'm amazed people don't realize government already controls their lives.
-
Frankly I don't see what argument Bobboau is making that can't be made against emergency care.
If someone finds you unconscious on the street you'd be taken to a hospital where without your consent a whole number of medical procedures would be performed on you. If you lack insurance the government will then be expected to pay for it and will pass on this burden to the taxpayer.
How is that not as bad as the situation he is on about?
-
so I can opt out of paying for it?
given how it's all optional and all.
That depends on your income level. Any tax increases would most likely be on really rich people.
But was the public option going to involve a tax hike?
I think it will unless there are major cuts elsewhere.
-
Kosh: look a few posts back. I said that te Senate bill would increase the medicare tax on $200K+ households and the House bill would put a 5.4% tax increase on $500K+ incomes.
So yeah, it's the rich getting taxed.