Articles
   
       
       
Pics/Video
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WAKE WORLD HOME
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-19-2011, 1:47 PM Reply   
Copied this from another site:
Obamacare is an inundation of huge legislation and government waste and HUGE costs, added to the already overwhelming costs of ADMINISTRATION of healthcare to begin with.

1) DOES NOT ADDRESS HEALTHCARE COSTS - only forces people to BUY healthcare

2) DOES NOT HELP THE PEOPLE - Unlimited health payments means a FEW people can get MILLIONS of $$$ of healthcare for TERMINAL illenesses that could have gone for 1000s of others for much needed preventable or fixable medical needs.

3) DOES NOT FIX MEDICARE / MEDICAID - These are TWO nationalized healthcare govt run programs that are INSOLVENT and no fixes are put in place. Additionally, if you make even MINIMUM WAGE, you make TOO MUCH to be eligible, even though THESE are the people who cannot AFFORD it in the 1st place (healthcare). Why is the bar not raised to mimunim wage?

4) HOW DOES REPORTING ANY $600+ payments to vendors for ANY COMPANY (even non healthcare) have ANYTHING to do with healthcare?? plus it causes MUCH more paperwork and man hours to complete and thus HIGHER costs for companies and thus higher costs for the consumer!!

5) How is it even LEGAL to penalize someone in their taxes if they chose NOT to have healthcare? Then expect people to BUY it, when it would be CHEAPER to get the penalty and get FREE healthcare every year for every little thing?
Contrary to Liberal belief, Charity care is NOT easy to come by, NOR quality healthcare (think inner city free clinic care) and those that have no insurance get sued for the difference (yes they go to court)..PLUS people who have NO healthcare tend to avoid medical treatment unless serious, instead of the BULL type 'disease' like restless leg syndrome the pharmaceutical companies push their drugs for
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-19-2011, 2:35 PM Reply   
Why don't they ask why US healthcare is 2-3x times per capita than everywhere else in the world with no better results in life expectancy?

Old    Eubanks (eubanks01)      Join Date: Jun 2001       01-19-2011, 2:47 PM Reply   
John - I can increase our nation's life expectancy for free...eat less, exercise more, don't smoke, and don't do drugs. None of these add to your healthcare costs and will do far more than any medicine, testing, or exam could do currently.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       01-19-2011, 2:51 PM Reply   
It's not all about life expectancy. What about quality of life and healthcare while people are alive? I don't know how the U.S. compares to other countries.

I do know obesity adds a bunch to our healthcare costs. End of life care here costs a fortune as well and often adds little time to the end of many people's lives.
Old    SamIngram            01-19-2011, 3:41 PM Reply   
LOL... IMO, this is the beginning of the end which will result in the beginning of the revolution.

Its not worth debating with idiots who will give up everything, and LIBERTY IS EVERYTHING, in order for someone to provide for them. Anyone who advocates for Obamacare IS A SOCIALIST. Most will debate the fact, because they are ignorant and have no idea what socialism is and are to lazy to educate themselves.

How we could even be debating ideas like this in the 21st century, after all of the climactic failures of socialism around the world, is amazing to me. But we're not really debating them. It seems we're not even capable as a people of debating them, reasoning over them, using our brains to consider them.

Americans may simply be too far gone spiritually, morally and intellectually to reject the temptations of socialism.

Socialism is antithetical to human nature, yet it has great appeal to the human mind.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened."
– Norman Thomas, American socialist

Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-19-2011, 3:47 PM Reply   
Ever wonder how much health care lobbyists are spending to get the bill repealed? I would appreciate my congressman (Chuck Fleishman, R) using my tax dollars to get some things done instead of simply appeasing the GOP.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-19-2011, 3:50 PM Reply   
The "revolution"? Give me an effing break.
Old    SamIngram            01-19-2011, 3:53 PM Reply   
YES! We now have both of WW socialists commenting on the thread now!

I with Patrick on this topic...

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Old    SamIngram            01-19-2011, 3:54 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
The "revolution"? Give me an effing break.
I imagine that someone will when the proper time comes...
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-19-2011, 4:08 PM Reply   
So wanting to end the denial of coverage to adults and children with pre-existing medical conditions makes me a socialist?
Healthcare lobbyists have spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS fighting the bill, where do you think this money is going? You may want to ask your congressman.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-19-2011, 4:12 PM Reply   
I think the chart excludes the amount it costs those listed countries costs for sending their doctors to school on the taxpayer dime. Add that in to the cost and maybe we can have a discussion. Also, what constitutes cost per person? Is that out of pocket after tax spending on healthcare. Germans pay up to 18% of their income a year on healthcare and the French pay quite a bit in taxes but still only have 75% of their bill covered.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-19-2011, 4:14 PM Reply   
Basically, if a German were to make $50,000 a year, their tax on health care would be $9,000 a year then add in any out of pocket expenses, plus the cost of the additional taxs that may pay for the doctors and nurses education.
Old    Big D (bigdtx)      Join Date: Feb 2005       01-19-2011, 4:17 PM Reply   
The Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage plan that King George ushered through was the biggest giveaway in history. Why didn't we hear any complaining then? Oh yeah - because it was a Gold Plated Gift to big Pharma. The Obama plan requires competition and price controls - something the "market" suddenly doesn't like.
Old    SamIngram            01-19-2011, 4:23 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
So wanting to end the denial of coverage to adults and children with pre-existing medical conditions makes me a socialist?
Healthcare lobbyists have spent HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS fighting the bill, where do you think this money is going? You may want to ask your congressman.
Yes.

Main Entry: in·sur·ance
Pronunciation: in-'shur-&ns, 'in-"shur-
Function: noun
1 : the action, process, or means of insuring or the state of being insured usually against loss or damage by a contingent event (as death, fire, accident, or sickness)
2 a : the business of insuring persons or property b : coverage by contract whereby for an agreed payment one party agrees to indemnify or guarantee another against loss by a specified contingency or peril c : the principles and practice of the business of insuring
3 : the sum for which something is insured

Main Entry: con·tin·gen·cy
Pronunciation: k&n-'tin-j&n-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural -cies
1 : the quality or state of being contingent
2 : a contingent event or condition: as a : an event that may but is not certain to occur contingency that made performance under the contract impossible> b : something likely to come about as an adjunct to or result of something else; specifically : CONTINGENCY FEE at, FEE contingency or billed at an hourly rate —D. Railroad Frederico>

The very act of ENDING denial of insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition goes against the idea of INSURANCE and changes it to the idea of a SUBSIDY

You are advocating for a government subsidy, a socialist ideal. I could go on and further explain this, but what's the point, YOU ARE A SOCIALIST!

I think Reagan described the process pretty well...

Last edited by wakeworld; 01-22-2011 at 9:58 AM.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-19-2011, 4:32 PM Reply   
Sam, you never addressed why lobbyists are spending that much money to fight the bill.

It's a strawman argument. Some highly PAID publicist, associated healthcare with Socialism and now you get a hard-on to call someone a socialist when mentioning the healthcare bill. What about the people on Medicare/Medicaid, are they socialists also?
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       01-19-2011, 4:35 PM Reply   
So I guess like liberal, if you can label someone as a socialist, then all their arguments and opinions instantly become b.s.? Discussions would probably go a little better if some folks would just try and stick to the subject at hand with real reasons to agree or disagree on something rather than try and label something or someone a lib, con, socialist, etc. just to avoid any real thinking or argument.
Old    SamIngram            01-19-2011, 4:38 PM Reply   
You are the one who doesn't know the basic definition of insurance...

You clearly needed some help!

We wouldn't have healthcare lobbyists if government wasn't involved in healthcare....

Last edited by wakeworld; 01-22-2011 at 10:03 AM.
Old    SamIngram            01-19-2011, 4:47 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettw View Post
So I guess like liberal, if you can label someone as a socialist, then all their arguments and opinions instantly become b.s.? Discussions would probably go a little better if some folks would just try and stick to the subject at hand with real reasons to agree or disagree on something rather than try and label something or someone a lib, con, socialist, etc. just to avoid any real thinking or argument.
BTW, I don't mean to call people names or label them, and I am sorry I should not have done that.

Changing the font is way of adding emphasis to the post and my way of highlighting that part of the post. That way those that don't read my entire post are more likely to at least read that part of the post.

Again, I am sorry for labeling people and calling them names.

"Socialist" is not a label or part of name calling to me, the term socialist represents an idea that has been tried over and over throughout history and never works. What I really mean to do when I call someone a "Socialist" is to say that person's ideas are moronic and stupid and have been proven throughout history not to work. Maybe I should say they have a limited ability to think... I don't know. I'm sorry.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       01-19-2011, 4:47 PM Reply   
No healthcare system is going to be perfect for everyone, but the Swiss healthcare system is supposed to pretty good.

Here's a NY Times article about it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/01/he...y/01swiss.html

Here's a wiki article summarizing the basics of how it works:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

It definitely sounds a lot better than our current/old system.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-19-2011, 4:51 PM Reply   
Brett, prepared to be thrown into the "socialist club". Welcome.
Old    GD (diamonddad)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-19-2011, 5:40 PM Reply   
AS IF "life expectancy" is the measure of health care quality!

Last edited by diamonddad; 01-19-2011 at 5:41 PM. Reason: .
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2011, 8:13 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by eubanks01 View Post
John - I can increase our nation's life expectancy for free...eat less, exercise more, don't smoke, and don't do drugs. None of these add to your healthcare costs and will do far more than any medicine, testing, or exam could do currently.
Well that's the approach I take. But our economy is based on selling crap for food and promoting ill health. Not to mention promoting ill health through prescription medicine. The govt should be subsidizing growing healthy vegetables instead of propping up the GDP by subsidizing corn.

I just read an article in the newspaper this morning about school nurses and the lack of funding for them. In a side note one nurse mentioned that years ago she didn't used to have a single insulin dependant child and now that are about a hundred in the local school district. You guys not wanting the govt to be involved in health care are wasting your breath. It's inevitable because health is a national crisis just like jobs.
Old    David (Luker)      Join Date: Feb 2010       01-20-2011, 8:35 AM Reply   
Why do conservatives so freely throw around the word "Socialist/Socialism" when discussing opposing, left minded views? Maybe liberals should play the same game and start throwing the word "Anarchy" around every time a conservative declares a need for smaller government and less regulation.

Maybe tone down the Palinesque rhetoric a bit and you're point might hit home a little more clearly.

Just an observation after the word was used by Sam 15 times in 6 posts.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2011, 8:46 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Well that's the approach I take. But our economy is based on selling crap for food and promoting ill health. Not to mention promoting ill health through prescription medicine. The govt should be subsidizing growing healthy vegetables instead of propping up the GDP by subsidizing corn.

I just read an article in the newspaper this morning about school nurses and the lack of funding for them. In a side note one nurse mentioned that years ago she didn't used to have a single insulin dependant child and now that are about a hundred in the local school district. You guys not wanting the govt to be involved in health care are wasting your breath. It's inevitable because health is a national crisis just like jobs.
Yes, the government will provide for you....

The government shouldn't be involved in anything relating to our food or our jobs. Man is not perfect and as a result can be corrupted. In a free market the corrupt guy eventually goes out of business. When the corrupt man is the government the corruption is protected and even subsidized.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (S.510) will do nothing but promote big government food and help out the big food corporations with their genetically modified (GM) foods. It has so many regulations that the small farmer will not be able to compete anymore. Our government is killing us.

My family has been farming for five generations in the US and many, many more Ireland, after me, no one in our family will farm or probably ever ride on a tractor. The government has killed our family farm with subsidies, but mostly through control via Wickard v. Filburn.

They paid my family $485 an acre not grow anything last year in IL, but subsidized a guy here in Mesa, AZ to grow corn. WTF is that all about?

I get idea that you think the government is the answer, but you can you point anything that the US government has don successfully? What about successfully without trampling on basic human rights? What about any other government system? Can you point to one where government control has solve the problems of society?
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2011, 8:53 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luker View Post
Why do conservatives so freely throw around the word "Socialist/Socialism" when discussing opposing, left minded views? Maybe liberals should play the same game and start throwing the word "Anarchy" around every time a conservative declares a need for smaller government and less regulation.

Maybe tone down the Palinesque rhetoric a bit and you're point might hit home a little more clearly.

Just an observation after the word was used by Sam 15 times in 6 posts.
Because socialism is very well defined and many of the liberal ideals fall under that definition.

Anarchy is well defined also, and conservatives do not support anarchy, although that is often the argument used, when no other argument is available.

Everyone talks about toning down the rhetoric and vitriol, and how we should come together. This is part of the basic methodology of converting a free society to socialism. You compromise. You don't compromise when it comes to freedom and socialism. When talking about slavery we didn't abolish it just on Saturday and Sunday, we totally got rid of it, we didn't compromise.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2011, 8:56 AM Reply   
Read it, study it, understand it....

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-20-2011, 9:28 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
I get idea that you think the government is the answer, but you can you point anything that the US government has don successfully? What about successfully without trampling on basic human rights? What about any other government system? Can you point to one where government control has solve the problems of society?
I pretty agree with the stuff I clipped. But you can't just say the govt shouldn't be doing XYZ, when the govt has it's hands in everything. The govt subsdizes corn and the effect is the economy switches to feeding everyone cheap crappy food, then they get fat and sick.

OTOH you can't even imagine with it would be like with no govt intervention. Roads, electricity, communications, water, education are all services created by govt intervention. A lot of those things in the list I'd say have solved problems with society. Free enterprise is no better at serving the public at large. Everyone thinks that the govt should be involved with defense. But it's done pretty horribly with that as well by getting into numerous wars since WWII that have nothing to do with national security.

Seems like the only time the public at large complains about the govt is when they are trying to help people. If they think their fellow man is getting a free buck, then they're enraged. But when corporate America is getting the free bucks, while simultaneously taking away our freedoms, the public at large is quiet as a lamb to the slaughter.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-20-2011, 9:42 AM Reply   
I had a visiting scientist that was at my house one day ask why the US has so much debate and such and such about issues. Were talking markets to politics and I asked him how many products they have nationally and what is their population. Basically I explained to them that they have about as many national products as Indiana and less population of California. Point is, many of the nations over there have very similar national goals and it is easier to unify behind a small subset of goals for all the people. That is more of a equivalent argument for states rights vs federal which used to be the cornerstone of the Republican party.

You can not make a one size fits all for such a large group as the whole country. California requirements for care and law suit prevention is different than say Ohio. If a State chooses to highly tax its people to cover such things, more power to them but that at least allows for the jobs and work force to move to the other states that have a cheaper cost of living.

Again, you can not forget that most of these European countries, the tax payers pay for the cost of college. With that, you are actually pegged from a early age of achievement that you are only allowed to progress into certain fields based on your early academic achievement. If you screw up in school as a child, you are done for a high end career.

Last edited by wakeworld; 01-22-2011 at 10:10 AM.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-20-2011, 9:51 AM Reply   
It takes two wings to fly. History has proven (even in this country) that if you let business go completely unregulated that they will gain all the power and ultimately not do the right thing. That whole money thing gets in the way of good judgement sometimes.

John is correct. subsidizing different industry to produce and not produce does cause unintended consequences. AKA corn surp in everything.

People mistake insurance and a service plan. Insurance is made not to be used. It is a just in case thing. If you use it, it goes up. No ifs or buts about it. Doctors also know you have it so they will raise their prices as high as they can to cut down on the case load but still maintain a sizable monetary base. That is business. Healthcare really did not start going crazy until everyone started to have insurance. Now the price is adjusting.
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       01-20-2011, 12:41 PM Reply   
It's funny mentioning doctors raising prices if they know you have insurance. Last year my brother had to go to the ER for a day while out of town and then a 1 night stay. When the bill came, it said something like $14000 total but had a $11500 adjustment with insurance being billed the remainder minus a minor copay. When he called the hospital for details, they said the adjustment was due to a standard discount worked out with the insurance company. It amazes me that so much of a bill would be lopped off as part of deal with insurance. That adjustment on the bill was also made on the same day as the initial stay and charges, well before the insurance company was billed. It's almost like it was standard to lop off a huge amount of the bill if it was going to insurance. It reminded me of reading some stories that for when uninsured get big bills from hospitals, it's usually fairly easy to negotiate a large discount with a simple phone call. I'm curious how hospitals actually bill people. Do they initially grossly overcharge, with the intention of discounting the bill when asked to? I'd like to hear from some folks in the industry. It just seems a little crazy.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-20-2011, 12:46 PM Reply   
"Why do conservatives so freely throw around the word "Socialist/Socialism" when discussing opposing, left minded views?"

It's pretty cut and dry. If you don't agree with the Conservative agenda, you are a liberal (in a conservative's mind). You are either with them on every issue, or you are against them (in a conservative's mind). I can list counterexample after counterexample, but it is pointless. You can never convince a "conservative" that they may be wrong on any issue. It is so contradictory in nature, yet "Logic King" Sam himself, can't see it.

Last edited by wakeworld; 01-22-2011 at 10:13 AM.
Old    SamIngram            01-20-2011, 12:57 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
"Why do conservatives so freely throw around the word "Socialist/Socialism" when discussing opposing, left minded views?"

It's pretty cut and dry. If you don't agree with the Conservative agenda, you are a liberal (in a conservative's mind). You are either with them on every issue, or you are against them (in a conservative's mind). I can list counterexample after counterexample, but it is pointless. You can never convince a "conservative" that they may be wrong on any issue. It is so contradictory in nature, yet "Logic King" Sam himself, can't see it.
Now bow before me!!

Last edited by wakeworld; 01-22-2011 at 10:14 AM.
Old    Jo Shmoe (joeshmoe)      Join Date: Jan 2003       01-20-2011, 3:31 PM Reply   
Sam, when you reach the age of 65, you become a socialist, because you will be on medicare! You will be taking the handout again that you fight against. Thing is Anyone can go to the hospital for care, They can't refuse to treat you. The truth is if all the government programs did not exist there probably would be a SAM revolution!

Last edited by wakeworld; 01-22-2011 at 10:15 AM.
Old    Someone Else (deltahoosier)      Join Date: Jun 2002       01-20-2011, 3:46 PM Reply   
Problem is Medicare will not be around when we hit 65 and most doctors do not want to deal with it. Medical and social security are over 57% of the US yearly budget already.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-20-2011, 4:45 PM Reply   
The point is the bill does nothing to control the rising cost of health care or ensure quality care. IMHO, it could do just the opposite. In addition, adding another open-ended entitlement program will only increase an already over-inflated budget, but hey, what's another trillion. I mean, hey, the politicians can always increase the tax on those mean ol' profit-seeking business owners. It's not like a corporation can relocate overseas, close down, or pass he costs on to the consumer. The sad thing is that most--if any--of the people who voted for the bill even know what's in it.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-20-2011, 5:15 PM Reply   
Guys, its just two opposing worldviews. You arent going to convince each other of your viewpoint. You either believe citizens should be forced to take care of one another or you dont.

In my view, the country was founded on the idea of freedom of choice. We as good people should CHOOSE to take care of our disadvantaged out of charity, not be forced to pay into a socialized system. If they choose not to help the disadvantaged, then they should simply face the reprocussions of a desperate underclass. In my view, the individual rolls the dice with his own coverage as well as his own treatment. Doctors shouldnt be liable for poor craftsmanship. If they do not do good work, people will stop going to them! If I make bad health decisions, let me live with it. I may save a ton of money being uninsured and never need a doctor. Thats my call. if Im wrong, let me suffer. If Im right, let me prosper.

For some reason we have fostered this hate for individual accountability. We in turn come up with horrible social policy to get rid of as much accountability as possible.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-21-2011, 7:29 AM Reply   
It's pretty cut and dry. If you don't agree with the liberal agenda, you are a conservative (in a liberal's mind). You are either with them on every issue, or you are against them (in a liberal's mind). I can list counterexample after counterexample, but it is pointless. You can never convince a "liberal" that they may be wrong on any issue.

Fixed it for ya.
Old    JBC (bcoppinger)      Join Date: Sep 2002       01-21-2011, 7:41 AM Reply   
individual accountability - This is what our country needs.
Old    David (Luker)      Join Date: Feb 2010       01-21-2011, 8:10 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
It's pretty cut and dry. If you don't agree with the liberal agenda, you are a conservative (in a liberal's mind). You are either with them on every issue, or you are against them (in a liberal's mind). I can list counterexample after counterexample, but it is pointless. You can never convince a "liberal" that they may be wrong on any issue.

Fixed it for ya.
Conservatives on the other hand are incredibly open minded
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-21-2011, 8:15 AM Reply   
Why don't you try to go up about six posts and read what wake posted. Then, maybe, you will get it.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-21-2011, 8:21 AM Reply   
These arguments will endure the test of time because the situation is the result of greed and human frailty. Maybe you're the CEO of TwinkyCorp and you engineer your food to addict people to it, just like all the TwinkyCorp like companies. Or you are a saleman, assm line worker, retail seller. You all make your living off taking advantge of human nature/biology. Then down the road the people who use your product are unhealthy. At that point the answer is that these people should have had the sense to not eat the crap you sell.

Our economy runs on addicting and convincing people that they should consume things they either don't need or shouldn't be using. You don't base your whole society and economy on such things and then think you can run away when it's time to pay the piper.

I laugh at your naivety. People are sick because it's profitable to make them sick, and if you look at the pharmaceuticals, it's profitable to keep them manageably sick. The goal isn't sickness, but money. Your pleas of outrage from the sidelines will have no affect until you acknowledge all aspects of the problem. Demanding personal responsibility in a culture that works against it, is as effective as talking to a brick wall.
Old    David (Luker)      Join Date: Feb 2010       01-21-2011, 8:59 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by psudy View Post
Why don't you try to go up about six posts and read what wake posted. Then, maybe, you will get it.
Hahaha... I had tuned out and missed that.
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-21-2011, 1:51 PM Reply   
Paul, that is not true. Conservatives do not recognize a "middle left". I recognize that Arnold and Bush Jr., for example, were not conservatives. Yet, every Democrat, I do consider myself a Democrat, is classified as a liberal by conservatives.

I agree with what John says about the majority U.S. food industry. Most Americans do not feel they are getting their money's worth at a restaurant unless it is A). An all you can eat buffet for 10.99 or B). You have to get a 40-oz steak with a giant bake potato, a salad with cheese and bacon and half a bottle of ranch dressing and half a dozen rolls with a stick of butter and a gallon of soda all for 19.99. That is not how the vast majority of the world serves food in a restaurant. But this is what we have come to expect in the US and instead of doing something about it, a doctor will simply give you a pill to lower your blood pressure.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-21-2011, 4:32 PM Reply   
OMG, John, manageably sick for a profit? What experience do you base this decision on?
Old    Brett W (brettw)      Join Date: Jul 2007       01-21-2011, 5:59 PM Reply   
^^^ I was thinking the same thing - a little over the top, getting a little into the whole conspiracy stuff.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-22-2011, 8:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettw View Post
^^^ I was thinking the same thing - a little over the top, getting a little into the whole conspiracy stuff.
Sorry nothing that sinister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
OMG, John, manageably sick for a profit? What experience do you base this decision on?
It means no incentive to cure people, just create drugs to manage the symtoms.

We've created a medical system that requires a massive investment before presenting anything to the public that can be claimed to be curative or beneficial to any specific disease. The only incentive for this is to make money, and that usually requires protection of IP in the form of a patent.

That's why the FDA told Diamond foods that they couldn't tell the public that their walnuts are beneficial to their health and say how. The govt is incapable of distinguishing between synthetic compounds produced in a laboratory and natural foods. This was demonstrated in the letter to Diamond from the FDA, where the FDA declared that walnuts are a drug if you tell people of the health benefits.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-22-2011, 9:04 AM Reply   
Tort reform could ease some of those problems, --http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Immunization_Programs--but I didn't see that in the bill anywhere. In addition, the government requiring everyone to buy insurance is a liitle too demanding of people who are already struggling to pay bills and may even be couterprductive to putting our economy in "overdrive." Too many lawyers looking for an easy buck has caused many of these problems in our health care system--not greedy profit seekers. Unfortunately, this administration doesn't realize that the far majority of people who own businesses are looking to make a profit. IMHO, all of the doctors I've been to want me healed as fast as possible. I don't know anyone in the medical field looking for additional customers and some of my friends' kids are not pursuing a job in the medical profession because of limited income potential and over regulation. I encourage everyone to at least listen to what Paul Ryan, Chairman of the powerful House Budget Committee, has to say after Obama's speech on Tuesday.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-22-2011, 10:00 AM Reply   
This isn't a partisan political issue. It's an issue of the mechanics of govt and the power of industry groups. You won't find the republicans fixing anything, Just using it as another tool to feed red herrings to the public in the search for political support.

Look at that article you posted. In the very first paragraph...

Quote:
States responded by requiring mandatory immunization for schoolchildren.
Then 3 paragraphs later....

Quote:
Vaccines are never entirely safe. Side effects range from mild to serious—from swelling and fever to brain damage and death.
You don't see any problem with this? The state requiring to inject a drug into your body that may kill you? Where are the "unconstitutional" outcries?

Remember you have the freedom of will to take the small risk and protect yourself. But if you require everyone by law to take that risk then it a matter of responsibility to conpensate those damaged by the vaccine.

That particular article doesn't seem to have a bias and is mainly informative. I'm not sure why you linked to it as a supportive argument to tort reform. But yes I agree that tort reform is necessary. It's a substantual factor in the inflation of medical services. We are pricing people out of medical care under the guise of safety.

And I never meant to suggest doctors are trying to keep us sick. I see doctors as cookbook practitioners who are only allowed to follow a script as a requirement of their license.
Old    David Williams (wakeworld)      Join Date: Jan 1997       01-22-2011, 10:38 AM Reply   
I think we all need to keep in mind that in most situations, a private sector solution to a problem will appear if there is no government solution shoved down our throats. For example, we count on the government to inspect restaurants and put a big "A" in the window to let us know the facility is somewhat clean. People tend to freak out at the suggestion that we remove that government agency because they make the false assumption that we will be left without any way of determining the relative cleanliness of the restaurants at which we eat.

However, if the government didn't do it, I can assure you that several private enterprises would see this as a business opportunity and start a restaurant rating service. The people would insist on dining only at facilities that have gotten a favorable rating from one of these rating services that they trust. If they go into a restaurant with a favorable rating by "ABC Company" and they see cockroaches all over the place, they will no longer trust ratings from ABC Company and ABC Company will eventually go out of business while other rating companies that do a good job will flourish. As a restaurant owner, I would pay to have a reputable rating company (and possibly more than one) come in and verify the cleanliness of my operation so that I can gain the trust of my customers.

Not only does this create private sector jobs and eliminate government jobs, but it encourages competition between rating agencies, which ensures that those agencies are run more efficiently and are more effectively than a government agency. Restaurants benefit because they get a choice of rating agencies and can pretty much determine the level of assurance that they want to provide for their customers. The Ritz can pay for top ratings from five different reputable companies and Joe's Taco Stand in a town of 144 people can opt not to pay for any ratings from any companies since he has already gained the trust of his customer base and doesn't need it. The customer benefits because their taxes go down and they can make the evaluation of where they eat based on the ratings of more than one company rather than having to rely on one government agency that may or may not be doing its job properly.

You can expand this example to so many areas. The key thing is to remember that not only are government agencies usually inefficient, ineffective and wasteful, but they also take away opportunities from the private sector that would arise if that government agency did not exist. The free market isn't perfect, but it is waaaaaay more perfect than most people think and waaaaaay more perfect than any of the alternatives.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-22-2011, 10:42 AM Reply   
I was trying to demonstrate that even good intentions of the government have consequences and sometimes lawsuits are necessary. However, too many lawyers are suing over frivious allegations, driving up insurance costs to doctors and hospitals. Hoepfully, I am wrong but I see this measure having determential side effects to the economy and our existing health care services. Like the vaccine requirement, anytime everyone is required to do anything, there may be consequences. Are you willing to take the chance with a bill that most have not read. but are willing to enact?
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-22-2011, 10:43 AM Reply   
Well said, David.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-24-2011, 7:31 AM Reply   
The biggest problem with allowing the government to try their hand at anything is that if it fails, we cant get rid of it. When a private sector company tries their hand at a task., if it becomes unneccesary or fails, the company simply ceases to exist and the bad service is now gone. The funding dires up and the company can no longer offer the service.Our government cannot get rid of bad policy. They will never lose funding.

Its not TwinkyCorps fault that you buy their item. Stop blaming corporate america for individuals stupidity. Its no different from anyone selling hologram bracelets. The consumer is liable for ALL their purchases. Any time you pay someone else to make something for you, that is a risk YOU take, whether its a car or a cream filled cake.
Old    SamIngram            01-24-2011, 7:44 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wake77 View Post
Paul, that is not true. Conservatives do not recognize a "middle left". I recognize that Arnold and Bush Jr., for example, were not conservatives. Yet, every Democrat, I do consider myself a Democrat, is classified as a liberal by conservatives.

I agree with what John says about the majority U.S. food industry. Most Americans do not feel they are getting their money's worth at a restaurant unless it is A). An all you can eat buffet for 10.99 or B). You have to get a 40-oz steak with a giant bake potato, a salad with cheese and bacon and half a bottle of ranch dressing and half a dozen rolls with a stick of butter and a gallon of soda all for 19.99. That is not how the vast majority of the world serves food in a restaurant. But this is what we have come to expect in the US and instead of doing something about it, a doctor will simply give you a pill to lower your blood pressure.
That first part is complete BS. My favorite author, John Ross, is a Democrat and I can guarantee he believes in many of the same things I do.

He ran as a Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress in 1998 in Missouri's 2nd congressional district and billed himself as a "Pre-Roosevelt Democrat", which, as he defined it, was "a Democrat without the Socialism."

My other favorite Democrat is James Traficant.

The problem that the Democrats have today is that they didn't vet their own candidate. The ideals that Obama has are those of someone who was raised by a communist mother and father. Didn't some of your parents ideals get transferred to you? I'm not labeling him a communist, I just saying that the ideals that he has are those of person raised by communists. Let's take a look; here are his basic ideals...

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

He is well on his way to implementing them...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-24-2011, 8:02 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
Its not TwinkyCorps fault that you buy their item. Stop blaming corporate america for individuals stupidity. Its no different from anyone selling hologram bracelets. The consumer is liable for ALL their purchases. Any time you pay someone else to make something for you, that is a risk YOU take, whether its a car or a cream filled cake.
It doesn't matter whether you fault TwinkyCorp or not. The effect is bigger than my or your opinion. That's the point you are missing. When a significant portion of the US is sick, you can squeal about individual responsibilities all you want, but it won't change anything. It doesn't make you a liberal to see reality as it is.
Old    Paul (psudy)      Join Date: Dec 2003       01-24-2011, 8:03 AM Reply   
"Paul, that is not true. Conservatives do not recognize a "middle left". I recognize that Arnold and Bush Jr., for example, were not conservatives. Yet, every Democrat, I do consider myself a Democrat, is classified as a liberal by conservatives"

BS. Bend it like you want it until it fits, wake. The left is just as guilty as the right.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-24-2011, 8:05 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamIngram View Post
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

He is well on his way to implementing them...
Got any evidence of this or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Because nothing of the kind has surfaced after two years in office.
Old    SamIngram            01-24-2011, 10:23 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Got any evidence of this or are we just supposed to take your word for it? Because nothing of the kind has surfaced after two years in office.
Let's see, his mom went to a school where Marxism and Communism were the main part of the curriculum, Mercer Island High School.

His step-father was a registered member of the Communist USA party.

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

These are the "10 Planks of the Communism" according to the Communist Manifesto.

Now lets look at Obama (although many of the planks have been put in place long before Obama...)

1. Obama supported CWRA S.787 and Baucus, Klobuchar, and Boxer all had amendments that have the net effect of #1. The bill would have changed the definition of "navigable waters" and transferred all water rights to the Federal Government.

2. Obama, then Illinois senator told a crowd in Dover, N.H. on Sept. 12, 2008: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increases,” “Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Again, on Feb. 24, 2009 address to a joint session of Congress: “If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not a single dime,”

Here's your wake-up call for this plank:

President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.
V.A.T. (value added tax) is being seriously considered by congress.
There are many new taxes (or fees) assessed in the new Healthcare Law on EVERY SINGLE individual.

3. Death Tax - As part of the tax deal struck at the end of 2010, Congress set the death tax at 35 percent with a $5 million exemption for 2011 and 2012. The death tax did not apply in 2010 because the 2001 and 2003 tax relief abolished the harmful tax. Even though the death tax is resurrected, the new rate and exemption levels represent a substantial improvement from where the death tax was in 2000 before the tax cuts: 60 percent with just a $1 million exemption. Despite the positive advances the death tax is back in place and therefore has resumed destroying jobs and slowing the economy. The new Congress should put an end to the death tax once and for all.

4. I can't blame Obama for this one, but you have to love Nixon's Executive order 11490...

5. Obama has successfully taken over financial corporations, under the pretense of "rescuing" the entire economy. They are in the process of "discussing" a complete "overhaul" of the financial INDUSTRY. So far, politicians try to dictate how much money can be earned by financial executives... I can go on, but others do it so well... Can you say the Federal Reserve? The US Government owns or insurances most mortgages in this country... My favorite is Quantitative Easing Video!

6. This administration is trying desparately to regulate content of talk radio, which is one of the only platforms in which conservative views & values are transmitted. This is a direct conflict of our freedom of speech. Ever hear of "Net Neutrality"? Obama's FCC policy isn't exactly about freedom. Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan are hardly 1st Amendment advocates...

7. Government Motors? How about Obama's EPA policy?

8. Have you noticed that the "jobs" being created & "stimulated" by the government are either government jobs or ones that benefit the government. It is being suggested that one pursue job in health sector..........and guess what just passed, a bill that allows government to takeover nearly every aspect of healthcare. Eventually, this administration hopes that this law will eventually lead to single payer system, which will give government complete control over your health & wellness. And we have to hope they don't run it as well as they have managed the post office, DMV, etc.

These are direct words from Barack Obama’s July 2, 2008 speech: "We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Obama supports women in combat and the draft...

9. Obama has "a plan" for rural communities and how to put rural communities on equal footing as metro areas... See his Rural Plan under Organizing for America... Notice in the plan description it continually refers to what belongs to the government, i.e. the government's airwaves, the government's internet...

10. LOL! Have you ever looked at Americorps? The Obama administration is recruiting school kids for their "public service". Read HR 1388: The Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, otherwise known as the "GIVE Act" directly supported and advocated for by Obama...

Obama is a Marxist and/or Communist. It is very difficult to say otherwise.. Here is a good article on the subject.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-24-2011, 11:30 AM Reply   
I didn't ask about his parents in my post.

None of the above supports your claims. My daughter is in Americorp working as a teacher's assistant in a magnet school. The benefit is getting student loans paid, not pushing a communist agenda.

Quit frankly, if you believe what you posted you are incredibly brain washed. The govt has been losing money by selling stock too soon to get out of these companies. Hardly an indication of state takeover. By all measures decernable publically the govt made the right call in bailing out some of these companies, dispite how distasteful it appeared at the time.

The Net Neutrality issue is raising it's ugly head again because of the huge demands that streaming media is placing on the backbone. It's certainly understandable that when NetFlix is consuming (reportedly in the evening) 20% of the internet capacity that the issue of paying for bandwidth is going to be put forth.

This partisan politics is just people BSing themselves. The more we talk about politcs the more stupid we get. The idea that the Republicans are going to put us on track to better times as soon as the evil Democrats are removed is a fantasy. And the Libertarians would destroy our economy if they could actually do what they claim to support. Gold standard? (there isn't a facepalm big enough).
Old    SamIngram            01-24-2011, 12:04 PM Reply   
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-24-2011, 2:24 PM Reply   
"Obama supports women in combat and the draft..."

How is that a bad thing? To say that a woman is not fit for combat duty or the draft, is sexist and an insult to women.

And I really don't see how is parents' actions play into his decisions. Prime example, look at Ronald Reagan's son.

I was anticipating reading, "He is not an American citizen" on that list.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-24-2011, 2:49 PM Reply   
Quote:
It doesn't matter whether you fault TwinkyCorp or not. The effect is bigger than my or your opinion. That's the point you are missing. When a significant portion of the US is sick, you can squeal about individual responsibilities all you want, but it won't change anything. It doesn't make you a liberal to see reality as it is.
So, you think people who produce unhealthy products should be liable if you buy them of your own free will? To me it seem your answer is yes simply because a large percentage is too stupid to know better. Why is it not the individuals fault for buying it and consuming it? ultimately who is responsible for knowing about what they ingest?

Since consumers have grown into a stupid group, its the entrapenuers fault for cashing in on it? Thats like saying Apple owes Virgin Records billions for cashing in on the laziness of music consumers.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-25-2011, 6:37 AM Reply   
I guess the "point you are missing part" was poorly stated. Recognizing the problem is not the same as being able to offer a good solution.

I could however see that a tax and an exclusion from food stamps on food products that don't meet certain nutritional guidelines (calories from fat and refined sugars) is a consideration. However the TwinkyCorps are a lot more influential (and even more importantly *focused*) in Washington than the people who care about paying HI premiums for the TwinkyCorp consumers. My initial offering for finding a solution to the problem is for people to start recognizing the problem and recognizing how what we choose to do affects the outcome as a society. You cannot use draconian methods to make everyone choose to do the right thing when it flys in the face of so many cultural influences. People who rely solely on personal responsibilty as the first line solution to every problem are not on the mark for making progress.
Old    Ron T (Laker1234)      Join Date: Mar 2010       01-25-2011, 3:15 PM Reply   
"People who rely solely on personal responsibilty as the first line solution to every problem are not on the mark for making progress. " So punishing the responsilble is a better solution?
Old    Jeremy (wake77)      Join Date: Jan 2009       01-25-2011, 4:14 PM Reply   
^You mean like the person that "responsibly smokes cigarettes"?
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-25-2011, 5:04 PM Reply   
Why do you think smoking is responsible?

When people choose to act irresponsible, you cannot just fix it with handouts. That does nothing but encourage bad behavior. You have too allow them the consequences that the freedom to decide comes with.

The two party system sux, but it isn't law. We can have as many as we are willing to vote for. We cannot change the system just because we are too lazy to vote in change. We have to live with the crappy system until we exercise our freedom to remove ourselves from the consequences we are currently suffering.

When america is tired of being sick and dying, they will change their habits. They will remove themselves from the consequences they suffer. Absolving them on with social policy isn't the answer. You are not forced to eat twinkies so when you ate tired of how they make you feel you will quit on your own. Until then we just live feeling bad.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-26-2011, 7:07 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laker1234 View Post
"People who rely solely on personal responsibilty as the first line solution to every problem are not on the mark for making progress. " So punishing the responsilble is a better solution?
So you only read that one sentance? If the so called "responsible" are making their money off encouraging irresponsible behavior then everyone is responsible for the solution.

Quote:
We cannot change the system just because we are too lazy to vote in change. We have to live with the crappy system until we exercise our freedom to remove ourselves from the consequences we are currently suffering
Another reason we can't change the system is because we don't agree on the changes. Another reason we can't change the system is because we all have different priorities. I may not care about what's important to you and you don't care about what's important to me. It's the old "divided we fall" axiom in action.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-26-2011, 7:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason_ssr View Post
When america is tired of being sick and dying, they will change their habits. They will remove themselves from the consequences they suffer. Absolving them on with social policy isn't the answer. You are not forced to eat twinkies so when you ate tired of how they make you feel you will quit on your own. Until then we just live feeling bad.
IMO, this philosophy goes against everything that has evolved wrt to the nature of man and society. Not to mention that your next to last sentance I quoted has been proven wrong.

This is why I said you can whine about personal responsibility all you want but you will be off the mark towards progress. It's because you cannot change the human nature of the population on a dime. A good example is happiness and relative wealth. If you live in a poor society and are poor, you are going to be much happier than if you live in a wealthy society and are poor. If you want to get philosophical, you might say that this is the way we evolved. It goes against our nature to buck the cultural norms.

You might be able to teach a small portion of the population to go against the grain to reject culture, but it's unlikely to achieve much more then that. If you are looking for a solution then you can either look for a plausible solution, or you can continue to stick with what in your gut is the right solution regardless of it's plausible.

If it is true that humans have evolved to obey culture then you have to ask yourself if it's responsible as a society to permit cultural norms that harm society as a whole. And in fact we have plenty of laws that address this wrt drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc... It's just that when we make the decisions about what we do and don't control, it's imperfect. It would be nice if we could just disregard those impections and solve all our problems with personal responsibilty. But it's unlikely to happen.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-26-2011, 12:16 PM Reply   
John, it does happen and will happen.

The creation of this country is a prime example. When people have the choice and are responsible for the consquences, they make changes eventually. When the choice is taken from them and whatever outcome is forced upon them, they eventually revolt. If we are in control of our own money, then we have to accept the consequences of how we spend it. If our money is taken from us, then whatever the result, good or bad, is not of our own making and creates another entity to rightly blame. THAT is where revolts start.

You cannot take the freedom of choice away just because the group as a whole are making bad choices. They sometimes have to live with bad choices to remind them of why those choices are bad. Socialism is good on paper and horrible in practice. However, sometimes the population has to be allowed to elect a socialist to remind them how bad it is. Could you imagine taking that right away simply because it isnt being excercised to a proper result?

I say remove the social programs and have it run strictly on charity. There is a huge price to pay for neglecting those down on their luck. I would rather see those consequences shape the behavior of the society and cause us to be more charitable, than to have it ripped from my check and mismanaged by government.
Old    SamIngram            01-26-2011, 12:59 PM Reply   
"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. " Thomas Jefferson
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-26-2011, 1:18 PM Reply   
Jason the freedom of choice has been taken away in various means since recorded history. But I understand that you are trying to see this as solely a money issue. The consequences of a revolt are more likely to remove your means of income than add to it. This country isn't even close to a revolt of the people earning a living over taxes. If anything it would be the opposite when it happens. We are moving closer to a revolt of the unemployed than the employed.

Only time will settle this debate.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-26-2011, 9:17 PM Reply   
No question. Could it also be said that men have also risen up and taken their freedom back since the beginning of history?

I think we can both agree that freedom is the ideal but not always the most productive. In history, freedom is always the goal of humanity. It comes down to whether you believe a society should embrace what is right despite how it hampers progression, or whether you believe a society should ditch was is right for whatever pushes us presently.

I tend to side with doing right and letting the problems resolve themselves in their own time.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-27-2011, 8:39 AM Reply   
That's true but I doubt that the people rising up where the one's earning a living. And I question your interpretation of "doing right". It seems that "doing right" is limited to "doing what I want". Even if it includes engineering a damaging product to addict people to using it.
Old    Jason G (jason_ssr)      Join Date: Apr 2001       01-27-2011, 9:59 AM Reply   
"doing right" is protecting the freedom of choice even when poor choices are being made and consequences of those choices are severe. It is important to have that freedom even if some use it negatively. The ethics of a strong people will simply not use the product. Remember when boycots used to work? Just because we have turned into a pathetic society doesnt mean we start manipulating freedom to protect us from our own apathy. We havent turned our back on a dishonest product as a society since we yanked the Grammy from Milli Vanilli.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-27-2011, 10:14 AM Reply   
IMO, you are making a leap of misguided faith to think that having unlimited freedom will ultimately result in what's right. We share the same ideals, but not the same reality. What right does our culture have to teach our children the wrong things, regardless of whether parents are trying to do the right thing or not. It's a myopic view that you believe it's right to have unlimited freedom when your freedom is potentially damaging to others.

Freedom always has to be allotted with compromise. You didn't create the world, you inherited it. All of us have more than we deserve when you compare what we have to what we have created. Imfringement on some of your freedom is the price you pay for your inheritance.
Old    Cory D (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009       01-29-2011, 4:09 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Freedom always has to be allotted with compromise. You didn't create the world, you inherited it. All of us have more than we deserve when you compare what we have to what we have created. Imfringement on some of your freedom is the price you pay for your inheritance.
Doesn't sound very American. As a person, simply by the fact that you exist, you have certain inalienable rights. We call these natural rights. They are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. You do not have these rights in America anymore.In most States they are all gone. This is detrimental to all of us. Welcome to the USSA, get used to it because the Constitution is ignored by the liberals and neocons. People are stupid and afraid of freedom. Most want big brother to tell them what to do and to watch over them. That is what we have, cradle to the grave.
Old    SamIngram            01-30-2011, 9:35 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by cadunkle View Post
Doesn't sound very American. As a person, simply by the fact that you exist, you have certain inalienable rights. We call these natural rights. They are outlined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. You do not have these rights in America anymore.In most States they are all gone. This is detrimental to all of us. Welcome to the USSA, get used to it because the Constitution is ignored by the liberals and neocons. People are stupid and afraid of freedom. Most want big brother to tell them what to do and to watch over them. That is what we have, cradle to the grave.
Cory some people will never understand what the Founding Fathers did, they get all caught up in the religion part, and can't grasp the basic idea of natural law.

We still have those rights, they are after all inalienable, we just have to exercise them.
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-31-2011, 8:02 AM Reply   
Sam, why don't you school us on natural law.
Old    SamIngram            01-31-2011, 8:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
Sam, why don't you school us on natural law.
Just read a Bible... before you burn it...
Old    John Anderson (fly135)      Join Date: Jun 2004       01-31-2011, 8:46 AM Reply   
That's about the quality of response I expected. IOW, you don't have a clue about natural law.
Old    SamIngram            01-31-2011, 9:25 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by fly135 View Post
That's about the quality of response I expected. IOW, you don't have a clue about natural law.
Yup, that's me, no clue... Often, more times than not, the quality of the answer you receive is based on the quality of the question you ask (i.e. ask a smart-ass question, get a smart-ass answer).

I don't think I could school you on anything... You can't teach an old dog new tricks... you already have your mind made up regarding most things. - omniscient maybe...

If you really want to learn about Natural Law I would suggest reading John Locke, Alexander Hamilton, Blackstone, and Iroquois Law.

"The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of Nature for his rule." John Locke

"Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety." Alexander Hamilton

"Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man the right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience." Alexander Hamilton

And probably the preeminent expert in Natural Law, the American Indian. We get more of our Constitution from Iroquois law than from England. Look up the Iroquois Confederacy and Benjamin Franklin...

I already posted this, but watch the video... it is mostly about Natural Law, ignore the Prison Planet BS and listen to the message. He is talking about Gayanashagowa!


Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:03 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2012 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us