ParanoiA

This, if for no other reason, is the reason why I entertain a universal type approach. As I stated before, the classical free market can't really work without all of the forces in play, and unless we're willing to let people suffer without service then we're creating the imbalance that undermines it. So if we're going to put people ahead of profit, which is entirely called for on the subject of healthcare, then yeah, that's the government's charge, I'd say. Otherwise, you have the mess we have now - a socialist bubble within a capitalist framework that not everyone has access to. It's sad, because it filters the insured with capitalist methodology, and then for those who get covered, choice is effectively taken away with "In Network" requirements, which feels like socialism. The shit end of both. I propose we flip that around. A more socialized/universal framework that covers everyone and effectively cultivates competition and innovation within that market. That has to be done structurally. Bonus packages and incentives is not good enough. It needs to effect someone's food supply, if you know what I mean. That's what makes men create consistently: necessity, not lust. I prefer we continue to exploit that dynamic in whatever universal system we establish. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

If I read that article correctly, Obama signed off on that kind of plan twice. I was surprised and impressed.

So the Hollywood script is complete. They won't even have to embellish. I'm very happy with this ending.

Good vids. Thanks for posting, iNow. Really liked the first and third one.

Apparently the only qualification to be on the home team is to disagree with scrappy. That would make us the majority, and we all know how scrappy feels about the precious majority opinion, so by his own arguments shouldn't he STFU? Or be a hypocrite? Just askin...

I'm sure everyone's heard enough about pirates, and this latest standoff sure resembles a Hollywood movie script. The selfless captain that offers himself as hostage for the safety of his crew. He later attempts his own escape, only to be recaptured. Out of fuel, running out of food. Nothing but threats of murder keeping them from being blown up. Some may not know this, but apparently pirates are a status of enemy set apart from mere criminal activity, and even terrorism - they are an "enemy of mankind", dating back to 18th century maritime law - hostis humani generis. And there's some interesting historical reasoning behind that concept - one major component being that the high sea belongs to no one, and thus belongs to everyone. And since pirates threaten the high seas, they are said to threaten all nations. And in practice, this would appear to be true. So yeah, enemy of all mankind. I can dig it. Ok, so here we are with the classic moral dilemma. Do we negotiate and work with the pirates to free the innocent, at the risk of that "weakness" prompting more and more attacks on our vessels and citizens? Or should we give them our own ultimatum and give them an hour to return him or die, in hopes that will dissuade any future attacks? Something else? I'm sure there's no shortage of ideas here. So far, I'm more for a reverse ultimatum. We don't negotiate. We just give you a few minutes to return our people, and then we won't kill you...immediately. Attacking a US ship should be a dead-end cause. Well, any ship, actually. They should have to consider that they will only die - they will not achieve anything other than that. I think that could save exponentially more lives in the long run. But I also understand that could be a bit specious. What do you all think?

I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't know what teabagging is. I mean, I suppose older folks might not know, but I thought it was pretty common knowledge. Other than that, I just thought it was an inevitable term. When mailing tea bags as a protest, it's only a matter of seconds before someone thinks of the humor in 'teabagging' and it naturally follows that would be the shortcut term when referring to it - who wouldn't love the duplicate meaning in that phrase? It just fits nicely. I guess I just thought that was obvious. I'm not thinking it's Fox news and the tea bag protest that's out of touch here. Sounds to me like Rachel is slow to the draw, just realized the funny, and then does a report on it as if it never occured to the organizers.

No, no I agree with all that. And the way you just put it. I do believe him to be a troll when he's losing arguments. But we're wrong when we just call him names or any other appeal to ridicule. We should just call him out, professionally, and be done with it. I thought Mooey, Pangloss, Padren, all demonstrated the class we should all appreciate. And that's what you'd expect from mods. But let's put this in perspective. I'm not beating myself a bloody pulp over it, I'm just saying I'm not going to hide behind some excuse because I think he's a troll. Pangloss is right to call it out. I suppose you feel he should have called scrappy out. Maybe so. But that doesn't make it open season for us either.

JohnB, you've misunderstood me. I was leveraging balance to the exchange with ecoli and iNow. In context, my statements were about putting down the pro-socialist ideology for a second and just listen to ecoli's point on competition. Not a rejection of the universal approach. My point being that we must stop it with dismissing the concerns of each side - the capitalists and the socialists, for generality's sake. And that's in keeping with my theme that we do something better and different. And I think we start by acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of each - for real. I don't dispute much of anything in your post and I can only guess you missed my tentative support of a universal approach. My hangup is about the mechanics and not exchanging one set of problems for another. I want to see innovation, not repeat performance. Our current system is as socialist in-effect as the NHS, well, for the ones that can afford it that is.

Actually she did joke about that toward the end.

Oh come on, we're adults here and we're wrong, it's that simple. Look, nothing justifies ad hom and we're all guilty of it, well maybe a few of you aren't. Sure, we think we're justified but we're not. It's not ok to degenerate to disparaging comments. We all know that. Good call, Pangloss.

Polarizing it doesn't sound like an effective way of getting rid of it.

No, I mean: Yep.

I couldn't watch the vid, but that's bullshit. Mailing tea bags in protest to the spending is a nonpartisan effort that's been building up for months. In fact, we were talking about how none of the news media was covering it. Apparently Fox is claiming credit, or trying to hijack the cause, I don't know. I will be attending a tea party here in KC and I can't wait. I hope to get a chance to roast your president and the previous occupant as well. Edit: Ok, so now I've watched the vid and I'm pissed. Fox has hijacked and soiled what was an honest message. They just outright stole it, branded it with FNC and I guess Glenn Beck's going to host their illusion. The republicans are going to act like they're a part of this and soil the remaining honesty in whatever's leftover of the message. Let me be clear: Glenn Beck is insane. The 912 project is my evidence. This is also too focused on Obama. I know we don't need another chance to blame Bush for something, but Bush and the congress began this entire landslide with their drunken spending. Oh and great reporting MSNBC, how the hell do you stay in business? I love how they alluded to the movement being non-partisan, after about 5 minutes into it, finally pointing out how Steele was rejected the chance to speak. This is more of a Ron Paul crowd folks. A libertarian thing. There have been conservatives mixed in from the beginning, but this is not driven by Bush republicanism.

Yeah, congrats. And that's how it's supposed to work.

I guess I always considered LOTR a nice mix for adults and older kids. In fact, this has to do with why I believe LOTR did terrific at the box office, while other fantasy has perished, relatively. Yeah, I have to admire an author that's willing to have his main character commit an atrocious act like that inside of the first hundred pages, yet create the most beautiful Giants in the next.

No, he isn't aiming for that conclusion. He wants this to be all about opinions, where no one has claim to any sort of inequal application of "rights" in order to conclude this is purely a democratic decision: a majority rule. He is purposely obfuscating any points on constitutionality because they ruin his argument.

I think scrappy has committed all 38 methods of "How to win an argument when you're losing". http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39813 Wow, this post is literally only inches away from its context on your monitor, and you STILL can't keep up. Hilarious, you're quoting the constitution. That's the very document you're trying to ignore by promoting Mr and Mrs Smith's opinion over the rights of "them gays". Awesome.

Ooh, I'm probably guilty of that one. What about the double "that"? I'm not saying that that is the best way... Is that even legal?

Oh man, I almost forgot about the running. What about eating Aliantha while walking and running? Oh wait, that was Thomas Covenant. Well at least it takes walking and running to the next level, huh? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged No kidding. I'm actually kind of resentful of LOTR because my preferred fantasy series failed to make it to the big screen after every investor pointed out the fatal flaw: "it's got a ring in it" (add an english scowl to your inner voice on that one).

Yeah, the walking was so much cooler in print.

No, no. I meant those are the ones I notice others misusing. However, we appear to share the hardship in dealing with Effect and Affect. I misuse those, miserably. Who and whom is another pair I'm not good at.

Sad, angry, worrisome are not an infringement of rights since they have no right to remain free of those. You don't have a right to not be sad, angy or worrisome. You have no right to do without noise. You have no right to not be embarrassed. You have no right to not be humiliated by the public. You don't have any of those rights so you can't claim they are infringed. You do have a right to be sad, angry, worrisome. We can't stop you. And you can't stop us. All social regulation between consenting adults that does not cause damage to others is unconstitutional, in my opinion. Those are laws we should not accept. As a republic, we should not tolerate it. But since the majority of the country is willfully participating in it, it's difficult to get them to not be hypocrites. Oh well, their time will come. America is set for a lot of darkness, I think. Our people must relearn liberty and its cost. They have forgotten. They use economy, war, and any other exigency to choose security over freedom. They do it by pretending as if their opinion should trump my claim to the bill of rights. You're doing it too. You're pretending as if Mr and Mrs Smith's opinion should matter moreso than my rights. That's how you ignore the rights of a minority. That's how you get 3/5ths of a person. That's how you enslave a people in the face of promoting your own liberty. All humans pursue liberty. But there's two different kinds: one is pursuing liberty for himself and the other is pursuing liberty for all. **** Mr and Mrs smith when they choose liberty for themselves at the expense of someone else. You can't support the argument that Mr and Mrs Smith are harmed. You never will. And you can't support the argument that their opinion matters when it harms other's rights. And you never will. We've covered this in two different threads, and tens of posts. You just don't seem to understand the relationship between the Bill of Rights, and democracy. And you're going to keep posting fodder, until you do. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged If the DOMA crowd were consistent about their principles regarding marriage, then why aren't they banning marriage to dogs and cats? Lamp posts? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is the same old recycled argument you tried last time. You're trying to muddy up the waters and pretend this all about opinion versus opinion. It's not. It's Rights vs Opinion. Opinion vs opinion that delivers no consequence to anyone's rights, can be decided purely democratically and this would all be over. But it's not. These are opinions that effect the rights of SSM folk, but deliver NO consequence to the rights of the DOMA folk. So it's not a democratic issue. It's a republican one.