Alan Grayson

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Alan Grayson

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

This man is turning congress upside down. Hahaha. Wow.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Alan Grayson is my

Alan Grayson is my Congressman from Orlando. I'm very proud of him for his statements. He replaced a Rethug Ric Keller who previously had promised to not run again. Keller was one of the Bush Rethugs along with Martinez that were complete Zombie Bush lap dogs.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Alan Grayson is my Congressman from Orlando. I'm very proud of him for his statements. He replaced a Rethug Ric Keller who previously had promised to not run again. Keller was one of the Bush Rethugs along with Martinez that were complete Zombie Bush lap dogs.

 

I'm impressed by both Alan Grayson and Al Franken right now for being straightforward and cutting through all the crap that is being tossed around.

 

It is entertaining to see the lack of real response from people when there is someone willing to research the topics being discussed and voted on. We need more people like them in congress, who will learn about things they make decisions about.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm glad to see this guy has

I'm glad to see this guy has his own thread. Yeah, I've been amazed by this guys cojones. He's smart as a whip and has a sense of humor. Chris Matthews recently referred to him as "Captain Cojones." I'd post a video but I need to figure out all the features of this board first. It's been awhile since I've been here. Nice to see all the new users.

 

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Attempting to post video.

Attempting to post video.


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
OK, why is it so small?

OK, why is it so small?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

rab wrote:

Attempting to post video.

 Fixed.

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
So that inane blathering

So that inane blathering motivates democrats? This is what fires you guys up?

We all know why the democratic politicians want republican support for this bill. If it is a collasal failure they want the blame to be shared because politicians fear personal responsibility. The democrats could, without republican support, pass this bill. But then they would have to take responsibility for it. As much as your average democrat would like to claim responsibility for universal healthcare, democrat politicians will not shoulder that burden alone. These people are about mitigating personal risk to their campaigns rather than about taking bold moves to get things done.

This isn't a uniquely democratic problem, all (or at least almost all) politicians are cowards. The few who do demand bold action and don't become a snivelling coward when responsibility approaches them are on the fringe in politics.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

So that inane blathering motivates democrats? This is what fires you guys up?

We all know why the democratic politicians want republican support for this bill. If it is a collasal failure they want the blame to be shared because politicians fear personal responsibility. The democrats could, without republican support, pass this bill. But then they would have to take responsibility for it. As much as your average democrat would like to claim responsibility for universal healthcare, democrat politicians will not shoulder that burden alone. These people are about mitigating personal risk to their campaigns rather than about taking bold moves to get things done.

This isn't a uniquely democratic problem, all (or at least almost all) politicians are cowards. The few who do demand bold action and don't become a snivelling coward when responsibility approaches them are on the fringe in politics.

 

You have to consider that the Democrat party has progressives, conservatives, and liberals. It is very diverse, and has representation from most main ideologies.

 

That is why it is hard for them to agree on things. 

 

Both Grayson and Franken have earned my support.  Grayson is a liberal democrat. He isn't conservative like President Obama is.

 

Although, a conservative democrat is better than the insanity the GOP puts forwards.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Can I have your definition

Can I have your definition of the word "conservative" clockcat? I don't think of Obama as conservative at all. He isn't socially or fiscally conservative. In what ways is he a conservative?

I have read that the republicans are having problems due to their demands of ideological conformity. Thanks to that the democrats have all the blue dogs. In a way I like the blue dogs. They are often better conservatives than the big-government-loving spend-thrift anti-free-market corporatist neocons that call themselves republicans.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Jormungander wrote:

Can I have your definition of the word "conservative" clockcat? I don't think of Obama as conservative at all. He isn't socially or fiscally conservative. In what ways is he a conservative?

I have read that the republicans are having problems due to their demands of ideological conformity. Thanks to that the democrats have all the blue dogs. In a way I like the blue dogs. They are often better conservatives than the big-government-loving spend-thrift anti-free-market corporatist neocons that call themselves republicans.

 

Conservatism is keeping the status quo. Usually it is based on "tradition" which in truth varies from area to area.

 

Republicans are almost exclusively authoritarian, and as a result are opposing to libertarian ideology. 

Obama is center-right. He has conservative social and fiscal policies. For example, his stance on gay marriage is socially conservative.

Obama has not appointed (to his top economic positions) even one economist that comes close to believing in liberal or center-left economic positions. 

 

Based on his voting record in the senate even, he voted center-right. 

 

As for blue dogs, they are almost exclusively conservative.  Many of them are significantly less authoritarian than the Republican conservatives though, making them closer to libertarians. They are still right-wing though.

 

Don't get me wrong, about 1/3 to 1/2 the Democratic party is right wing. The only difference is that most of them aren't as heavily authoritarian, or as right wing as the GOP is. I have a few right wing friends in other countries that look at our politics and say they would be a democrat in this country. 

 

If the rate things continue (only 20% of the population regards themself Republican now), the Republican party will mostly die and there will be one giant mess of a Democratic party with almost every ideology in it, and a mess of independents. Then the party will probably end up splintering. As it is now, I am a liberal progressive democrat and we only make up around 1/3 of the party.

 

Oh, let me get this chart for you.

 

One thing that I find entertaining is how it accurately portrays Bob Barr, who ran as the libertarian candidate even though he has almost no libertarian policies. He is old school Republican, straight up.

I honestly wish Obama was left-wing. Still, I would vote for him any day over McCain. Not only because of him, but because of the risk of a Palin presidency too.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
If Republicans ban bacon

If Republicans ban bacon because Obama ate a BLT, Obama need only to become a Republican so the Reublicans would ban themselves.


 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

If Republicans ban bacon because Obama ate a BLT, Obama need only to become a Republican so the Reublicans would ban themselves.

 

 

 

Ingenious.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:ubuntuAnyone

ClockCat wrote:

ubuntuAnyone wrote:

If Republicans ban bacon because Obama ate a BLT, Obama need only to become a Republican so the Reublicans would ban themselves.

Ingenious.

 

Thanks

 

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
I can't think of anything

I can't think of anything more authoritarian that a government that runs my health care. Tells me what doctors and hospitals I can go to and takes my money so I can't afford private insurance.

Also believing that you need the government to approve of your marriage in order to be married sounds pretty authoritarian as well.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

EXC wrote:

I can't think of anything more authoritarian that a government that runs my health care. Tells me what doctors and hospitals I can go to and takes my money so I can't afford private insurance.

Also believing that you need the government to approve of your marriage in order to be married sounds pretty authoritarian as well.

 

What is your point? A lot of people ARE authoritarian. No one claimed otherwise.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
You seemed to have been

You seemed to have been trying to tie authoritarianism to the Republicans exclusively rather than accurately portraying both parties as mostly authoritarian. EXC was just pointing out an example of Obama's authoritarian streak. Obama also has been delcaring that Republicans should stop their talking and get in line with him. Obama's rhetoric and some of his actions seem authoritarian. One suspects that you label the Republicans as authoritarian yet not the Democrats or Obama as a way to slur them and ignore some of the Democrat's problems.

Using your definition of conservative: you think Obama is conservative because of how much he fights for tradition? Are you sure about that? Obama is keeping the status quo on torture and gay rights. I could see how he leans socially conservative on those areas. But then I can think of other areas in which he leans liberal on social issues (ie. abortion, gun control and affirmative action) I can not see how Obama is in any way a conservative on economic matters though. He wild increases in spending and attempts at increasing control over the economy are as anti-fiscally conservative as you can get.

Politicalcompass.orgs justification for how conservative Obama is is laughable. Obama did not support the Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs. DC. He stated that he hoped DC would win and once DC lost he was very ambivalent and refused to give clear statements on his support of the Supreme Court. Obama has announced his love of gun control and desire for more of it many times. Obama wants a total ban on semi-automatic firearms. Obama supports reinstating a permanent version of that assault weapons ban. His consistent opposition to gun rights runs in direct opposition to politicalcompass.org's lies. For that matter it wasn't the "ultra-conservative bloc" of the Supreme Court that ruled on Heller vs. DC to end the handgun ban. Five of the Justices voted in favor of ending the ban. They aren't all "ultra-conservative." Obama has said a lot about NAFTA. He has clearly opposed it and he has clearly supported it in his rhetoric. Politicalcompass.org is cherry picking one of his many contradicting quotes and is using that as a flawed justification for claiming that he is a conservative. Obama has even violated NAFTA already by signing legislation regulating Mexican truck drivers in the US. The Mexican government got mad about the obvious violation of NAFTA by Obama. Politicalcompass.org is far off the mark on this one.

Politicalcompass.orgs analysis of Bob Barr is equally flawed. Bob Barr is a right-wing libertarian. The right wing part detracts from his support of libertarianism, but that doesn't make him an unsuitable candidtate for the Libertarian Party. Their example of him supporting teacher led prayer is cherry picking and misleading. Barr consistenly supports less federal meddling in schools, less federal funding for public schools, merit pay, vouchers and charter schools to compete with failing public schools. That is a solid libertarian education platform. He isn't a perfect libertarian though: he is religious and right wing enough to support voluntary school pray which is a blemish on an otherwise excellent education platform; but it is not even un-libertarian.

"School Prayer Amendment: H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

Which part of that isn't libertarian? The part where people can choose to pray, or the part where people can choose not to pray and schools may not proscribe prayer and no one can be forced into any form of religious activity or prayer and they may not be legally discriminated against? That's libertarian. It gives people the choice and demands that no government official force anyone to perform any form of religious activity and it bans discrimination.

Politicalcompass.org is full of shit on their analysis of Obama and Barr. I don't even want to read the other analysis for the other candidates because I'll just get pissed off over their poor handling of that too. You need better sources for information clockcat. I can't believe the outright lies paraded around on politicalcompass.org.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:I can't think of

EXC wrote:

I can't think of anything more authoritarian that a government that runs my health care. Tells me what doctors and hospitals I can go to and takes my money so I can't afford private insurance.

 

Stop watching FOX! The current healthcare reform bill includes a public "option," not forced. Besides, I think medicare patients can choose which doctors they go to. And you don't have to give your money to the government if you elect to keep private insurance. Just hope they don't decide to do a "death panel" on you if your life-saving treatment becomes to expensive. Afterall, those CEO's gotta have their 10 million dollar mansions and private jets.

end of rant

 

 

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Here's Grayson's website

Here's Grayson's website called Names of the Dead namesofthedead.com/

dedicated to those who died because they couldn't afford health insurance.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

You seemed to have been trying to tie authoritarianism to the Republicans exclusively

 

Please point out exactly where I did this. The only point I made anywhere close to this is the opposite of what you claim I said. I stated that the current Republican party is almost exclusively authoritarian, NOT authoritarianism is exclusive to the Republican party.

Jormungander wrote:

Obama's rhetoric and some of his actions seem authoritarian. One suspects that you label the Republicans as authoritarian yet not the Democrats or Obama as a way to slur them and ignore some of the Democrat's problems.

 I agree that Obama is authoritarian. I don't know how you got to suspecting that about me though. That is a far jump. There are authoritarian Democrats. 

Jormungander wrote:

Using your definition of conservative: you think Obama is conservative because of how much he fights for tradition? Are you sure about that? Obama is keeping the status quo on torture and gay rights. I could see how he leans socially conservative on those areas. But then I can think of other areas in which he leans liberal on social issues (ie. abortion, gun control and affirmative action)

Liberal? You mean progressivism, right? Making abortion illegal is a progressive move. The conservative thing to do is not touch it at all. It IS legal already. It has been for a while now. 

He has not done anything in regard to abortion, gun control, or affirmative action to my knowledge. By not doing anything, he is, in action, very conservative.

Jormungander wrote:

I can not see how Obama is in any way a conservative on economic matters though. He wild increases in spending and attempts at increasing control over the economy are as anti-fiscally conservative as you can get.

Again he continued the policies that were already in place. He brought on no left, no liberal, no progressive economists to advise him. He is simply doing the same thing the advisers that Bush had telling him to do.

Jormungander wrote:

Politicalcompass.orgs justification for how conservative Obama is is laughable. Obama did not support the Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs. DC. He stated that he hoped DC would win and once DC lost he was very ambivalent and refused to give clear statements on his support of the Supreme Court. Obama has announced his love of gun control and desire for more of it many times. Obama wants a total ban on semi-automatic firearms. Obama supports reinstating a permanent version of that assault weapons ban. His consistent opposition to gun rights runs in direct opposition to politicalcompass.org's lies. For that matter it wasn't the "ultra-conservative bloc" of the Supreme Court that ruled on Heller vs. DC to end the handgun ban. Five of the Justices voted in favor of ending the ban. They aren't all "ultra-conservative." Obama has said a lot about NAFTA. He has clearly opposed it and he has clearly supported it in his rhetoric. Politicalcompass.org is cherry picking one of his many contradicting quotes and is using that as a flawed justification for claiming that he is a conservative. Obama has even violated NAFTA already by signing legislation regulating Mexican truck drivers in the US. The Mexican government got mad about the obvious violation of NAFTA by Obama. Politicalcompass.org is far off the mark on this one.

You are rambling on from one thing to another. Are you saying that because he supports gun control, even though he makes no effort but words for it, that means he can't be moderate-right?

Jormungander wrote:

Politicalcompass.orgs analysis of Bob Barr is equally flawed. Bob Barr is a right-wing libertarian. The right wing part detracts from his support of libertarianism, but that doesn't make him an unsuitable candidtate for the Libertarian Party. Their example of him supporting teacher led prayer is cherry picking and misleading. Barr consistenly supports less federal meddling in schools, less federal funding for public schools, merit pay, vouchers and charter schools to compete with failing public schools. That is a solid libertarian education platform. He isn't a perfect libertarian though: he is religious and right wing enough to support voluntary school pray which is a blemish on an otherwise excellent education platform; but it is not even un-libertarian.

He has attempted to outlaw abortion, immigration, all use of marijuana, and gay marriage. He tried to outlaw Wiccan practices by military personnel. He voted to keep the embargo and travel ban against Cuba. He has repeatedly voted for tarrifs, and raising tarrifs on other nations. He was strongly against capping government subsidy caps on the largest agribusiness corporations. He is in favor of quotes on steel imports as well. I don't know any libertarian in person that thought he was really libertarian. He is old school conservative, and an opportunist. That is all.

 

Jormungander wrote:

"School Prayer Amendment: H. J. RES. 78 (1997): To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion."

Which part of that isn't libertarian? The part where people can choose to pray, or the part where people can choose not to pray and schools may not proscribe prayer and no one can be forced into any form of religious activity or prayer and they may not be legally discriminated against? That's libertarian. It gives people the choice and demands that no government official force anyone to perform any form of religious activity and it bans discrimination.

Politicalcompass.org is full of shit on their analysis of Obama and Barr. I don't even want to read the other analysis for the other candidates because I'll just get pissed off over their poor handling of that too. You need better sources for information clockcat. I can't believe the outright lies paraded around on politicalcompass.org.

You are welcome to disagree, but you have shown me nothing to prove they are inaccurate.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:Stop watching FOX!

rab wrote:

Stop watching FOX! The current healthcare reform bill includes a public "option," not forced.  

And I need that public option or I wont have healthcare... still.  Haven't been to a doctor or dentist to get a check up or for any ailment* in 7 years now.  But keep railing against public options please, cause I'm just spotting assholes.

 

* With the exception of the one time I was forced to go as my life was at risk, and the person who almost killed me ended up having to pay the bill.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 I want to elaborate a little bit on a point I made earlier.

 

I have noticed a lot of people in the United States (mostly conservatives..which leads me to believe there is some kind of misinformation campaign underfoot) misunderstand what the opposite to conservatism is.

 

The conservative's opponent in ideology is not the liberal. It is a progressive.

 

Conservatism is keeping the status quo, and usually follows on tradition. Basically, looking to the past.

Progressivism is changing the standard, and usually focuses on evolution. Basically, looking to the future.

 

The difference between these is progressives usually believe things can be made better, where conservatives want to keep them the way they are.

 

Liberalism is not mutually exclusive from either. Modern liberalism is basically tolerance of others, to pursue their own happiness in their own way. The only people who usually have problems with liberalism in the U.S. are social conservatives. People that believe everyone should live under the moral code they do, in other words. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:Stop watching FOX!

rab wrote:

Stop watching FOX! The current healthcare reform bill includes a public "option," not forced.

If the government runs it, then taxes will be use used to pay for it. Taxes are "forced" on people.

 

rab wrote:

And you don't have to give your money to the government if you elect to keep private insurance.

So what does a government program do that a private co-op couldn't do just the same at the same cost? Why must it be government run?

rab wrote:

Just hope they don't decide to do a "death panel" on you if your life-saving treatment becomes to expensive.

Well we don't have "death panels" with private insurance. But I could see taxpayers fed up with paying high taxes for medicine for people that never pay any taxes creating them.

 

rab wrote:

Afterall, those CEO's gotta have their 10 million dollar mansions and private jets.

Why the hell don't people like you create a non-profit co-op with whatever health insurance rules damn well want and pay the managers whatever you damn well want? Instead of your moral indiganation(i.e jealousy with a halo). Who the fuck is stopping you? 

The truth is that you really want a government run program so people with money with pay for people with no money, so the health will pay for the sick, so the young will pay for the old. So you have to use government power to force this on people. I'm not against having the rich help the poor on a limited basis as part of a social contract. But you insist on unconditional entitlements that with bankrupt us all.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Here is this article again.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html

 

Oh noes. 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Sapient,I thought that the

Sapient,

I thought that the public option was to be funded only by premiums. Wasn't that the promise that politicians were giving us? If you can't afford private health insurance now, then how will you afford the non-free government health insurance later?

Unless we've been told lies about how the public option would work (and that could very well be the case), you would still have to pay an insurance premium and it would work just like private health insurance. So I don't see how you will have healthcare even if there is a public option.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

Sapient,

I thought that the public option was to be funded only by premiums. Wasn't that the promise that politicians were giving us? If you can't afford private health insurance now, then how will you afford the non-free government health insurance later?

Unless we've been told lies about how the public option would work (and that could very well be the case), you would still have to pay an insurance premium and it would work just like private health insurance. So I don't see how you will have healthcare even if there is a public option.

 

The point is it will be affordable, unlike private insurance. 

 

With luck it will lead us to a single-payer system. We will see.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
I'll believe that it has a

I'll believe that it has a lower price when I see it. Seeing as profit accounts for 3% of health care premiums according to the Congressional Budget Office, I don't see how a profit-free government version of private healthcare with be substantially cheaper. Trade in "administrative overhead" for "massive government beaurocracy" and cut 3% off of the price tag and I think you have a public option.

Unless there is some plan to make it cheaper that doesn't rely on the 3% of profit that will be removed, I don't see how Sapient will be purchasing government healthcare if he can't afford to purchase non-government healthcare.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Jormungander wrote:

I'll believe that it has a lower price when I see it. Seeing as profit accounts for 3% of health care premiums according to the Congressional Budget Office, I don't see how a profit-free government version of private healthcare with be substantially cheaper. Trade in "administrative overhead" for "massive government beaurocracy" and cut 3% off of the price tag and I think you have a public option.

Unless there is some plan to make it cheaper that doesn't rely on the 3% of profit that will be removed, I don't see how Sapient will be purchasing government healthcare if he can't afford to purchase non-government healthcare.

 

Do you have proof of this? Last I saw, that was incorrect.

 

Profit MARGINS maybe. There is no way that is true for profits though.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Unless

Jormungander wrote:

Unless there is some plan to make it cheaper that doesn't rely on the 3% of profit that will be removed, I don't see how Sapient will be purchasing government healthcare if he can't afford to purchase non-government healthcare.

Yeah I need the free healthcare that we should be getting but have too many selfish greedy fuckwads involved in government having their actions dictated by dumb self centered sick twisted greedy fucks who watch Fox to get it.  Oh and dont forget the greedy lobbyists.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Sapient wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Unless there is some plan to make it cheaper that doesn't rely on the 3% of profit that will be removed, I don't see how Sapient will be purchasing government healthcare if he can't afford to purchase non-government healthcare.

Yeah I need the free healthcare that we should be getting but have too many selfish greedy fuckwads involved in government having their actions dictated by dumb self centered sick twisted greedy fucks who watch Fox to get it.  Oh and dont forget the greedy lobbyists.

 

 

Last I saw, there was going to be subsidies for people that make up to 200% of the federal income poverty level to keep costs affordable for the people that can't afford it now.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Are those subsidies coming

Are those subsidies coming out of my taxes or are they subsidized by other people who buy into the public option? I know a lot is undecided about this proposed system, but that is a very important question about whether I will merely not like it or will be chanting anti-public option slogans at a tea party and taping political fliers around town about this. One of the promises about the public option is that there will be NO subsidies and it will be 100% funded by the premiums people pay to purchase it. The only exception will be a one-time-only loan from the treasury to start the program that will be paid back within 10 years no matter what. I want the 'no subsidies' promise held.

Also, I gave you my source on the 3% statistic. The Congressional Budget Office determined it. If you think they are lying (they are politicians, so who knows) then doubt the number. If you think that the Congressional Budget Office is acting in good faith on this matter and that is their most accurate estimate, then their research and claims about this matter is my proof.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

Are those subsidies coming out of my taxes or are they subsidized by other people who buy into the public option? I know a lot is undecided about this proposed system, but that is a very important question about whether I will merely not like it or will be chanting anti-public option slogans at a tea party and taping political fliers around town about this. One of the promises about the public option is that there will be NO subsidies and it will be 100% funded by the premiums people pay to purchase it. The only exception will be a one-time-only loan from the treasury to start the program that will be paid back within 10 years no matter what. I want the 'no subsidies' promise held.

Also, I gave you my source on the 3% statistic. The Congressional Budget Office determined it. If you think they are lying (they are politicians, so who knows) then doubt the number. If you think that the Congressional Budget Office is acting in good faith on this matter and that is their most accurate estimate, then their research and claims about this matter is my proof.

 

People that buy into the public option. Your state can opt out as well it looks like, the way things are developing.

 

Your source claims that is their profit margin. Not profit. Huge difference. Oil companies with their excessive profits only make around an 8% margin. It comes after all "operating expenses" including the board of directives giving raises and bonuses to themselves to eat up a large portion of the profit margin, paying off politicians, marketing, and everything else.

 

The more money a business makes, the more of a monopoly they have, and the steadier the profits remain.... the smaller the profit margin usually ends up needing to be, so the company boards give themselves raises accordingly.

 

As for your teaparty protests, I put together a little sign for you to carry, to let them know you want to "keep the government out of your health care". 

 

 

There you go.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
I'm so sick of greedy

I'm so sick of greedy non-compassionate fucks who have no idea that we're only as strong as our weakest links.  But whatever... there's no getting through.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, but I'll stick with

Thanks, but I'll stick with the Gadsden Flag.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Jormungander wrote:

Thanks, but I'll stick with the Gadsden Flag.

 

I see you support snakes. Well, apparently basic medical care being a right offends you.

 

Too bad.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Oh, I'm not offended by it.

Oh, I'm not offended by it. I just don't believe in positive rights. So declaring healthcare to be a positive right is something that I am against. I've previously described my opposition to positive rights on this site.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 Alright, I looked at what is being proposed in the senate and it seems that the subsidy is entirely separate from the public option.

 

The subsidy will be available in all states, regardless. So the poorest people will be able to afford health insurance, and taxes cover it.

 

The public option will be something the states can opt out of offering to their residents. In other words, the state you live in can deny you the right to an option.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Rep. Alan Grayson sticks it to Federal Reserve Attorney

 Do you think they migh be hiding something ?   www.brasschecktv.com/page/722.html

Signature ? How ?


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
once again, i would like to

once again, i would like to bring personal experience to bear:

i am an american living in slovakia.

i have lived under both systems, public and private.

with my old job in the US, i could afford private healthcare.  i paid around $350 a month. 

here in slovakia, the system is based on nominal premiums paid to the state insurer with government subsidies.  in other words, about $30 a month.  if one does not go for regular medical and dental check-ups at least every 6 months, insurance does not pay for any procedures to correct problems incurred during the time one did not go for regular preventative check-ups.  one has total freedom to choose any general practitioner and dentist they want.

in my personal experience, hospitals and doctors here are on the same level quality-wise as the USA, and the regular check-ups are more thorough and of a higher quality (and my GP in the states was excellent).

women get 2 years' paid maternity leave.  that's right, 2 fucking years--they actually get to raise their kids.  imagine that?  this is paid out of the state social insurance, which is paid for by the company that employs the woman.  the government also gives subsidies for each child--so much for the first, and less for each subsequent.

i pay my taxes and my insurance premiums happily.  i feel secure.  i feel secure for my wife.  i'm happy that i and everyone around me, even the laziest motherfucker in the street, doesn't have to worry about getting sick.

bottom line: in my experience, public is better.  can anyone else here speak from more than googled data and personal bias?  if so, weigh in.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I'm so sick of

Sapient wrote:

I'm so sick of greedy non-compassionate fucks who have no idea that we're only as strong as our weakest links. 

In a society of social entitlements, wouldn't the weakest links be the people that took advantage of the entitlements and took way more from the treasury than they ever put in? Yet healthcare entitlements encourage this behavior.

This makes no sense. You believe their is no heaven to reward us for being compassionate nor hell for being non-compassionate. We're all here from an evolutionary process of survival of the fittest. Science tell us we pretty much can only care for ourselves and we have no free will to be any different. What is the rational basis for anyone to be "compassionate" when it means getting nothing back in return?

I want to have a social program where people in your position can have healthcare. But it must be part of a social contract where you are in a program to get you out of poverty. What good does it do to pay for your healthcare now if you just keep coming back for more "compassion" for the rest of your life? The rich are not going to be compassionate, they want something back for giving you the money to pay for your healthcare.

Why can't welfare programs be aimed at getting people out of poverty instead of giving them an incentive to stay in poverty?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:In a society of

EXC wrote:

In a society of social entitlements, wouldn't the weakest links be the people that took advantage of the entitlements and took way more from the treasury than they ever put in? Yet healthcare entitlements encourage this behavior.

This makes no sense. You believe their is no heaven to reward us for being compassionate nor hell for being non-compassionate. We're all here from an evolutionary process of survival of the fittest. Science tell us we pretty much can only care for ourselves and we have no free will to be any different. What is the rational basis for anyone to be "compassionate" when it means getting nothing back in return?

I want to have a social program where people in your position can have healthcare. But it must be part of a social contract where you are in a program to get you out of poverty. What good does it do to pay for your healthcare now if you just keep coming back for more "compassion" for the rest of your life? The rich are not going to be compassionate, they want something back for giving you the money to pay for your healthcare.

Why can't welfare programs be aimed at getting people out of poverty instead of giving them an incentive to stay in poverty?

Wow. How do you go from the public option to welfare? Most people who want such an option work but either their employer doesn't offer health benefits or they are denied medical procedures or life saving medicines by their insurance provider.

As for me, I lost my job last summer after a student with autism I worked with graduated and the school no longer needed my services. I now work as a part-time substitute and could certainly use an affordable health insurance.

This stereotypical thinking about people who want affordable health insurance can be heard on right wing talk radio. You sound just like them.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


rab
rab's picture
Posts: 273
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Ken G. wrote: Do you think

Ken G. wrote:

 Do you think they migh be hiding something ?   www.brasschecktv.com/page/722.html

The guy knows how to kick ass and take names. I sure as hell wouldnt' want to be under his line of questioning if I had something to hide.

Support the Separation of Church & State!
Freedom From Religion Foundation


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
rab wrote:As for me, I lost

rab wrote:

As for me, I lost my job last summer after a student with autism I worked with graduated and the school no longer needed my services. I now work as a part-time substitute and could certainly use an affordable health insurance.

So your problem is money and employment not healthcare. Why not attack this problem so people can afford to buy their own healthcare? And how are schools going to be able to hire you if we send so much government money to the evil capitalist hospital, doctors and big pharma?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:In a society of

EXC wrote:

In a society of social entitlements, wouldn't the weakest links be the people that took advantage of the entitlements and took way more from the treasury than they ever put in? Yet healthcare entitlements encourage this behavior.

I guess that's why we don't put enough money into the public school system?  Maybe we should just cancel the public school system for anyone who lives in an area where 20% or more of the parents live below the poverty level.  That would help avoid this dangerous cycle we have.

Honestly if you have to ask, you lack the compassion, and I don't think it's a trait that can be taught.  If you fail to see it, I think you always will. 

 

Quote:
This makes no sense. You believe their is no heaven to reward us for being compassionate nor hell for being non-compassionate. We're all here from an evolutionary process of survival of the fittest. Science tell us we pretty much can only care for ourselves and we have no free will to be any different. What is the rational basis for anyone to be "compassionate" when it means getting nothing back in return?

That you phrase it in the "nothing back in return" context solidifies my afforementioned thoughts.  I ponder instead hundreds of benefits from such a program, you ponder how you're getting nothing back.  Now maybe you see society as so broken that it's better to not help anyone that needs the help.  Look at me, do I look like I can give something positive to the world?  Would it help YOU if I died within the next three years of cancer?  As it stands now if I were to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, do you know what my treatment would be?  It would be nothing, I wouldn't do a thing because of the cost, I would simply die.  I know most theists wouldn't agree, but I'm sure I could get most atheists to agree on my specific benefits to society.  Do you get nothing back by allowing one penny you make this year to save me from a death in my 30's?    And if you do believe in survival of the fittest than as a nation it's our duty to keep up with the rest of the world, or we risk withering away like we have been doing, and losing the battle to other nations.  Their people are healthier and in many cases smarter... if it's survival of the fittest Americans are proving that they aren't too fit (or bright as the case may be).

I could list all the benefits but I don't think you'll see them as benefits.  Here's a few that come to mind off the top of my head...

- lower infant mortality rate (thereby at least giving the kids a chance)

- a more productive and capable workforce

- giving impoverished families who have one breadwinner who is now stricken with disease a chance to get back out in the work force so he's not leaching from other govt funds.

- how about the knowledge that you helped give someone a lease on life, use me as an example instead of the ghetto mother with diabetes who's raising 6 kids which are soon to be in govt care when she dies because she can't afford insulin. Or use her as an example and recognize it's cheaper to save her life than to care for her 6 kids.

 

That should be enough, the second one is the biggest I believe.... but it won't be enough.  I've grown to understand, you think differently than those who want to help.  I'm becoming at peace with it, I still look at those people who lack the compassion that comes so natural to me with disgust.  And for the record these views are not forged based solely on the fact that I am in need, in fact I had these views as a child growing up in a very afluent home, and the parents in that home shared these views as well. 

 

Quote:
I want to have a social program where people in your position can have healthcare. But it must be part of a social contract where you are in a program to get you out of poverty. What good does it do to pay for your healthcare now if you just keep coming back for more "compassion" for the rest of your life? The rich are not going to be compassionate, they want something back for giving you the money to pay for your healthcare.

My father has plenty of money to support himself and his wife if they live another 50 years, they're retired at 60 and have been for 8 years now.  He voted for Obama in part because we need to give healthcare to everyone in this country.  And I got a hunch that Bill Gates feels the same way.  Stop looking for what you can get out of it, and start looking at what you can give to someone who so desperately needs it.  Will some people not give back everything they took?  Of course.  And by the way, it's not compassion when you're looking for what you can get back from the mix after you save a life.... it's greed.  And like I said I'm sick of greedy fucks.

 

Anyway.... I'll go back to not having an opinion now, because I've already decided there are enough people in this country to completely fuck me and us as a society over and my voice will not help us advance as a society, instead being compassionate will only alienate me in this circle.  Maybe when the time comes I'll leave this piece of shit nation we've become and give all of my ingenuity, effort, and hard work to a society that values me.  You know one of the every other countries in the world that doesn't have their heads up their ass searching for a dollar.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:I guess that's

Sapient wrote:

I guess that's why we don't put enough money into the public school system?

Certainly entitlements like medicaid have bankrupted our governments with unfunded entitlements so there's not much left for schools.

Sapient wrote:

Maybe we should just cancel the public school system for anyone who lives in an area where 20% or more of the parents live below the poverty level.

Or a social/education programs that gets people out of poverty. This makes no sense that we should have high unemployment in these areas while at the same time we have high cost for medical services because of lack of nurses, doctors and facilities.

Sapient wrote:

Honestly if you have to ask, you lack the compassion, and I don't think it's a trait that can be taught. If you fail to see it, I think you always will.

I think the science is pretty clear that genuine compassion is BS. There's always strings attached. What about the phony compassion of many here? Their version of compassion is saying the rich should pay more and bitching about insurance companies not providing. They're extremely compassionate as long as it's someone else's money. Just proves there's no real compassion. And if I do act with phony leftist compassion, isn't it just to avoid the disdain of others?

If your going to have social programs, you must convince people the people paying for them are getting something in return.

Sapient wrote:

Now maybe you see society as so broken that it's better to not help anyone that needs the help.

Society is broken when we have a lack of sane social contracts. We allow ourselves to live in delusional fantasies like loving gods and genuine compassion exists.

Sapient wrote:

Look at me, do I look like I can give something positive to the world? Would it help YOU if I died within the next three years of cancer? As it stands now if I were to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, do you know what my treatment would be?

But the problem is need to be put on a path that enables you to buy your own insurance if that's what you really want. There needs to be a social contract for you to get treatment now, not an entitlement with no requirement that you ever pay back to society what you took out.

Sapient wrote:

- a more productive and capable workforce

- giving impoverished families who have one breadwinner who is now stricken with disease a chance to get back out in the work force so he's not leaching from other govt funds.

And where is there any requirement that this will be so? Seem like there need to be a test to see if people want short term help on they only want to help themselves to free stuff.

Sapient wrote:

- how about the knowledge that you helped give someone a lease on life, use me as an example instead of the ghetto mother with diabetes who's raising 6 kids which are soon to be in govt care when she dies because she can't afford insulin. Or use her as an example and recognize it's cheaper to save her life than to care for her 6 kids.

And why are people that have many children they can't afford not greedy? Isn't there greedy poor as well as greedy rich?

You want this highly evolved 'rational' society where we all look out for each others welfare. But then we still allow ourselves to breed like primitive animals. Just reproduce until all available resources can no longer support more population. So human misery(war, poverty, disease) is the limiting factor on population control. You can't have the right to breed and the right to healthcare, food, housing, etc.. simultaneously. What will limit the population?

Sapient wrote:

That should be enough, the second one is the biggest I believe.... but it won't be enough. I've grown to understand, you think differently than those who want to help.

They want to help with other people's money. If they were really compassionate they would try start their own insurance company to provide coverage for those in need. All they want to do is bitch that rich should do more then go around with their moral indignation(jealousy with halo)

Sapient wrote:

He voted for Obama in part because we need to give healthcare to everyone in this country.

How about we "give" everyone the ability to earn money to buy their own healthcare if this is what they choose to do with their lives? Why isn't that called compassion? I myself don't want to be a slave to the healthcare industry by telling them I'll pay for whatever expensive cures they can invent.

You can't live free unless you are willing to die.

Sapient wrote:

I'll leave this piece of shit nation we've become and give all of my ingenuity, effort, and hard work to a society that values me.

Good luck with that delusional fantasy that such a society really exists. Why isn't Canada and Denmark sending out invitations if such genuine compassion really exists there? Answer: They'll only invite you there if they are sure they can get more out of you than you would take.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
EXC, thanks for responding,

EXC, thanks for responding, I said my piece and I rest on it, last word on this one is yours.  On my way to work on issues everyone here agrees with, I just needed to vent.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

Sapient wrote:

I guess that's why we don't put enough money into the public school system?

Certainly entitlements like medicaid have bankrupted our governments with unfunded entitlements so there's not much left for schools.

Sapient wrote:

Maybe we should just cancel the public school system for anyone who lives in an area where 20% or more of the parents live below the poverty level.

Or a social/education programs that gets people out of poverty. This makes no sense that we should have high unemployment in these areas while at the same time we have high cost for medical services because of lack of nurses, doctors and facilities.

Sapient wrote:

Honestly if you have to ask, you lack the compassion, and I don't think it's a trait that can be taught. If you fail to see it, I think you always will.

I think the science is pretty clear that genuine compassion is BS. There's always strings attached. What about the phony compassion of many here? Their version of compassion is saying the rich should pay more and bitching about insurance companies not providing. They're extremely compassionate as long as it's someone else's money. Just proves there's no real compassion. And if I do act with phony leftist compassion, isn't it just to avoid the disdain of others?

If your going to have social programs, you must convince people the people paying for them are getting something in return.

Sapient wrote:

Now maybe you see society as so broken that it's better to not help anyone that needs the help.

Society is broken when we have a lack of sane social contracts. We allow ourselves to live in delusional fantasies like loving gods and genuine compassion exists.

Sapient wrote:

Look at me, do I look like I can give something positive to the world? Would it help YOU if I died within the next three years of cancer? As it stands now if I were to be diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, do you know what my treatment would be?

But the problem is need to be put on a path that enables you to buy your own insurance if that's what you really want. There needs to be a social contract for you to get treatment now, not an entitlement with no requirement that you ever pay back to society what you took out.

Sapient wrote:

- a more productive and capable workforce

- giving impoverished families who have one breadwinner who is now stricken with disease a chance to get back out in the work force so he's not leaching from other govt funds.

And where is there any requirement that this will be so? Seem like there need to be a test to see if people want short term help on they only want to help themselves to free stuff.

Sapient wrote:

- how about the knowledge that you helped give someone a lease on life, use me as an example instead of the ghetto mother with diabetes who's raising 6 kids which are soon to be in govt care when she dies because she can't afford insulin. Or use her as an example and recognize it's cheaper to save her life than to care for her 6 kids.

And why are people that have many children they can't afford not greedy? Isn't there greedy poor as well as greedy rich?

You want this highly evolved 'rational' society where we all look out for each others welfare. But then we still allow ourselves to breed like primitive animals. Just reproduce until all available resources can no longer support more population. So human misery(war, poverty, disease) is the limiting factor on population control. You can't have the right to breed and the right to healthcare, food, housing, etc.. simultaneously. What will limit the population?

Sapient wrote:

That should be enough, the second one is the biggest I believe.... but it won't be enough. I've grown to understand, you think differently than those who want to help.

They want to help with other people's money. If they were really compassionate they would try start their own insurance company to provide coverage for those in need. All they want to do is bitch that rich should do more then go around with their moral indignation(jealousy with halo)

Sapient wrote:

He voted for Obama in part because we need to give healthcare to everyone in this country.

How about we "give" everyone the ability to earn money to buy their own healthcare if this is what they choose to do with their lives? Why isn't that called compassion? I myself don't want to be a slave to the healthcare industry by telling them I'll pay for whatever expensive cures they can invent.

You can't live free unless you are willing to die.

Sapient wrote:

I'll leave this piece of shit nation we've become and give all of my ingenuity, effort, and hard work to a society that values me.

 

 

Good luck with that delusional fantasy that such a society really exists. Why isn't Canada and Denmark sending out invitations if such genuine compassion really exists there? Answer: They'll only invite you there if they are sure they can get more out of you than you would take.

 

 

 

 

I have no obligation to thank you for that unintelligible drivel. :3

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I have no

ClockCat wrote:

I have no obligation to thank you for that unintelligible drivel. :3

 

Yes, if you tried to understand anything it might destroy your delusion that you're compassionate just for supporting higher taxes on other people. Compassion without sacrifice there's no better drug than that.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca