I've noticed something about "Republican" people here in America

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Blablahb:

GunsmithKitten:
Don't believe me? Check out who's the grand poobahs of the conservative talking heads. Aside from Neal Boortz, you'll not find any Libertarian minded conservatives.

Uhm, libertarians are conservatives by definition. If they're not conservative, they can't be libertarian, as libertarianism is an inherently conservative ideology. You can even safely characterise many prominent libertarians as being reactionary

farson135:
Did they ever? Aside from the Libertarian party to an extent has any party ever fought for my causes?

Even if I didn't know anything about you, I can say without a doubt that the libertarian party doesn't stand for your courses, whether you know it or not. Pretty much everybody stands to lose a lot from libertarian principles being applied.

To name one simple example: The libertarian opposition to any form of environmental protection. If we were to apply libertarian ideas to all policies, someone could dump toxic chemicals in your backyard, or maybe 1 centimetre outside your backyard so you and your children still get poisoned, and it would be completely legal. After all, environmentalism is teh evils that destroys jobs.

No, civil lawsuits can't fix that (which is the popular libertarian response to this consequence of their policies). You A can't sue for something which is legal, and B not everybody can win such a thing in the US court system against a large company.

AND SO IT BEGINS. Blahb, you know exactly what quote I'm throwing back in your face. Answer it this time as opposed to continuing to live in your fantasy land where all libertarians are fucking Ron Paul, and where Gary Johnson is a strawman rather than someone you simply have not done one iota of research on. Face the facts or stop posting about libertarianism.

Revnak:
AND SO IT BEGINS. Blahb, you know exactly what quote I'm throwing back in your face. Answer it this time as opposed to continuing to live in your fantasy land where all libertarians are fucking Ron Paul, and where Gary Johnson is a strawman rather than someone you simply have not done one iota of research on. Face the facts or stop posting about libertarianism.

Are you lacking in rational arguments so badly you need to use personal attacks? You know damn well that in that topic I asked for examples of progressive secular libertarians. Just like this topic, and all other topics, I got no answer back. I got no answer back because libertarianism is exactly as I describe it.

Even the post you quoted admitted that Johnson sponsored bills that ban abortion. Like I said: I'm not fooled by populism. Neither should you be. How hard is it to notice the irony in that post where the guy admits to sponsoring a ban on abortion, but slaps a bullshit excuse on it about how you could have 'made the decision earlier', while that's obviously not the case.

Perhaps you could try a more constructive approach and name me a few hundred prominent libertarians who defy my definition of libertarianism? And please, no rubbish that looks like they are, but turns out to be another reactionary plan to take freedoms away from citizens, punching through libertarian populistic smokescreens is very easy, but at the same time quite tiresome.

Not like it's the first time I make that request either. It would be nice if someone actually followed up on it instead of throwing up some copypasta about their favourite libertarian idol, they didn't even factcheck before posting.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
AND SO IT BEGINS. Blahb, you know exactly what quote I'm throwing back in your face. Answer it this time as opposed to continuing to live in your fantasy land where all libertarians are fucking Ron Paul, and where Gary Johnson is a strawman rather than someone you simply have not done one iota of research on. Face the facts or stop posting about libertarianism.

Are you lacking in rational arguments so badly you need to use personal attacks? You know damn well that in that topic I asked for examples of progressive secular libertarians. Just like this topic, and all other topics, I got no answer back. I got no answer back because libertarianism is exactly as I describe it.

Gary Johnson is a progressive libertarian. You just refuse to acknowledge it. He wants to legalize or decriminalize drugs, he is for gay marriage (I can get a link from your sources in that thread btw), he is against America's imperialistic foreign policy, he supports abortion until the fetus is viable, etc.

Even the post you quoted admitted that Johnson sponsored bills that ban abortion. Like I said: I'm not fooled by populism. Neither should you be. How hard is it to notice the irony in that post where the guy admits to sponsoring a ban on abortion, but slaps a bullshit excuse on it about how you could have 'made the decision earlier', while that's obviously not the case.

A ban on late term abortions (and only late term) is my exact stance, sooooo, I don't care. Oh, and thanks for quoting the specific part where it sounds like he thinks they could have just not had sex in the first place. It really fits the narrative I've built up for you.

Perhaps you could try a more constructive approach and name me a few hundred prominent libertarians who defy my definition of libertarianism? And please, no rubbish that looks like they are, but turns out to be another reactionary plan to take freedoms away from citizens, punching through libertarian populistic smokescreens is very easy, but at the same time quite tiresome.

How about the entire fucking party? Their official stance on essentially every issue of foreign policy or a social nature is extremely progressive, with abortion being an issue where they are quite progressive, but not the most.

Not like it's the first time I make that request either. It would be nice if someone actually followed up on it instead of throwing up some copypasta about their favourite libertarian idol, they didn't even factcheck before posting.

You ask that and then lie about whoever they bring up, so I can't blame them really.

Frission:
Santorum was a truly terrifying fanatic.

Look at his level of delusions. Look at his paranoia. He's a madman.

I shudder that some supported him. I don't think those are the "republican" people. At least not the average man. I hope not anyway.

Not sure what you are on about at least in this speech. I do think he left out the military as an important right leaning institution. The Police as well. I'm not sure how Firemen lean.

Do you think Santorum is wrong, that education, labor unions, big immigration, Wall Street, the banking industry, Hollywood, MSM, government employees and the like are not lost upon Republicans, at least for the foreseeable future? I think we're screwed on them.

Gorfias:

Frission:
Santorum was a truly terrifying fanatic.

Look at his level of delusions. Look at his paranoia. He's a madman.

I shudder that some supported him. I don't think those are the "republican" people. At least not the average man. I hope not anyway.

Not sure what you are on about at least in this speech. I do think he left out the military as an important right leaning institution. The Police as well. I'm not sure how Firemen lean.

Do you think Santorum is wrong, that education, labor unions, big immigration, Wall Street, the banking industry, Hollywood, MSM, government employees and the like are not lost upon Republicans, at least for the foreseeable future? I think we're screwed on them.

Frankly I find trying to defend him to be a lost cause. He was someone who was a crusader for anti-intellectualism. Heck, he directly insults his own constituents without realizing it. He was the one who said that people shouldn't go to colleges because it might make them question their faith. If you agree with that, which I doubt (hopefully) then it's useless for us to discuss this. It really is. I'm a supporter for education and I don't understand the backlash for higher education. If I had to chance a hypothesis, it would be insulting.

I mean it's difficult for me to say all that's wrong with him. It's not that he even has good arguments. It's just so irrational. I finally understand the frustration. How can you not see what's wrong with him? When has he become normal? Why are you even talking about the military and the police when his quote "the church and family" was so absolutely stupid. I couldn't make a more ridiculous parody if I tried. His polices are so retrograde that he might as well been traveling back in time.

He's a religious demagogue. He deliberately rejects facts, when he bothers to learn them. He doesn't live in the same reality of a normal fucking person. As an aside he has a rather revolting persecution complex.

I don't where you get this idea that the media, the banking industry and the government are against the republican party.

It's stupid to try run a campaign with a platform that excludes those listed above. How do you want them to support you when you're doing everything in your power to make them vote against you? I mean as the campaign went along the focus became more and more narrow until you're not even trying to be a democracy. It's an oligarchy.

If the republicans are going to run their platforms with guys like him, then I hope they lose. HARD. I hope they lose more and more supporters to any kind of other party, until the only people they have is a nut who says climate change and hurricanes are because of God's Anger to homosexuals. That's what the label means to me now.

That said, I've decided I'm out. Don't respond. Say whatever you want about that. I'm taking a break.

Revnak:
Gary Johnson is a progressive libertarian. You just refuse to acknowledge it. He wants to legalize or decriminalize drugs, he is for gay marriage (I can get a link from your sources in that thread btw), he is against America's imperialistic foreign policy, he supports abortion until the fetus is viable, etc.

He also wants to ban contraceptives to regain clerical control over women. Sounds very progressive to me.

...if the reference cadre is the year 1200. Johson is probably also opposed to crusades and witch-burning, isn't he just a marvel of modern progressive thinking?

As for gay marriage, we've been there before and I've wiped the floor with it. Johnson has always said he'd love to see the state withdraw from marriage, meaning a total ban on gay marriage because it would fall to the churches if Johnson had his way. Since then he flip-flopped claiming that what he wants won't happen, so for lack of a ban, people should support gay marriage.

Uh... right, so he's opposed to it, but because it's already allowed he's opposed to it but also in favour. I guess that sounds really logical if one is a libertarian, but I think it makes no sense, and I'll go with his personal opinion that he originally had, namely that gay marriage should be banned through the transfer of marriage authority from the state to the church.

Revnak:
How about the entire fucking party? Their official stance on essentially every issue of foreign policy or a social nature is extremely progressive, with abortion being an issue where they are quite progressive, but not the most.

Isolationism for a foreign policy is not progressive. Libertarian social agenda is downright reactionary. Where's the progressive points?

As for abortion, that is demonstrably false. This is a quote from the Libertarian Party's website:
"And we're REALLY pro-choice: we also defend the right of a woman (or man) to choose NOT to pay for some other woman's abortion or birth control. Keep the government out of abortions. No regulations, no subsidies. Choice for all, including choice for those who are pro-life."

As you can see they pull the same bullshit of claiming to not want to ban abortion, but then making it so expensive that nobody who needs an abortion can afford one, effectively banning abortion. So as you can see, literally in that quote, the Libertarian Party's official stance is to ban abortion nationwide throughout the US.

Except that unlike the republicans, they lack the backbone to be honest about that, hence the 'don't pay for it' rag they hide behind.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Gary Johnson is a progressive libertarian. You just refuse to acknowledge it. He wants to legalize or decriminalize drugs, he is for gay marriage (I can get a link from your sources in that thread btw), he is against America's imperialistic foreign policy, he supports abortion until the fetus is viable, etc.

He also wants to ban contraceptives to regain clerical control over women. Sounds very progressive to me.

...if the reference cadre is the year 1200. Johson is probably also opposed to crusades and witch-burning, isn't he just a marvel of modern progressive thinking?

As for gay marriage, we've been there before and I've wiped the floor with it. Johnson has always said he'd love to see the state withdraw from marriage, meaning a total ban on gay marriage because it would fall to the churches if Johnson had his way. Since then he flip-flopped claiming that what he wants won't happen, so for lack of a ban, people should support gay marriage.

Uh... right, so he's opposed to it, but because it's already allowed he's opposed to it but also in favour. I guess that sounds really logical if one is a libertarian, but I think it makes no sense, and I'll go with his personal opinion that he originally had, namely that gay marriage should be banned through the transfer of marriage authority from the state to the church.

He doesn't see the reason why contraceptives should have to be given out for free or be required in all insurance plans. Huge difference.

And the post I quoted explained that what he wants is for all the rights the state gives out in marriages to be guaranteed through civil unions, opening up those rights to singles who plan on living together but are not romantically involved with one another. All in all, he has the most progressive stance on the issue.

Revnak:
How about the entire fucking party? Their official stance on essentially every issue of foreign policy or a social nature is extremely progressive, with abortion being an issue where they are quite progressive, but not the most.

Isolationism for a foreign policy is not progressive. Libertarian social agenda is downright reactionary. Where's the progressive points?

As for abortion, that is demonstrably false. This is a quote from the Libertarian Party's website:
"And we're REALLY pro-choice: we also defend the right of a woman (or man) to choose NOT to pay for some other woman's abortion or birth control. Keep the government out of abortions. No regulations, no subsidies. Choice for all, including choice for those who are pro-life."

As you can see they pull the same bullshit of claiming to not want to ban abortion, but then making it so expensive that nobody who needs an abortion can afford one, effectively banning abortion. So as you can see, literally in that quote, the Libertarian Party's official stance is to ban abortion nationwide throughout the US.

Except that unlike the republicans, they lack the backbone to be honest about that, hence the 'don't pay for it' rag they hide behind.

[/quote]
Isolationism beats our current rampant imperialism any day, and it is associated with the modern left, which is what I assumed you meant by progressive. Progressive is a meaningless term these days anyway though. And it is my stance that not wanting to topple over nations and murder brown people with little motivation is a good thing. Plus free trade rarely goes hand in hand with isolationism. The two are inherently incompatable.

And as for abortion, is it really that expensive? That cost prohibitive? I doubt it. Is a person who sides against free cars arguing that sll cars should be banned? Hell no. And they certainly aren't more against cars than the guys that are litterally calling cars murder and banning them outright. Their whole point is that they don't want government imposing morals on anyone, which includes forcing people to pay for abortions they do not agree with. Also it goes against the minarchy common among libertarians as it is adding to the size of the state rather than reducing it. Plus, how in the world are they making it more expensive? They're just refusing to make it less expensive by forcing common citizens to ignore their own morals and pay for something they find wrong.

Also, how about immigration, which they are the biggest proponents of? Civil liberties, where they rate higher than any other American party? Or are you going to continue to focus on two issues where they have a somewhat hard to distinguish, though certainly not conservative, stance?

Personally I believe that Libertarianism is "Liberal" in the classic definition of the term (I.E. maximizing the freedoms of everyone) and isn't "inherently" conservative (though it can be pushed in that direction oddly enough... Mostly by the likes of Ron Paul).

The thing is, the definition of "Liberal" and "Conservative" have changed so much that it's hard to pinpoint what would actually be "conservative" in nature. Originally Conservatives were just made up of the pro-monarchist aristocracy who were having a semi-feud for power with the growing (liberal) bourgeois. Then when Social Democracy came around, with it's focus on positive freedoms, the "conservative aristocrats" became more Center-Left leaving Conservatism and Liberalism both mix and matched and confused and a hell of a lot of changes in definition until we have what we have today.

Revnak:
Isolationism beats our current rampant imperialism any day, and it is associated with the modern left, which is what I assumed you meant by progressive.

Uh, no, not at all. Isolationism is typically asociated with conservative leftwing parties, or conservative right wing parties, the latter ussually being nationalistic.

Revnak:
And as for abortion, is it really that expensive? That cost prohibitive? I doubt it.

According to Planned Parenthood, an abortion costs about $300-$950 in the first trimester. And that's including the money they put into it, that libertarians want to strip them of, so the actual costs are much higher. An abortion at a later stage costs more.

A thousand dollars or more is quite prohibitively expensive for most people. How many people do you know who carry around a thousands dollars as small change?

Revnak:
Plus, how in the world are they making it more expensive?

Right now, government healthcare money, private insurance money and charity money originating with the government contributes to the cost of abortion. Basically it's subsidised because otherwise it would be too expensive. Libertarians want to stop that money from being paid, thus increasin the price.

Revnak:
Also, how about immigration, which they are the biggest proponents of?

Where exactly do the libertarians say they want to give immigrants equal rights and encourage immigration? All I've seen so far is typically reactionary 'strip those filthy immigrants of all rights and deport them!' rubbish.

Revnak:
Civil liberties, where they rate higher than any other American party?

Rubbish and you know. The libertarians are heavily opposed to many civil rights. That's what the previous paragraphs were about.

You can't make everyone outside of male Christian heterosexuals second rate citizens and still claim to 'rank high on civil liberties'.

I mean, that's so contradictory, what's next? A politician who wants to replace the fair trial with summary executions ranking 'high on justice'? ^_^

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Isolationism beats our current rampant imperialism any day, and it is associated with the modern left, which is what I assumed you meant by progressive.

Uh, no, not at all. Isolationism is typically asociated with conservative leftwing parties, or conservative right wing parties, the latter ussually being nationalistic.

Still beats imperialism. If being progressive means shooting brown people for no damn good reason I think that is an excellent reason not to be progressive.

Revnak:
And as for abortion, is it really that expensive? That cost prohibitive? I doubt it.

According to Planned Parenthood, an abortion costs about $300-$950 in the first trimester. And that's including the money they put into it, that libertarians want to strip them of, so the actual costs are much higher. An abortion at a later stage costs more.

A thousand dollars or more is quite prohibitively expensive for most people. How many people do you know who carry around a thousands dollars as small change?

There's this thing called making payments over time. And their reasoning is not "ban abortions nao" it is "spend less money nao." I disagree with the typical libertarian stance on healthcare, this being part of it, but calling them anti-abortion because of that is odd. They are against government healthcare of almost every sort. Also I believe they are against government money going towards it, not private insurance companies covering it, though I suppose they may be against it being required.

Revnak:
Also, how about immigration, which they are the biggest proponents of?

Where exactly do the libertarians say they want to give immigrants equal rights and encourage immigration? All I've seen so far is typically reactionary 'strip those filthy immigrants of all rights and deport them!' rubbish.

WTF? And here I thought you did your research! This is a nice piece on the official stance. And the official platform lists that unrestricted movement of immigrants across borders is necessary, with the only exception being those that pose a threat to our national security.

Revnak:
Civil liberties, where they rate higher than any other American party?

Rubbish and you know. The libertarians are heavily opposed to many civil rights. That's what the previous paragraphs were about.

You can't make everyone outside of male Christian heterosexuals second rate citizens and still claim to 'rank high on civil liberties'.

I mean, that's so contradictory, what's next? A politician who wants to replace the fair trial with summary executions ranking 'high on justice'? ^_^

Firstly, thanks for skipping my part on Gary Johnson's stance on gay marriage. Still building up such a wonderful narrative. Secondly, the official stance of libertarians is very LGBT friendly, as they argue for equal protection for people regardless of gender or orientation and specifically call out current marriage laws in their official stance. Thirdly, there are other rights to be discussed here such as property, speech, expression, legal rights, etc., which they are among the strongest proponents of. Fourthly, their official stance towards religion is that government should stay out of it.

Revnak, while Blablahb is often overexaggerating things to make his points, I think what he's saying here is that the official Libertarian position doesn't gel very well with a lot of the things they often say or do in practice. On LGBT-rights, for instance, some argue for state's rights rather than a federal solution. Well, how will that pan out in practice in, say, the Southern states? At least that's how I interpret it, correct me if I'm wrong, Blablahb. It's that there is - in practice - little difference between denying abortion rights directly or denying them by making it unaffordable, despite abortions' necessity in some cases, as another example.

farson135:

Smeatza:
The republicans I've known have not been fans of donating to charity either. The phrase "we look after our own" comes up a lot in the discussions I've had.

And what is "our own"? Likely what you are seeing is a group of people who want to break it down even further. My hometown is a small rural town in central Texas. We take care of our own, by giving to charity (specifically the church, or the 4H, or the BSA, etc) and then the people who need help in the town are helped. The other towns can deal with their own issues, we will keep the money here and make sure the people who need help are helped.

Which is a selfish view that lacks compassion it's effectively like saying "I only care about those I can see or reach."

farson135:

Whether they consider it "forced charity" or not the end result is the same, they would rather not donate to those who are needier than they. They would rather the church, private companies or more liberal individuals do it, which I think shows a lack of compassion.

What the fuck do you think the church does with that money? My church had a fundraising drive when one of our poorer families had a son who needed surgery. Just because I do not want to give to a mammoth uncaring apparatus does not mean I do not care. I would venture to guess that the Red Cross has done a hell of a lot more good in the world that the government that forces us to give money. I give money and blood to the Red Cross happily. The government takes the money by force and gives SSI checks to kids with ADHD. Fuck it.

If you had a free healthcare system the kid wouldn't have needed a fundraiser in the first place, and you could have donated that money to someone else who needs it, I realise this may be a tricky concept, but perhaps outside of your town, state or country?
And what's your problem with kids with ADHD? are they less deserving of charity than others?
In any case is it a fact that the government is ineffective at helping people compared to private charity? Can you show me any evidence of that? Because if you don't have any evidence, and have something against kids with ADHD, well it doesn't show a compassionate viewpoint.

farson135:

I like that, it rolls of the tongue. The problem I find is that the mainstream conservative view seems to be that letting those who need help die out is the best way to reach a point where no one needs help.

In your opinion. However, as of yet you have provided no basis for why your opinion would be correct. There are tens of millions of Republicans in the US. Are you honestly going to say that statement applies to each and every one of them? Will you even say it about a majority? A sizable minority? Any?

When speaking about politics it's pretty much impossible not to generalise. We both know that each liberal and each republican are individuals with their own individual opinions so you can only go by what the masses seem to think.
In any case in my next sentence I corrected myself and said that statement was an exaggeration and too harsh, weird how you left that out.

farson135:

the resistance to free healthcare

Economics 101, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Also, there are plenty of problems with socialized medicine. Perhaps if you acknowledged them then you can understand why they have a problem with it.

Almost every single other developed country in the western world has a free healthcare system with little to no issues. What issues do you think America would have that others have not?
That doesn't even matter, we're talking about compassion here and any compassionate person would accept free healthcare as a good thing for the massive good it can do for saving lives and improving quality of life for those could otherwise not afford it.
To say no to free healthcare because you're worried about taxes or more immigrants showing up shows a lack of compassion.

farson135:

the grudge against welfare

Because they have a different method in mind. Just because their method is different does not mean it does not exist.

But those methods usually involve the poor and impoverished receiving less and them donating less.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, give me some examples.

farson135:

and the general apathy towards human rights

Fair point, apathy towards human rights can come from both sides.

More so than our current terror bombing president with a D next to his name?

farson135:

It's all very laissez-faire.

No it isn't.

Literally no, figuratively yes.

Skeleon:
Revnak, while Blablahb is often overexaggerating things to make his points, I think what he's saying here is that the official Libertarian position doesn't gel very well with a lot of the things they often say or do in practice. On LGBT-rights, for instance, some argue for state's rights rather than a federal solution. Well, how will that pan out in practice in, say, the Southern states? At least that's how I interpret it, correct me if I'm wrong, Blablahb. It's that there is - in practice - little difference between denying abortion rights directly or denying them by making it unaffordable, despite abortions' necessity in some cases, as another example.

Please don't humor him. Please. His argument is that libertarians are essentially super conservatives. We know this is wrong. And the state's rights stance is more a constitutionalist thing than anything, and a significant part of why I hate them as a general rule. Gary Johnson is not that, the official platform is not that, I am not that, and I refuse to let others claim otherwise as it is both dishonest and insulting. Not one libertarian on this site (save maybe, MAYBE Gmax and he's gone anyway) is like that. Most of us are nothing like that at all. It is insulting Skeleon. When people assume all atheists or anti-theists are raving lunatics who want to steal their right to believe what they want, that they're immoral by nature, or significantly prone to murder, I am certain you feel insulted, regardless of whether or not there are even minute degrees of truth to it. This is the same. The fact that he has also been so incessant about this is also part of why it irritates me.

Edit- I hope I remembered correctly that you self-identify as atheist or else my comment makes absolutely no sense.

@Revnak
Hehe, can't really argue with that, nor can I blame you. I've debated National Socialism, Social Democratic (and other left-wing) opposition to it and modern-day Neo-Nazism with him and nearly went up the wall during. I was just trying to add some perspective.

Skeleon:
@Revnak
Hehe, can't really argue with that, nor can I blame you. I've debated National Socialism, Social Democratic (and other left-wing) opposition to it and modern-day Neo-Nazism with him and nearly went up the wall during. I was just trying to add some perspective.

I know. It is something I tend to ignore. I jump between being one of the biggest stressers of the importance of empathy on this site and a sarcastic jerk just barely avoiding moderation a bit too much to be honest. Blahb is definitely a trigger for the latter. I come here to have fun more often than not, and being a jerk is quite fun for me, regardless of how ethically inconsistent that is for me. The truth is, arguing with Blahb like this is often the most fun I have in my day while also being the source of the most frustration. It's strange really. Still, you're right. There are elements of truth to his faulty argument, and I should recognize and act accordingly. I will admit that Blahb has had a slightly positive impact on me after all these arguments. My stance on abortion is now based on a bit of reason and is defensible rather than my old stance of not caring in the slightest or being firmly opposed depending on the day. For that I suppose I should thank him.

Smeatza:
Which is a selfish view that lacks compassion it's effectively like saying "I only care about those I can see or reach."

Is it selfish or is it practical? I do not know where you live but can you tell me that the funds the government is giving out somewhere on the other side of the country is being given out to the right people? If my mom had allowed that idiot doctor to give me ADHD medication then I could be receiving an SSI check. My hometown's church never would have done that. Different strokes for different folks.

If you had a free healthcare system the kid wouldn't have needed a fundraiser in the first place, and you could have donated that money to someone else who needs it, I realise this may be a tricky concept, but perhaps outside of your town, state or country?

No, instead the kid probably would have died waiting for a specialist to figure out what was happening to him.

And what's your problem with kids with ADHD? are they less deserving of charity than others?

Why does a kid with ADHD need disability money?

Does he need it more than someone with dyslexia?

In any case is it a fact that the government is ineffective at helping people compared to private charity? Can you show me any evidence of that? Because if you don't have any evidence, and have something against kids with ADHD, well it doesn't show a compassionate viewpoint.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-shortcomings-of-government-charity/#axzz2El6zXUPd
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/government-failure-private-success
http://libertariananswers.com/is-private-charity-more-efficient-than-government-welfare/

What I have a problem with is the government giving MY money out to people who do not need it and telling me it is charity.

When speaking about politics it's pretty much impossible not to generalise. We both know that each liberal and each republican are individuals with their own individual opinions so you can only go by what the masses seem to think.
In any case in my next sentence I corrected myself and said that statement was an exaggeration and too harsh, weird how you left that out.

If you knew it was too harsh then why did you say it? What you just used is a rhetorical technique meant to argue something without actually arguing it. You appeal to your side and at the same time give the other side nothing to say because you backtracked. For your information, that technique only works when speaking because you can claim that you spoke out of turn. When writing that technique doesn't work (at least not the way you did it).

Almost every single other developed country in the western world has a free healthcare system with little to no issues. What issues do you think America would have that others have not?

Little to no issues? They all have issues. Very major ones in fact. People use the UK's system as an example but it is a well-known fact that people in the UK die at a higher rate for certain cancers than in the US. That is a big issue.

That doesn't even matter, we're talking about compassion here and any compassionate person would accept free healthcare as a good thing for the massive good it can do for saving lives and improving quality of life for those could otherwise not afford it.
To say no to free healthcare because you're worried about taxes or more immigrants showing up shows a lack of compassion.

Or it shows that we know it will not work. Sorry, I prefer the needs of the many over the needs of the few.

But those methods usually involve the poor and impoverished receiving less and them donating less.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, give me some examples.

The poor receive less not because we give them less but because the government will not allow us to give anymore. In fact, earlier in the year several cities signed laws that effectively banned private charities from feeding the hungry-
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/19/bloomberg-strikes-again-nyc-bans-food-donations-to-the-homeless/
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/03/14/nutter-announces-ban-on-outdoor-feeding-of-homeless/
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/feeding-the-homeless-banned-in-major-cities-all-over-america

Most Republicans are against that kind of regulation.

I do see what you're saying, and if the money donated to churches was used in a for truly charitable causes (rather than publicity in the form of charity) or the private companies had the funds to help all those who need it to live then that would be fine.
But they don't, so the government has to step in and help to stop people dying needlessly, and they shouldn't be obligated to abide by your personal criteria on who and who does not need help, those who need it should be able to get it.
Believe me, it irritates me to no end to see someone on welfare who does not need it/uses it irresponsibly, but aren't they the minority in comparison to those who genuinely need it and use it as it's intended?
Doesn't it show a lack of compassion to say that no one should get it due to the actions of a few?

But I'm not aware of a free healthcare system in the developed western world where people dying while waiting for treatment or diagnosis is a common occurrence (perhaps with the exception of people waiting for a transplant organ), can you?
Why is this likely to be the case for a US free healthcare system?

Directly, to pay for treatment, additional education requirements. Indirectly, to pay for travel costs, time off work. I'm no expert on what it's like to have a child with ADHD but I'm sure there will be more costs that could be detrimental to quality of life for poorer families.
I also couldn't make an informed decision on who needs it more at this point. How is that relevant?

I have seen the statistics before and I truly understand how private charity can be more efficient, but that doesn't make it as effective.
I have two issues here, first of all welfare taxes are compulsory so the many people who would not donate to this "charity" if given the choice must do, meaning the pool of money they have to work with is astronomical compared to what private charity receives. That 30% they get to the poor is still probably much larger than the 70% private charities manage. If it was left to private charity a lot of people would be left out, do it not show a lack of compassion to still want that to be the case?
Second issue, it is right to really let people decide where their taxes go based on their personal preferences and prejudices? Where do you draw the line there? If it's ok to prevent your taxes going to people with ADHD, is it ok to do the same for dyslexia? Or AIDS? and so on and so forth.
Surely distribution of taxes should be based on who actually needs them, not according to your personal opinion, but according to democratic opinion? Or perhaps according to the opinions of the well learned and educated in those particular fields?

I'm perhaps not taking this as seriously as you.

Considering how many external factors vary from country to country, I don't think comparing yourself directly to other countries is and effective way of measuring the effectiveness of a free healthcare system or any healthcare system.
Still, if I have to, a quick look shows that the UK spends a fair bit less of its GDP on its universal free healthcare system and seems to get the same, if not slightly better rates of life expectancy and infant mortality.
And there's not a single person in the UK with medical debt.
In any case surely the amount of people who have access to satisfactory medical care should be the primary judge of success. And while a quick look didn't turn up anything I'm sure a higher percentage of people in the UK have access to satisfactory medical care than in the US.
It's not very compassionate to say "this system works for most people, fuck the poor."

There's no reason to think it wont work though. Even if not, you would be letting a twisted version of pragmatism get in the way of idealism, which shows a lack of compassion.

I'm pretty sure most people are against that kind of bureaucracy. In any case these are not examples for compassionate republican alternatives/adjustments to the welfare or medical systems.

Revnak:
Still beats imperialism. If being progressive means shooting brown people for no damn good reason I think that is an excellent reason not to be progressive.

I don't get why you bring that up. US foreign policy has never been imperialistic, not even at the height of the Cold War. Imperialism is striving for establishing an empire. Outside of the fighting over the western hinterland, The US has never been agressively annexed territory, let alone get into empire building.

And since the cold war ended there's really nothing to be said for it.

Libertarians on the other want to look at something like the massacres in Kosovo with impeding all-out genocide, or the uprising against Khadaffi about to be crushed at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives, and then do nothing, because, hey, who cares if other people die? Those are other people, and therefore worthless, only we are worth anything.

Revnak:
There's this thing called making payments over time. And their reasoning is not "ban abortions nao" it is "spend less money nao."

You wanted to argue that getting into a massive debt which takes years to pay off, will not deter people from doing something? Seems a hopeless cause. Of course it would discourage people from having an abortion, and that's exactly what the libertarians want to cause.
So: Libertarian plans for ceasing subsidies to abortions, equal a ban on abortion. That's just how it is; it doesn't matter what empty rhetoric they wrap it in, all that matters is what the effects are. The effects of libertarian healthcare policies, is a nationwide ban on abortion, plain and simple.

Revnak:
Firstly, thanks for skipping my part on Gary Johnson's stance on gay marriage.

We've covered that before. He wants to move the authority of marriage over to the churches, thus being theocratic, and thus wanting a total ban on gay marriage.

What else is there to discuss? I also already said several times that I don't care what excuses or vague rhetoric they have to offer, because all I measure is the effect of the policies. Moving marriage over from state to church is theocratic, and equals a total ban on gay marriage.

This is starting to sound repetitive. Last time this came up, and the time before that, I also explained how you measure a party's stance by what their policies actually do. It should be obvious that their propaganda images or excuses do not count, so why are we going over what rubbish the libertarians wrap their policies in four or five times? As long as the effects of those policies are as I describe, and they are, I'm right.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Still beats imperialism. If being progressive means shooting brown people for no damn good reason I think that is an excellent reason not to be progressive.

I don't get why you bring that up. US foreign policy has never been imperialistic, not even at the height of the Cold War. Imperialism is striving for establishing an empire. Outside of the fighting over the western hinterland, The US has never been agressively annexed territory, let alone get into empire building.

And since the cold war ended there's really nothing to be said for it.

Libertarians on the other want to look at something like the massacres in Kosovo with impeding all-out genocide, or the uprising against Khadaffi about to be crushed at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives, and then do nothing, because, hey, who cares if other people die? Those are other people, and therefore worthless, only we are worth anything.

Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

Revnak:
There's this thing called making payments over time. And their reasoning is not "ban abortions nao" it is "spend less money nao."

You wanted to argue that getting into a massive debt which takes years to pay off, will not deter people from doing something? Seems a hopeless cause. Of course it would discourage people from having an abortion, and that's exactly what the libertarians want to cause.
So: Libertarian plans for ceasing subsidies to abortions, equal a ban on abortion. That's just how it is; it doesn't matter what empty rhetoric they wrap it in, all that matters is what the effects are. The effects of libertarian healthcare policies, is a nationwide ban on abortion, plain and simple.

Just about any other opperation costs more. Those still get performed. The effect will not be a ban. Your gas costs far more than mine, but people still drive there. Our gas prices have tripled in a decade, people still drive. Not a ban. Same fucking deal.

Revnak:
Firstly, thanks for skipping my part on Gary Johnson's stance on gay marriage.

We've covered that before. He wants to move the authority of marriage over to the churches, thus being theocratic, and thus wanting a total ban on gay marriage.

What else is there to discuss? I also already said several times that I don't care what excuses or vague rhetoric they have to offer, because all I measure is the effect of the policies. Moving marriage over from state to church is theocratic, and equals a total ban on gay marriage.

This is starting to sound repetitive. Last time this came up, and the time before that, I also explained how you measure a party's stance by what their policies actually do. It should be obvious that their propaganda images or excuses do not count, so why are we going over what rubbish the libertarians wrap their policies in four or five times? As long as the effects of those policies are as I describe, and they are, I'm right.

My god, how many times do I have to say this!
GARY JOHNSON AIMS TO MAKE MARRIAGE MEANINGLESS UNDER LAW AND HAVE CIVIL UNIONS TAKE THEIR PLACE. THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR A FAR WIDER RANGE OF PARTNERSHIPS THAN JUST GAY MARRIAGE, WHICH HE SUPPORTS FOR THE TIME BEING AS HE UNDERSTANDS HIS GOAL IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. HE HAS STATED HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ATTEND A CHURCH WHERE GAYS ARE MARRIED. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STAHP.
And you now completely skip over parts 2-5 there. Stop being so damn evasive.

Revnak:

My god, how many times do I have to say this!
GARY JOHNSON AIMS TO MAKE MARRIAGE MEANINGLESS UNDER LAW AND HAVE CIVIL UNIONS TAKE THEIR PLACE. THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR A FAR WIDER RANGE OF PARTNERSHIPS THAN JUST GAY MARRIAGE, WHICH HE SUPPORTS FOR THE TIME BEING AS HE UNDERSTANDS HIS GOAL IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. HE HAS STATED HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ATTEND A CHURCH WHERE GAYS ARE MARRIED. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STAHP.
And you now completely skip over parts 2-5 there. Stop being so damn evasive.

Just out of curiosity, my personal views on marriage align similarly with this, but with the belief that the individual religious buildings (Churches, mosques, synagogues, et cetera) decide who they want to marry on their property. That is, one religious institution can only marry straight people if they want to, another religious institution can only marry gay people if they want to, and some could even offer a polygamous option.

Does Garry Johnson believe that individual religious institutions should decide for themselves, or does he believe that every they should all come together for a vote to decide for all of them?

Also perhaps you should stop responding to blah. Personally, I wouldn't like responding to anything that seemed like a Liberal's reaction to Fox News. Just thinking about your health. ;)

TKretts3:

Revnak:

My god, how many times do I have to say this!
GARY JOHNSON AIMS TO MAKE MARRIAGE MEANINGLESS UNDER LAW AND HAVE CIVIL UNIONS TAKE THEIR PLACE. THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR A FAR WIDER RANGE OF PARTNERSHIPS THAN JUST GAY MARRIAGE, WHICH HE SUPPORTS FOR THE TIME BEING AS HE UNDERSTANDS HIS GOAL IS UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN. HE HAS STATED HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO ATTEND A CHURCH WHERE GAYS ARE MARRIED. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STAHP.
And you now completely skip over parts 2-5 there. Stop being so damn evasive.

Just out of curiosity, my personal views on marriage align similarly with this, but with the belief that the individual religious buildings (Churches, mosques, synagogues, et cetera) decide who they want to marry on their property. That is, one religious institution can only marry straight people if they want to, another religious institution can only marry gay people if they want to, and some could even offer a polygamous option.

Does Garry Johnson believe that individual religious institutions should decide for themselves, or does he believe that every they should all come together for a vote to decide for all of them?

Also perhaps you should stop responding to blah. Personally, I wouldn't like responding to anything that seemed like a Liberal's reaction to Fox News. Just thinking about your health. ;)

That is essentially his stance, yes. Such ceremonies would be meaningless legally though. They would serve absolutely no legal purpose. I AM MAKING THIS EXCRUCIATINGLY CLEAR.

And I actually enjoy this, as strange as it sounds. I even like it when I catch him insulting me in other threads. Makes my day really. I'm crazy.

Gay marriage? Horrible... unless my daughter is gay, of course. (Cheney)
Stem cell research? Horrible... unless my husband suffered from a degenerative illness, of course. (Reagan)
Social security? Horrible... unless I happen to need it, of course. (Rand)

The modern right wing of America simply has no empathy for other human beings. It's a part of raw self-interest. That's why so many people hate them.

Smeatza:
Snip

Why did you spoiler all of my quotes? If you do that I do not get a message saying that you quoted me.

I do see what you're saying, and if the money donated to churches was used in a for truly charitable causes (rather than publicity in the form of charity) or the private companies had the funds to help all those who need it to live then that would be fine.

Prior to the American welfare state how many famines where there in the US?

But they don't, so the government has to step in and help to stop people dying needlessly

And how many people were dying needlessly prior to the American welfare state?

they shouldn't be obligated to abide by your personal criteria on who and who does not need help, those who need it should be able to get it.

Why shouldn't they? It is my money after all. Rather than giving people money to do nothing why don't you just give them a bus ticket and send them down here to get work? We need farmhands. THAT is welfare worth investing in.

Believe me, it irritates me to no end to see someone on welfare who does not need it/uses it irresponsibly, but aren't they the minority in comparison to those who genuinely need it and use it as it's intended?

Few people genuinely need it. The problem is information and will. Most people do not want to do farm work so they will not even try to get work. For others there are jobs for people but the government is not helping people find them. If the government wants to do good then help people locate jobs and stop giving them my goddamn money.

But I'm not aware of a free healthcare system in the developed western world where people dying while waiting for treatment or diagnosis is a common occurrence (perhaps with the exception of people waiting for a transplant organ), can you?

Have you looked at the statistics? People die at a higher rate from various cancers in the UK than in the US. Wait times in Canada are absurd.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/19/david-cameron-pressure-nhs-waiting-times

Why is this likely to be the case for a US free healthcare system?

Once again, there is no such thing as a free healthcare system.

And the reason it would happen is because doctors in general and specialists in particular are generally paid less in those countries. You have to study for the better part of a decade and take hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to become a brain surgeon. How many people do you think would do that if they were paid poorly?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1172109--paying-doctors-and-wait-times-how-does-canada-compare

Directly, to pay for treatment, additional education requirements. Indirectly, to pay for travel costs, time off work. I'm no expert on what it's like to have a child with ADHD but I'm sure there will be more costs that could be detrimental to quality of life for poorer families.

More costs? More often than not there should be no costs. The government is funding people's delusions.

I also couldn't make an informed decision on who needs it more at this point. How is that relevant?

Because it is an example of government waste.

I have two issues here, first of all welfare taxes are compulsory so the many people who would not donate to this "charity" if given the choice must do, meaning the pool of money they have to work with is astronomical compared to what private charity receives. That 30% they get to the poor is still probably much larger than the 70% private charities manage. If it was left to private charity a lot of people would be left out, do it not show a lack of compassion to still want that to be the case?

Contributions to private charity would be higher if the government stopped taking people's money.

Second of all, more money does not equal higher quality. I saw the shitty work FEMA did during Katrina and Rita because I was there. I also saw the damn good work the Red Cross did.

Second issue, it is right to really let people decide where their taxes go based on their personal preferences and prejudices? Where do you draw the line there? If it's ok to prevent your taxes going to people with ADHD, is it ok to do the same for dyslexia? Or AIDS? and so on and so forth.
Surely distribution of taxes should be based on who actually needs them, not according to your personal opinion, but according to democratic opinion? Or perhaps according to the opinions of the well learned and educated in those particular fields?

Yes it should be democratic. Which is why you should stop taking money from people and allow them to put their money where they think it is most needed. After all, a governmental bureaucrat is not a democratic instrument, the power of the purse is.

Still, if I have to, a quick look shows that the UK spends a fair bit less of its GDP on its universal free healthcare system

Still not free.

Anyway, yes they spend less GDP, they also produce fewer machines, doctors, medicines, etc. Plus, just because I do not want socialized healthcare does not mean I want the current American healthcare system. The current system is fashioned to be extremely expensive. Once again, government at work.

seems to get the same, if not slightly better rates of life expectancy and infant mortality.

Americans have a distinct habit of killing themselves with fast food, fast cars, and bungee jumping (examples). So comparing simple life expectancies does not work.

Infant mortality rates also do not work. Different countries have different ways of measuring live births. If you come out of the womb with a heartbeat in the US you are considered alive. Not so in many countries. Adding to that, our high rates of drug use lead to a far high number of premature births and that combined with the previous gives us a higher infant mortality rate.

And there's not a single person in the UK with medical debt.

Yes there are. The UK's system does not cover everything. Dental for example.

In any case surely the amount of people who have access to satisfactory medical care should be the primary judge of success. And while a quick look didn't turn up anything I'm sure a higher percentage of people in the UK have access to satisfactory medical care than in the US.

Really? Can you find a hospital that has turned a person away who needed medical help? If so make sure to report them because that is illegal.

It's not very compassionate to say "this system works for most people, fuck the poor."

It is also not very compassionate to say, fuck everybody.

There's no reason to think it wont work though.

Really? Would you care to handle the change over? Overhauling the entire medical system in a nation of 300 million people spread across some of the toughest environments on this earth using a governmental apparatus that at one point was paying $100 for a hammer and also using a model that has to be refined every year in order to fix its mistakes. Good luck.

Even if not, you would be letting a twisted version of pragmatism get in the way of idealism, which shows a lack of compassion.

Sorry, you cannot eat idealism.

I'm pretty sure most people are against that kind of bureaucracy. In any case these are not examples for compassionate republican alternatives/adjustments to the welfare or medical systems.

I just spent the last few posts outlining them. You do not get to just ignore it because it is inconvenient to you.

farson135:

Why shouldn't they? It is my money after all. Rather than giving people money to do nothing why don't you just give them a bus ticket and send them down here to get work? We need farmhands. THAT is welfare worth investing in.

If you're not going to pay them enough to actually have a place to live, however, they have zero motivation to even take that work. Noone's going to bust their ass and just end up homeless anyway.

Also, all it takes is one illness or injury and BOOM, welcome to brokes-ville once again.

By the by, all that data on wait times are only for ELECTIVE procedures. The UK and Canada work on the triage system for life saving procedures, same as we do.

Revnak:
[
Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

What's wrong with unmanned drones? We can destroy entire militias without putting a single boot on the ground. It only took a few dozen UAVs to kill thousands of militants (Admittedly over almost a decade).

Heck, put enough funding into producing them and we could probably wipe out entire cities purely through UAV bombings. How is that terrible? That's awesome. Especially because the US military suffered negligible causalities throughout the ordeal due to not having to field actual soldiers all the time.

If anything, we should be looking into developing more effective autonomous weapon systems. At least to the point where we're able to win full-scale wars with friendly causalities under triple digits if possible.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:
[
Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

What's wrong with unmanned drones? We can destroy entire militias without putting a single boot on the ground. It only took a few dozen UAVs to kill thousands of militants (Admittedly over almost a decade).

Heck, put enough funding into producing them and we could probably wipe out entire cities purely through UAV bombings. How is that terrible? That's awesome. Especially because the US military suffered negligible causalities throughout the ordeal due to not having to field actual soldiers all the time.

If anything, we should be looking into developing more effective autonomous weapon systems. At least to the point where we're able to win full-scale wars with friendly causalities under triple digits if possible.

My issue is quite obviously with those thousands killed.
Edit- to clarify, my issue is not with how they are efficient killing tools, but with how I feel they get misused. War without cost to the offensive party is a horrifying thing as well, but I am not the type to stand in the way of progress.

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:
[
Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

What's wrong with unmanned drones? We can destroy entire militias without putting a single boot on the ground. It only took a few dozen UAVs to kill thousands of militants (Admittedly over almost a decade).

Heck, put enough funding into producing them and we could probably wipe out entire cities purely through UAV bombings. How is that terrible? That's awesome. Especially because the US military suffered negligible causalities throughout the ordeal due to not having to field actual soldiers all the time.

If anything, we should be looking into developing more effective autonomous weapon systems. At least to the point where we're able to win full-scale wars with friendly causalities under triple digits if possible.

My issue is quite obviously with those thousands killed.
Edit- to clarify, my issue is not with how they are efficient killing tools, but with how I feel they get misused. War without cost to the offensive party is a horrifying thing as well, but I am not the type to stand in the way of progress.

Militants. Yeah, there were maybe ~20-30% civilian causalities, but consider that the cost of the host government not dealing with their own rogue elements before they became a problem. It would be great if it were possible to wage war without civilian causalities, but it's not. Especially with something like a terrorist organization, where militants are virtually indistinguishable from civilians most of the time.

War without cost is great for that reason. How demoralizing would it be to fight for years, watching all of your friends and allies die around you while you've inflicted a grand total of however much it costs to replace the few unmanned vehicles that actually get taken down? (Much of which would probably be recouped from the assets seized after the attacks) I think recruitment for things like Terrorist organizations would drop sharply if viable hostile targets suddenly vanished. What will they hit with bombs, mortars, and bullets when death rains from the sky alone? (We actually do have UAVs that can operate entirely autonomously, tho' I suppose there will have to be a 'base' around somewhere to restock/repair/etc them. That can be handled from an Aircraft Carrier though, whether directly from the ship or from a control plane that launches from the ship for targets further inland, although that might be a bit impractical with what we have now)

Kind of a strange viewpoint, tho'. That using unmanned weapons/vehicles in order to save lives instead of just wasting them is horrific.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

Kopikatsu:

What's wrong with unmanned drones? We can destroy entire militias without putting a single boot on the ground. It only took a few dozen UAVs to kill thousands of militants (Admittedly over almost a decade).

Heck, put enough funding into producing them and we could probably wipe out entire cities purely through UAV bombings. How is that terrible? That's awesome. Especially because the US military suffered negligible causalities throughout the ordeal due to not having to field actual soldiers all the time.

If anything, we should be looking into developing more effective autonomous weapon systems. At least to the point where we're able to win full-scale wars with friendly causalities under triple digits if possible.

My issue is quite obviously with those thousands killed.
Edit- to clarify, my issue is not with how they are efficient killing tools, but with how I feel they get misused. War without cost to the offensive party is a horrifying thing as well, but I am not the type to stand in the way of progress.

Militants. Yeah, there were maybe ~20-30% civilian causalities, but consider that the cost of the host government not dealing with their own rogue elements before they became a problem. It would be great if it were possible to wage war without civilian causalities, but it's not. Especially with something like a terrorist organization, where militants are virtually indistinguishable from civilians most of the time.

War without cost is great for that reason. How demoralizing would it be to fight for years, watching all of your friends and allies die around you while you've inflicted a grand total of however much it costs to replace the few unmanned vehicles that actually get taken down? (Much of which would probably be recouped from the assets seized after the attacks) I think recruitment for things like Terrorist organizations would drop sharply if viable hostile targets suddenly vanished. What will they hit with bombs, mortars, and bullets when death rains from the sky alone? (We actually do have UAVs that can operate entirely autonomously, tho' I suppose there will have to be a 'base' around somewhere to restock/repair/etc them. That can be handled from an Aircraft Carrier though, whether directly from the ship or from a control plane that launches from the ship for targets further inland, although that might be a bit impractical with what we have now)

Kind of a strange viewpoint, tho'. That using unmanned weapons/vehicles in order to save lives instead of just wasting them is horrific.

My stance is that we are misusing them, not that we shouldn't. And the war without cost thing worries me as it gets rid of one of the major factors that can make wars unpopular. I tend to worry about people in that are on the other side of the wars my country fights. That is what really worries me honestly.

Edit- and terrorists feed off of the fear and hate we earn. Avoiding acting like the police officers of the world may help end it honestly, as will avoiding civilian casualties.

Revnak:

My stance is that we are misusing them, not that we shouldn't. And the war without cost thing worries me as it gets rid of one of the major factors that can make wars unpopular. I tend to worry about people in that are on the other side of the wars my country fights. That is what really worries me honestly.

When you say 'We should use them, but we're currently misusing them', do you mean that they should only be used for scouting and not bombing or what?

I don't see why you'd care about them since they're the enemy. By virtue of what war is, you (As in, your country's military) will be killing them.

Revnak:

Edit- and terrorists feed off of the fear and hate we earn. Avoiding acting like the police officers of the world may help end it honestly, as will avoiding civilian casualties.

Which is exactly why the demoralization would be very effective. They want to fight back against what they perceive as an injustice, but if you take that away from them (using autonomous weapons instead of actual soldiers), then you take away the capacity for them to feel any sense of accomplishment. They achieve nothing by fighting but dying in some hole somewhere and maybe raising sales tax in the US by 0.01%, and so they learn that fighting is beyond futile.

And if not...then just keep killing them. As you said, once the cost in allied soldier's lives is either removed or very mitigated, then there's no reason not to play whack-a-mole with any insurgents.

Kopikatsu:

Revnak:

My stance is that we are misusing them, not that we shouldn't. And the war without cost thing worries me as it gets rid of one of the major factors that can make wars unpopular. I tend to worry about people in that are on the other side of the wars my country fights. That is what really worries me honestly.

When you say 'We should use them, but we're currently misusing them', do you mean that they should only be used for scouting and not bombing or what?

I don't see why you'd care about them since they're the enemy. By virtue of what war is, you (As in, your country's military) will be killing them.

Revnak:

Edit- and terrorists feed off of the fear and hate we earn. Avoiding acting like the police officers of the world may help end it honestly, as will avoiding civilian casualties.

Which is exactly why the demoralization would be very effective. They want to fight back against what they perceive as an injustice, but if you take that away from them (using autonomous weapons instead of actual soldiers), then you take away the capacity for them to feel any sense of accomplishment. They achieve nothing by fighting but dying in some hole somewhere and maybe raising sales tax in the US by 0.01%, and so they learn that fighting is beyond futile.

And if not...then just keep killing them. As you said, once the cost in allied soldier's lives is either removed or very mitigated, then there's no reason not to play whack-a-mole with any insurgents.

This argument scares me. I think I'm jumping ship.

Revnak:
Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

That's not a problem of those military operations, it's a problem of American culture clashing with well-prepared and decently executed peacekeeping efforts. For instance the poor training of US soldiers which focuses on obedience and combat, and neglects peacekeeping efforts, it's a direct result of American culture. Conformism results in expectations about how an army should be run, that disable a mindset needed for peacekeeping missions.

Example: my life was saved by an Afghan farmer warning us of an IED. He blocked the road and ran towards us. Little doubt, Americans would've shot him, fearing a suicide bomber, and then drove right across the actual bomb. We didn't because we never had a paranoid fear of bombers instilled in us like US military training does; it makes no sense for a suicide bomber to first reveal himself openly and then charge towards us, so we waited, called for an interpreter, and found out a while later we would've been blown to smithereens if we'd driven on. Turns out the guy has no love for the Taliban and wouldn't let lives be lost.

As a result of Iraq and Afghanistan's problems being due to American culture, the answer to this problem should not be isolationism, but reforming America's conformist culture. And as you know, libertarians aren't exactly big on that, so they're likely not the best choice for you if you'd like US military efforts to be more effective.

Besides, not everything can be prevented. Iraq's religious civil war would've happened sooner or later. The best one could achieve is dampen the effects of it somewhat. Short of destroying religion, nothing would've prevented it. Again, the libertarians and their heavy conservative Christian agenda may not be the best choice for a person who sensibly thinks religious civil wars are a bad thing.

Revnak:
My god, how many times do I have to say this!
GARY JOHNSON AIMS TO MAKE MARRIAGE MEANINGLESS UNDER LAW AND HAVE CIVIL UNIONS TAKE THEIR PLACE.

Yeah, so that's what I said: total ban on gay marriage.

I don't care what excuses he wraps it in, that's the effect his ideas will have.

Blablahb:

Revnak:
Iraq was not worth it. Afghanistan is hardly worth it and was poorly handled. Torture is wrong and inhumane. Unmanned drones are a truly terrible thing. Still today we overthrow nations for hardly any damn good reason at the expense of thousands if not millions of lives. Imperialism never ended, it just looks different now.

That's not a problem of those military operations, it's a problem of American culture clashing with well-prepared and decently executed peacekeeping efforts. For instance the poor training of US soldiers which focuses on obedience and combat, and neglects peacekeeping efforts, it's a direct result of American culture. Conformism results in expectations about how an army should be run, that disable a mindset needed for peacekeeping missions.

Example: my life was saved by an Afghan farmer warning us of an IED. He blocked the road and ran towards us. Little doubt, Americans would've shot him, fearing a suicide bomber, and then drove right across the actual bomb. We didn't because we never had a paranoid fear of bombers instilled in us like US military training does; it makes no sense for a suicide bomber to first reveal himself openly and then charge towards us, so we waited, called for an interpreter, and found out a while later we would've been blown to smithereens if we'd driven on. Turns out the guy has no love for the Taliban and wouldn't let lives be lost.

As a result of Iraq and Afghanistan's problems being due to American culture, the answer to this problem should not be isolationism, but reforming America's conformist culture. And as you know, libertarians aren't exactly big on that, so they're likely not the best choice for you if you'd like US military efforts to be more effective.

Besides, not everything can be prevented. Iraq's religious civil war would've happened sooner or later. The best one could achieve is dampen the effects of it somewhat. Short of destroying religion, nothing would've prevented it. Again, the libertarians and their heavy conservative Christian agenda may not be the best choice for a person who sensibly thinks religious civil wars are a bad thing.

Revnak:
My god, how many times do I have to say this!
GARY JOHNSON AIMS TO MAKE MARRIAGE MEANINGLESS UNDER LAW AND HAVE CIVIL UNIONS TAKE THEIR PLACE.

Yeah, so that's what I said: total ban on gay marriage.

I don't care what excuses he wraps it in, that's the effect his ideas will have.

Stop saying I'm a christian or have some 'christian agenda'. Just stop it.

I'm not going to argue with you. I'm not going to respond to anything you say. I'm just going to ask you to stop trying to tell me what I do and do not believe in. I extend that courtesy to you, and I expect a person to extend the courtesy back.

farson135:

Smeatza:
Snip

Why did you spoiler all of my quotes? If you do that I do not get a message saying that you quoted me.

I was not aware of that, the posts are getting quite massive and I wanted to cut down on its size out of courtesy for anyone else reading the thread.
How compassionate of me.

farson135:

I do see what you're saying, and if the money donated to churches was used in a for truly charitable causes (rather than publicity in the form of charity) or the private companies had the funds to help all those who need it to live then that would be fine.

Prior to the American welfare state how many famines where there in the US?

At least one, during the great depression. I didn't even have to research to know that.
In fact that was why the welfare system was created, to stop people dying in droves from hunger like they were during the great depression.
What a lack of compassion it must take to ignore history in favour of keeping a few measly taxes.

farson135:

But they don't, so the government has to step in and help to stop people dying needlessly

And how many people were dying needlessly prior to the American welfare state?

More than are dying needlessly now.
What a lack of compassion to show towards those who would have died without welfare support.

farson135:

they shouldn't be obligated to abide by your personal criteria on who and who does not need help, those who need it should be able to get it.

Why shouldn't they? It is my money after all. Rather than giving people money to do nothing why don't you just give them a bus ticket and send them down here to get work? We need farmhands. THAT is welfare worth investing in.

I outlined why that should not be the case in my last post, re-read it.
In any case it shows a lack of compassion to assume all people who are on welfare are too lazy to travel.

farson135:

Believe me, it irritates me to no end to see someone on welfare who does not need it/uses it irresponsibly, but aren't they the minority in comparison to those who genuinely need it and use it as it's intended?

Few people genuinely need it. The problem is information and will. Most people do not want to do farm work so they will not even try to get work. For others there are jobs for people but the government is not helping people find them. If the government wants to do good then help people locate jobs and stop giving them my goddamn money.

So you know more about the finances of other families than they do or the government does? are you psychic?
Or do you just lack the compassion it takes to empathise with or understand the needs of those in a graver situation than you are?

farson135:

But I'm not aware of a free healthcare system in the developed western world where people dying while waiting for treatment or diagnosis is a common occurrence (perhaps with the exception of people waiting for a transplant organ), can you?

Have you looked at the statistics? People die at a higher rate from various cancers in the UK than in the US. Wait times in Canada are absurd.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/apr/19/david-cameron-pressure-nhs-waiting-times

And people die at a higher rate from obesity related diseases in America, that must certainly point to a failing in the US healthcare system, it can't be down to external factors can it?
We're talking about medicine so it would be a good idea to approach things scientifically.
Also, those wait times are miniscule compared to a US free clinic. And people who are poor can actually get reliable access to treatment, unlike the US system.
What a lack of compassion it must take to willfully leave out the poor and impoverished.

farson135:

Why is this likely to be the case for a US free healthcare system?

Once again, there is no such thing as a free healthcare system.

And the reason it would happen is because doctors in general and specialists in particular are generally paid less in those countries. You have to study for the better part of a decade and take hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans to become a brain surgeon. How many people do you think would do that if they were paid poorly?

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1172109--paying-doctors-and-wait-times-how-does-canada-compare

"paid less in those countries" is not the same as "paid poorly." And they are not abolishing private healthcare so anyone who was in it for the money could still get the big payouts they are after.
The greed of a few individuals is more important than the health of the masses? that's not very compassionate.

farson135:

Directly, to pay for treatment, additional education requirements. Indirectly, to pay for travel costs, time off work. I'm no expert on what it's like to have a child with ADHD but I'm sure there will be more costs that could be detrimental to quality of life for poorer families.

More costs? More often than not there should be no costs. The government is funding people's delusions.

You are the one who is deluded if you think having a disability in the family doesn't incur extra costs.
It's the definition of a lack of compassion.

farson135:

I also couldn't make an informed decision on who needs it more at this point. How is that relevant?

Because it is an example of government waste.

Both of them? one of them? I accept the fact I probably don't have an opinion worth listening to on the subject (I'm not a psychiatrist you see). Surely it would be more compassionate for you to do the same rather than condemning support for learning difficulties as a waste of money.

farson135:

I have two issues here, first of all welfare taxes are compulsory so the many people who would not donate to this "charity" if given the choice must do, meaning the pool of money they have to work with is astronomical compared to what private charity receives. That 30% they get to the poor is still probably much larger than the 70% private charities manage. If it was left to private charity a lot of people would be left out, do it not show a lack of compassion to still want that to be the case?

Contributions to private charity would be higher if the government stopped taking people's money.

Do you have any evidence to back that claim up?

farson135:
Second of all, more money does not equal higher quality. I saw the shitty work FEMA did during Katrina and Rita because I was there. I also saw the damn good work the Red Cross did.

Your personal opinions/experiences are not necessarily indicative of others. I have no reason to believe they're true even in the first place.

farson135:

Second issue, it is right to really let people decide where their taxes go based on their personal preferences and prejudices? Where do you draw the line there? If it's ok to prevent your taxes going to people with ADHD, is it ok to do the same for dyslexia? Or AIDS? and so on and so forth.
Surely distribution of taxes should be based on who actually needs them, not according to your personal opinion, but according to democratic opinion? Or perhaps according to the opinions of the well learned and educated in those particular fields?

Yes it should be democratic. Which is why you should stop taking money from people and allow them to put their money where they think it is most needed. After all, a governmental bureaucrat is not a democratic instrument, the power of the purse is.

A democracy does not involve pandering to the personal prejudices of every single individual in the country. It's adhering to popular opinion, not personal opinion.
If what you say is correct everyone should have the option of preventing their taxes going to the military, or black people, or all the other worms that come out of that can.
It's not very compassionate to say the government should have to pander to the racist and all other prejudices.

farson135:

Still, if I have to, a quick look shows that the UK spends a fair bit less of its GDP on its universal free healthcare system

Still not free.

Free to the consumer.
And much cheaper than health insurance for everybody involved.

farson135:
Anyway, yes they spend less GDP, they also produce fewer machines, doctors, medicines, etc. Plus, just because I do not want socialized healthcare does not mean I want the current American healthcare system. The current system is fashioned to be extremely expensive. Once again, government at work.

Considering the UK does little to no manufacturing of anything that's not surprising. Also the fact the US has more people, more education establishments etc. etc. You're forgetting about those external factors again.
And you may want a new system but you still don't seem to think medical treatment should be available to the poor though (I of course could be wrong but it doesn't seem that way), which shows a lack of compassion.

farson135:

seems to get the same, if not slightly better rates of life expectancy and infant mortality.

Americans have a distinct habit of killing themselves with fast food, fast cars, and bungee jumping (examples). So comparing simple life expectancies does not work.

In the same way that comparing rates of death from certain types of cancers doesn't work, external factors. As much as I'm glad you're agreeing with me you should take more time when reading, you're missing stuff out.

farson135:

And there's not a single person in the UK with medical debt.

Yes there are. The UK's system does not cover everything. Dental for example.

No there aren't, dental care is subsidised by the NHS in the UK. Also children get it for free and an adult living in poverty can get it for free as well.

farson135:

In any case surely the amount of people who have access to satisfactory medical care should be the primary judge of success. And while a quick look didn't turn up anything I'm sure a higher percentage of people in the UK have access to satisfactory medical care than in the US.

Really? Can you find a hospital that has turned a person away who needed medical help? If so make sure to report them because that is illegal.

Actually as long as it's not an emergency it's not illegal to turn a patient a way.
You ever heard the term "treat them and street them"? It refers to patients with inadequate insurance so the hospitals are forced to stabilize them and kick them to the curb without properly diagnosing or treating them. Not an issue in a free healthcare system.
Surely clinging to a medical system that's only allowed to help people with a certain type of insurance isn't very compassionate.

farson135:

It's not very compassionate to say "this system works for most people, fuck the poor."

It is also not very compassionate to say, fuck everybody.

It's a good job no democrat (or republican I would guess) says that then isn't it.

farson135:

There's no reason to think it wont work though.

Really? Would you care to handle the change over? Overhauling the entire medical system in a nation of 300 million people spread across some of the toughest environments on this earth using a governmental apparatus that at one point was paying $100 for a hammer and also using a model that has to be refined every year in order to fix its mistakes. Good luck.

Is it really an overhaul or just a new option for those who cannot afford health insurance? You must have very little faith in both the federal and state government if you think they could not achieve something almost every single other developed western country has, many of which have miniscule resources and funds compared to the US.
It's not very compassionate to say we should not set up a system to help those that need it because it might not work.

farson135:

Even if not, you would be letting a twisted version of pragmatism get in the way of idealism, which shows a lack of compassion.

Sorry, you cannot eat idealism.

You cannot eat money or gold reserves either.
The fact idealism might not work does not make pragmatism a compassionate option.
In fact, like I said previously, it shows a lack of compassion to be purely pragmatic when you know it will leave people who need without.

farson135:

I'm pretty sure most people are against that kind of bureaucracy. In any case these are not examples for compassionate republican alternatives/adjustments to the welfare or medical systems.

I just spent the last few posts outlining them. You do not get to just ignore it because it is inconvenient to you.

No you haven't, it's the equivalent of offering a Harry Potter book as evidence for the harmful effects of second hand smoke.
I am not ignoring anything, you have given me no compassionate republican alternatives/adjustments to the US welfare or medical systems.

GunsmithKitten:
If you're not going to pay them enough to actually have a place to live, however, they have zero motivation to even take that work. Noone's going to bust their ass and just end up homeless anyway.

It is much cheaper to live in the country than it is to live in the city. In fact I am seeing that in my hometown. There is an oil boom in the area and people are complaining about rent prices reaching $500 for a one bedroom apartment. I am paying almost $700 per month for an efficiency apartment in Austin. I do not know what rent prices were before the boom but apparently they were much cheaper.

Also, all it takes is one illness or injury and BOOM, welcome to brokes-ville once again.

You are assuming that that would be cause to fire a person. As long as you are a good worker most will be just fine with waiting. People in the country have a different sense of time.

By the by, all that data on wait times are only for ELECTIVE procedures. The UK and Canada work on the triage system for life saving procedures, same as we do.

And the person I was talking about was having an elective procedure that turned up something very important. That was my point.

Smeatza:
How compassionate of me.

You seem to be really overcompensating. I suppose you really do not care about people. After all, you want to government to care for the people for you. That does not sound very compassionate. (maybe in your next post you can cut the shit and act like a reasonable human being).

At least one, during the great depression. I didn't even have to research to know that.

You should have. There was never a famine in the Great Depression.

Actually I did find one famine. In Alaska, and the way they alleviated the famine is they introduced reindeer to the island and that allowed people to gather food more easily (hunter gatherer native American population).

In fact that was why the welfare system was created, to stop people dying in droves from hunger like they were during the great depression.

Sorry, there was no famine. Also, the American welfare state is generally held to have been created by FDR AFTER the Great Depression had already begun. Where were the people dying in the streets?

What a lack of compassion it must take to ignore history in favour of keeping a few measly taxes.

Boy, cut the shit.

More than are dying needlessly now.

Prove it.

I outlined why that should not be the case in my last post, re-read it.

No you did not.

In any case it shows a lack of compassion to assume all people who are on welfare are too lazy to travel.

Do you realize that perpetual repetition is a sign of insanity? Perhaps you should work on that.

BTW did I say that?

So you know more about the finances of other families than they do or the government does? are you psychic?

What? You did not even address my point.

Or do you just lack the compassion it takes to empathise with or understand the needs of those in a graver situation than you are?

A graver situation? Boy, at one point in my life I was homeless. I know far better that you what goes on out there. And I understand the situation better than you. Given your arrogance and my gift for pattern recognition I would guess you are a young middle class white boy living in the suburbs. What do you know about it?

And people die at a higher rate from obesity related diseases in America, that must certainly point to a failing in the US healthcare system, it can't be down to external factors can it?

People eating too much is a cultural thing. Can you link most cancers to culture?

Also, those wait times are miniscule compared to a US free clinic. And people who are poor can actually get reliable access to treatment, unlike the US system.

Prove it.

The greed of a few individuals is more important than the health of the masses? that's not very compassionate.

Actually, it is not very compassionate to tell doctors they have to study more and work for less. And then of course you are telling patients that they have to wait longer because there are not enough doctors.

You are the one who is deluded if you think having a disability in the family doesn't incur extra costs.

ADHD is not a disability.

Both of them? one of them? I accept the fact I probably don't have an opinion worth listening to on the subject (I'm not a psychiatrist you see). Surely it would be more compassionate for you to do the same rather than condemning support for learning difficulties as a waste of money.

ADHD is not a learning disability it is not a disability. It is a delusion brought about by our need to medicate everything.

Do you have any evidence to back that claim up?

I presented it already. Try actually reading what I show you.

Your personal opinions/experiences are not necessarily indicative of others. I have no reason to believe they're true even in the first place.

Where you not paying attention during Katrina and Rita? They were all over the news. In addition, I have shown you numerous articles that show government waste.

A democracy does not involve pandering to the personal prejudices of every single individual in the country. It's adhering to popular opinion, not personal opinion.

And the popular opinion would inevitably lead the area that needs the most money to get the most money.

If what you say is correct everyone should have the option of preventing their taxes going to the military, or black people, or all the other worms that come out of that can.

Actually, the government should not be collecting taxes at all.

It's not very compassionate to say the government should have to pander to the racist and all other prejudices.

It is not very compassionate to dismiss the belief systems of hundreds of millions of people for your own selfish ends.

Free to the consumer.

Taxes.

And much cheaper than health insurance for everybody involved.

Only because of the government.

Considering the UK does little to no manufacturing of anything that's not surprising. Also the fact the US has more people, more education establishments etc. etc. You're forgetting about those external factors again.

That is irrelevant. The money for medicine exists here, it doesn't in the UK.

And you may want a new system but you still don't seem to think medical treatment should be available to the poor though (I of course could be wrong but it doesn't seem that way), which shows a lack of compassion.

Charity.

In the same way that comparing rates of death from certain types of cancers doesn't work, external factors. As much as I'm glad you're agreeing with me you should take more time when reading, you're missing stuff out.

And what external factors are you contributing to higher breast cancer survival rates in the US?

No there aren't, dental care is subsidised by the NHS in the UK. Also children get it for free and an adult living in poverty can get it for free as well.

Subsidized but not fully paid for. Fail.

You ever heard the term "treat them and street them"? It refers to patients with inadequate insurance so the hospitals are forced to stabilize them and kick them to the curb without properly diagnosing or treating them. Not an issue in a free healthcare system.

Issue. Because socialized healthcare does not have the money to treat everyone for everything.

It's a good job no democrat (or republican I would guess) says that then isn't it.

No, but you are. After all, you want to fuck me and everyone else to force a substandard system down our throats out of your selfish need to do something.

Is it really an overhaul or just a new option for those who cannot afford health insurance?

An overhaul. You think the doctors who have been working under 50 different standards (if not more) are suddenly going to be able to adhere to one overnight?

You must have very little faith in both the federal and state government if you think they could not achieve something almost every single other developed western country has, many of which have miniscule resources and funds compared to the US.

The other western nations have not set it up well. The other nations had the advantage of setting these systems up under a people who wanted it. So they slapped it together and maintained it. Just not very well.

It's not very compassionate to say we should not set up a system to help those that need it because it might not work.

It is not compassionate at all for you to shove this system down our throats out of a selfish need to do something.

The fact idealism might not work does not make pragmatism a compassionate option.

Actually since idealism never works, pragmatism is always the compassionate option. Idealism must by necessity moderate itself in the real world.

In fact, like I said previously, it shows a lack of compassion to be purely pragmatic when you know it will leave people who need without.

It shows a lack of compassion on your part to fuck everybody out of your selfish need to help everybody.

[/quote]No you haven't, it's the equivalent of offering a Harry Potter book as evidence for the harmful effects of second hand smoke.
I am not ignoring anything, you have given me no compassionate republican alternatives/adjustments to the US welfare or medical systems.[/quote]

No, you are ignoring it. You think that just because they do not want your system that they are not compassionate. Sorry, but that simply shows your lack of compassion for your fellow men, especially when your fellow men think differently from you.

farson135:

It is much cheaper to live in the country than it is to live in the city. In fact I am seeing that in my hometown. There is an oil boom in the area and people are complaining about rent prices reaching $500 for a one bedroom apartment. I am paying almost $700 per month for an efficiency apartment in Austin. I do not know what rent prices were before the boom but apparently they were much cheaper.

Yea, problem though; the pay is a lot lower in the country too.

I'm in a skilled trade, and I pull in barely more in the boonies than a McDonald's worker does in Boston or NYC.

You are assuming that that would be cause to fire a person. As long as you are a good worker most will be just fine with waiting. People in the country have a different sense of time.

Must not be MY 'country' because up here in the hills, they'll find any excuse they can to can you. They always have family they can give the jobs to anyway. and usually do.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked